CAR_Public/160629.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 129




                            Headlines


3JT ENTERPRISES: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in ARcare Suit
AEG LIVE: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Complaint in "Pollard"
AIRBNB: Vows to Fight Racism, Class-Action Waiver at Issue
ANGELO GORDON: Shifted Beniahana's Obligation to Pay Wages
APPLE INC: E-Book Price-Fixing Settlement Payouts Begin

APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Trims Shasta Linen Supply's Suit
BARRICK GOLD: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BASS PRO: Suit Over Discriminatory Hiring Practices Can Proceed
BAY AREA RAPID: Faces "Brunker" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
BLATTNER ENERGY: Hoffman Class Certification Bid Granted in Part

BNSF RAILWAY: 7th Cir. Imposes Sanction on Plaintiff's Counsel
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION: Carrier Defendants Win More Time to Reply
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Conn. Over Pradaxa Safety
BROCKELBANK INC: Class Certification Sought in "Lesh" Action
CACH LLC: Court Won't Hear Oral Arguments on FDCPA Class Action

CALIFORNIA: Judge Disallows Access to Inmate Witnesses
CAREFIRST INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Chambliss" Suit
CARING FOR MONTANANS: Sued Over Benefit Plans Surcharge Premiums
CB1 INC: Must Defend Against "Wittman" FDCPA Suit
CHASE BANK: Court Denies Objector's Motion for Fees and Award

CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement of McIntyre Suit Has Initial OK
CONAIR CORP: Courts Denies Class Certification in "Wilson"
DELTA AIR: Wants Judge to Halt Class Action Over Baggage Fees
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Class Certified in "Nitsch" Suit
EBAY INC: $1.2MM Accord in "Rosado" Case Has Final Approval

EL MILAGRO: "Solorzano" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages & Relief
ENAGIC USA: Class Certification Sought in "Makaron" Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Travel Firms Liable for Hotel Occupancy Tax Claim
FARMERS INSURANCE: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Wilson" Affirmed
FINE FINISH: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Non-Payment of OT Wage

FORGE: Liquidator Mulls Class Action Against Former Directors
FRITO-LAY: Court Denies Preliminary Approval of "Sanchez" Accord
GATEWAY FUNDING: Courts Grants Conditional Class Certification
GAW MINERS: Group of Customers File Class Action
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in "Volin" Suit

GENUINE TITLE: Court Narrows Claims in "Fangman" Suit
GREEN TREE: Judge Sends "Buckles" Dispute to Nev. Supreme Court
H2O HAIR: Court Rejects LUTPA Claim in "Biggio" Suit
HALLMARK CARDS: Faces "Strougo" Suit Over Crown Media Merger
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Gets Favorable Ruling in Flooding Class Action

HOBBS TRUCKING: Bid for Collective Action Certification Granted
HOMEOPET LLC: Must Send Notice to Attorney General
HORTONWORKS INC: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel
HUDSON COUNTY: Brodowski Seeks Damages v. Community College
INNERWORKINGS INC: October 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

INT'L ASSOCIATION: Doping Class Action Appeal Heads to Court
INTEGRATED AIRLINES: "Haurat" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Sued Over Defective Mitral Valve Instrument
ISORAY MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Lung Cancer Study Results
JACKSON, MI: Settles Class Action Over Misdemeanor Case Arrests

KBK SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Decertify "Chambliss" Class
LANDRYS INC: "Saechao" Class Settlement Has Initial Approval
LANDSCAPE GROUP: "Wilch" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
LG ELECTRONICS: Court Narrows Claims in Suit by LCD TV Buyers
LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE: Court Favors Stay of Action Over Dismissal

LOUISIANA CLEANING: Court Trims Claims in Misclassification Suit
MDL 1566: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
MDL 1827: HannStar Must Pay $2MM for Plaintiffs' Legal Costs
MDL 2159: JPML Rejects Plaintiff's Move to Vacate Order
MDL 2185: Court Narrows Issues in Securities Litigation

MDL 2591: Certification of 9 Corn Producer Classes Sought
MDL 2617: Court Rules on Dismissal Bids
MDL 2710: JPML Finds Centralization of 19 Cases Unnecessary
MDL 2715: JPML Sees No Need to Centralize Litigation
MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: "Pedro" Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.

MICHIGAN: Huron Valley Male Corrections Officers File Class Suit
MICROSOFT INC: Pro-Sys Permitted to Subpoena Former Apple Exec
NANOSPHERE INC: "Beveridge" Suit Enjoins Merger with Luminex
NAT'L HOCKEY: Two Ex-Sabres Players Join Concussion Class Action
NATIONAL MILK: Case Management Conference Continued to Aug. 26

NAVISTAR INT'L: October 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NEGVEST LIMITED: Faces "Torecchio" Suit Under FLSA, NJ Wage Law
OLD DOMINION: "Blanco" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under Wage Order
ORLEANS PARISH: Court Granted Class Certification in "Yarls" Suit
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Court Allows PAGA Claimants to File Class Claims

PARKINSON'S SPECIALTY CARE: Settlement in "Ketty" Has Final Okay
PEAK SECURITY: Court Denies Motion for Protective Order
PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Smokers Lose Appeal in Class Action
PJS OF PARMA: Court Denies Class Certification in "Carter" Suit
POLSKIE LINIE: Must Defend Suit Over Delayed Flights

POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Litigation
PREMIER NUTRITION: Bid to Expand Consumer Class Denied
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: FLSA Case Settlement Has Preliminary Okay
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Sept. 8 Case Management Conference Set
ROBERT DERING: Oviedo Hernandez Suit Has Conditional Class Cert.

RYANAIR: CaseHub Mulls Class Action Over Hidden Fees
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Preliminary Approval of "Hinkle" Deal Sought
SBEEG HOLDINGS: Morgans Hotel Shareholders Sue Over Acquisition
SCHERZINGER CORP: Court Tosses "Davenport" Wages Claim
SEADRILL LIMITED: Court Dismisses Securities Complaint

SHADE TREES: Couples Mull Class Action Over Wedding Venue Closure
SIEMENS MEDICAL: 9th Cir. Affirm Ruling in "Pittman" Suit
SIMON'S SHINE: "Perez" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
SINGING RIVER: Montgomery Faces Dismissal of Class Suit
SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Affirmed Commissioner's Rulings in Atkins

SOLAR CITY: Parties' Supplemental Brief Due July 1
SOUTH CAROLINA: To Make Reforms in Foster Care Amid Class Action
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Cal. Judge Sends "Lewis" Case to N.D. Texas
SPRINT UNITED: Aug. 12 Post-Mediation Status Conference Set
STARBUCKS CORP: Latte Underfiling Class Action Can Proceed

STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Bower"
STRYDEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Badger" Suit
STYLES FOR LESS: $3,600,000 Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
SUGAR ROCK: W.Va. Court Reverses Summary Judgment Ruling
SWIFTSHIPS LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Panzer" Case

TALMER BANCORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Michigan
TEXAS: Denial of Class Cert. in Taxpayers' Suit Upheld
THERANOS INC: Boies Schiller Serves as Chief Case Defender
THERANOS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action Over Lab Test
TICKETMASTER: Customers Get Free Concert Tickets Under Settlement

TILE SHOP: Certification of Deduction & Overtime Classes Sought
TIME WARNER: Fails to Refund Cable Overcharges, Probe Shows
TOTAL ACCOUNT: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Circuit May Revive Arbitration Clause
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fate of Drivers' WARN Class Actions Uncertain

UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Certification in "Brown"
UNITED STATES: Nonprofits to Pursue PACER Fee Claims in Fed. Ct.
UNITED STATES: High Court to Decide on Immigrant Detention Issue
UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Must Defend Against "Ung" TCPA Suit
US DISTRICT COURTS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Atchison"

US PATENT COMMISSION: Court Sends "Henderson" Suit to Arbitration
VERIZON WIRELESS: $1.2 Million Attorney's Fee Award Okayed
VIACOM INC: Faces "Gilbert" Shareholder Lawsuit in Del. Ch. Court
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Gas Car Owners in Korea File Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Class Action Over Emissions for $10 Bil.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bondholders File Suit Over Emissions Scandal
WHIRLPOOL: Settles Class Action Over Moldy Front Loading Washers
WYNYARD GROUP: Fund Managers Seek Support for Shareholder Suit
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Court Trims Cafferty Clobes' Lawsuit

* DOE's New Rules Target For-Profit-Schools' Forced Arbitration
* Senators Reach Deal to Require GMO Product Labeling Nationwide


                            *********


3JT ENTERPRISES: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in ARcare Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an order in the lawsuit styled ARcare,
Inc., the Plaintiff, v. 3JT Enterprises, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04663 (N.D. Ill.), dismissing Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and to stay ruling without prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dj9BedSZ


AEG LIVE: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Complaint in "Pollard"
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, the third amended complaint in the case
captioned, JESSICA POLLARD, on behalf of herself and the putative
class, Plaintiff, v. AEG LIVE, LLC, AEG LIVE NJ, LLC, CONCERTS
WEST, Defendants, Case No. 14-1155 (SRC) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff alleges that AEG, as a promoter in control of the sale
and distribution of concert tickets, violated a provision of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act that prohibits withholding more than
five percent of event tickets from sale to the general public.
Pollard, on behalf of herself and a putative class, claims that
Defendants, customarily, through contractual obligations or
otherwise, reserve tickets for industry insiders such as
promoters, sponsors, and performers.

Pollard claims that she was harmed by AEG's conduct when she
bought tickets above face value to two New Jersey concerts, Bon
Jovi's 2010 "The Circle" tour and Justin Bieber's 2013 "Believe
Tour." The putative class includes attendees who overpaid and
continue to overpay for these and perhaps thousands of other
concerts promoted by AEG in New Jersey going back six years before
the filing of the lawsuit. The Third Amended Complaint is
Plaintiff's second attempt to plead a plausible claim based on
excessive withholding.

Pending before the Court is the motion filed by Defendants AEG
Live, LLC, AEG Live NJ, LLC and Concerts West (collectively
Defendants or AEG) to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (TAC)
for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff
Jessica Pollard (Plaintiff or Pollard) has opposed the motion.

In his Opinion dated June 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/4uxqMS from Leagle.com, Judge Chesler held that for
the second time, Pollard provides no facts to illustrate a New
Jersey practice of withholding, without which, her allegations are
conclusory and cannot survive a motion to dismiss. The Court has
no reason to believe that Pollard will successfully remedy her
complaint if given a third chance.

Jessica Pollard is represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. --
bnagel@nagelrice.com -- and GREG Michael Kohn, Esq. --
gkohn@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP

AEG LIVE, LLC, et al. are represented by Stephanie Lynn Gal, Esq.
-- sgal@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP


AIRBNB: Vows to Fight Racism, Class-Action Waiver at Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Benner, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Brian Chesky, chief executive of Airbnb, made a vow this month to
root out bigotry from his business.

His online room-sharing company has recently been grappling with
claims of discrimination, with several Airbnb users sharing
stories on social media about how they were supposedly denied a
booking because of their race.  The issue came into the open in
December, when a working paper by Harvard University researchers
found it was harder for guests with African-American-sounding
names to rent rooms through the site.

"This is a huge issue for us," Mr. Chesky said at a company event
in San Francisco in early June.  "We will be revisiting the design
of our site from end to end to see how we can create a more
inclusive platform."

But even as Mr. Chesky promised to stamp out racism from Airbnb,
the company's class-action litigation policy makes it tough -- if
not impossible -- for customers to push the start-up to make any
substantive changes on the issue.  Airbnb requires that people
agree to waive their right to sue, or to join in any class-action
lawsuit or class-action arbitration, to use the service.

That clause, known as a class-action waiver, crops up whenever
someone logs into Airbnb's site.  In March, the company updated
its terms of service for new users, partly to highlight that
clause.  In May, Airbnb users were unable to log in and use their
accounts until they agreed to the updated terms, including the
class-action waiver language.

The waiver clause can be broadly applied to many issues, not just
accusations of discrimination.  But class-action lawsuits have
been particularly effective legal tools to press companies on
their discrimination policies over the years, civil rights lawyers
said, which would give Airbnb more cause to wield it as it
grapples with the issue.  In the past, such suits against Merrill
Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Coca-Cola pushed those companies to
change hiring and workplace practices.

"Class-action cases have been the only effective way to prove and
remedy systemic discrimination because you can't prove a pattern
of behavior with individually filed cases," said Joanne Doroshow,
executive director of New York Law School's Center for Justice and
Democracy, who specializes in civil justice issues.

The waiver clause and Airbnb's more prominent placement of it
allows it to shield itself now from outside pressure around the
discrimination issue and to handle the matter at its own pace and
on its own terms.

"Airbnb can say it doesn't condone racism and even has an anti-
discrimination policy, but right now that policy doesn't have
teeth if the company is legally insulated from having to comply
with the same anti-discrimination laws that real estate brokers
must comply with," said Jamila Jefferson-Jones, an associate
professor of law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

A spokesman for Airbnb said that the company was open about its
dispute resolution policies, including the waiver clause, and that
"these provisions are common and we believe ours is balanced and
protects consumers."

In an interview, Chris Lehane, the head of global policy for
Airbnb, said the company was being proactive in dealing with
discrimination claims.  Airbnb recently removed two of its hosts,
including one for writing racist epithets to a black user and
another for refusing a transgender woman as a guest.  Mr. Lehane
said the company suspended, or in some cases permanently banned,
those who violated its anti-discrimination policy.

Airbnb this month also hired Laura Murphy, the former head of the
American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office, as
an outside adviser to look at the issue.  Ms. Murphy said Airbnb
was examining its internal structures and technology, and its
processes for identifying and handling discrimination incidents,
and building relationships with organizations like fair housing,
human rights and travel groups.

Airbnb aims to have announcements in the next 10 days about
preliminary actions it is taking on discrimination, and it plans
to have a full report with proposed remedies in September, she
said.  Eventually, the company wants to have a division to handle
and resolve discrimination complaints, Ms. Murphy added.

"Litigation is always an option, but we think it's better to take
the time and effort to resolve problems if we can," she said in an
interview.

When there is litigation, Airbnb has not been afraid to use the
class-action waiver clause.  In March, the company cited the
clause in fighting a class-action suit that accused Airbnb of
acting as an unlicensed real estate broker.  The company said the
suit was moot because the plaintiffs had agreed to waive their
class-action rights and, in a related clause, agreed to resolve
disputes through individual arbitration.  The judge in the case is
now deciding whether it should be placed in the hands of an
arbitrator.

"Airbnb is willing and eager to use the class-action waiver and
arbitration clause," said Jeffrey Norton, the lawyer who filed
that suit in February.

Airbnb may soon test the waiver clause directly in a class-action
discrimination suit, which was filed in May in the United States
District Court in Washington.  The chief plaintiff, Gregory
Selden, who is African-American, claimed Airbnb violated civil
rights laws that forbid housing discrimination when a host on the
service denied him accommodation last year because of his race.
Airbnb's response to the lawsuit is due by July 13.

Ikechukwu Emejuru, the lawyer representing Mr. Selden, said, "The
sharing economy has grown exponentially, and Mr. Selden's
experiences of not being accommodated by Airbnb because of his
race put in motion this country's most iconic civil rights laws."
He declined to comment further and said Mr. Selden was unavailable
to comment.

For Airbnb, an effective response to discrimination claims is
needed to blunt any fallout on its business.  The company, valued
at about $25 billion, has hosts in more than 34,000 cities and 191
countries and is positioning itself as an alternative to hotels.
Airbnb recently raised $1 billion in debt to help finance its
growth, according to a person familiar with the deal who spoke on
the condition of anonymity because the transaction is not public.
The credit facility was reported earlier by Bloomberg.

Airbnb's expansion depends partly on whether people of different
nationalities and ethnicities feel welcomed to the platform in the
same nondiscriminatory way that they are welcomed at international
hotel chains.  Two rival room-sharing services, Innclusive and
Noirbnb, are now marketing themselves as services that provide
inclusive and safe short-term rentals for people of any race or
ethnicity.

Ms. Murphy, the Airbnb adviser, said the company recognized that
eliminating discrimination was in its best interests.  She said
Airbnb's relative youth -- the company was founded in 2008 --
meant it could deal with the issue in a more agile way than
companies with entrenched cultures that may have needed the
pressure of litigation to do the right thing.

"Airbnb is part of a new area of commerce, and the conditions for
transactions are still developing," she said.  "That's why it's
important to get it right."


ANGELO GORDON: Shifted Beniahana's Obligation to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRENDAN WILKES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
ANGELO, GORDON & CO., L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership,
BENIHANA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP., a
Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA CARLSBAD CORP., a Delaware
Corporation, BENIHANA BEVERLY HILLS CORP., a Delaware Corporation,
BENIHANA DOWNEY CORP., a Delaware Corporation,
BENIHANA MARINA CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA MONTEREY
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA OF PUENTE HILLS
CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA ONTARIO CORP., a Delaware
Corporation, BENIHANA SAN FRANCISCO CORP., a Delaware Corporation,
BENIHANA SANTA ANITA CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA
SUNRISE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES I through
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2016-00019855-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages, penalties, restitution and disgorgement of
monies, caused from BENIHANA's illegal and unreasonable scheme to
shift BENIAHANA's obligation to pay the wages of its chefs,
bartenders and bussers to its servers, pursuant to the California
Bus. & Prof. Code.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order enjoining Defendants from
failing to maintain accurate, complete, and readily available
records and to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements.

Angelo Gordon is a privately-held registered investment advisor
dedicated to alternative investing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Debra L. Hurst, Esq.
          Kyle Van Dyke, Esq.
          Julie Corbo Ridley, Esq.
          HURST & HURST
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 921 01
          Telephone: (619) 236 0016
          Facsimile: (619) 236 8569
          E-mail: dhurst@hurst-hurst.com
                  kvandyke@hurst-hurst.com
                  julie@hurst-hurst.com


APPLE INC: E-Book Price-Fixing Settlement Payouts Begin
-------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Lugmayr, writing for I4U News, reports that starting,
June 21, you can get money from Apple, Amazon and others if you
have purchased e-books.

Class Action law firm Hagens Berman has announced that the $400
Million e-Book Price-Fixing Antitrust Class Action settlement gets
paid out starting June 21.

Millions of e-book purchasers will receive credits and checks for
twice their losses in the antitrust lawsuit filed against the
Nations's largest book sellers for their roles in an alleged
e-book price-fixing scheme, according to Hagens Berman.

You can get $6.93 credit for every e-book which was a New York
Times bestseller, and a $1.57 credit for other e-books from Apple
and others.

The credits will be automatically sent directly into the accounts
of your account at major book retailers, including Amazon.com
Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., Kobo Inc. and Apple.  Retailers will
issue emails and put the credits in the accounts simultaneously.

If you prefer a check in lieu of a credit, you will receive a
check from the retailer.  If you received a credit during the
first round of distribution of publisher settlements, and you did
not opt out, you will automatically receive a credit.

The combined $400 million that will go to consumers follows the
final stage in the lawsuit in which the Supreme Court denied
appeal from Apple, bringing the consumer payback amount to more
than twice the amount of losses suffered by the class of e-book
purchasers.  This represents one of the most successful recovery
of damages in any antitrust lawsuit in the country.

"To make this settlement effective and accessible for consumers,
our team faced a sizable undertaking that entailed almost constant
contact with the retailers to make sure the credits will be
applied to consumer accounts across the country," said
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "This is the
second round of distribution in the case, and we believe the only
case in the country to have so much money returned directly to
consumers."

Attorneys calculated damages based on the books purchased and
worked cooperatively with retailers to calculate the award for
each class member.

The class of consumers alleged that Apple illegally colluded with
a group of five publishing companies to manipulate the e-book
market by artificially raising the price of e-books, lowering
competition and charging consumers higher prices.

According to attorneys, the anticompetitive price-fixing collusion
between Apple and the publishers caused the price of
e-books to increase 30 to 50 percent to $12.99 or $14.99 from
Amazon's $9.99 price.

Hagens Berman litigated the case jointly with the United States
Department of Justice and attorneys general from 33 U.S. states
and territories.


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Trims Shasta Linen Supply's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY, INC., a California corporation,
on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Nebraska corporation; APPLIED
UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, a British Virgin
Islands company; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, a registered
California insurance company; APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC., a
Nebraska corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-158 WBS AC (E.D.
Cal.), District Judge William B. Shubb granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint only to the extent of invalidating the
Reinsurance Participation Agreement's (RPA) rate plan.

According to the Court, the Complaint does not contain any
allegations that the insurance commissioner had conducted a
hearing and disapproved the RPA's rates. Thus, plaintiff fails to
state a claim that the RPA's rates are void. In all other
respects, defendants' motion is denied.

Shasta Linen Supply filed this putative class action alleging
claims for fraud and unfair competition against the Defendants,
and seeking to represent a class of California employers who
purchased an EquityComp workers' compensation insurance program
from the Defendants.

A copy of the court's June 20 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/x4PtVafrom Leagle.com.

Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Craig E.
Farmer -- cfarmer@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP &
John L. Hall -- jhall@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane
LLP.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Russell
Stedman -- rstedman@barwol.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Shand
Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP &
Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Travis R. Wall --
twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Shand
Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com --  DLA Piper LLP.

California Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Travis R.
Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP &
Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP.

Applied Risk Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer Y.
Kook -- skook@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP & Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.


BARRICK GOLD: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman has granted preliminary
approval to a proposed $140 million class action settlement with
Barrick Gold Corporation, on behalf of a certified class of
shareholders who purchased Barrick common stock on the New York
Stock Exchange between May 7, 2009 and Nov. 1, 2013.  The court
will consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement at
a Fairness Hearing on Oct. 18, 2016 at 10 a.m.

The settlement follows three years of litigation in connection
with the company's Pascua-Lama mine located along the border of
Chile and Argentina.  Plaintiffs alleged that Barrick and certain
current and former executives misrepresented the company's
compliance with environmental regulations and the adequacy of the
company's internal controls.

Notice of the proposed settlement and claims forms will be mailed
to shareholders potentially affected by the settlement on
June 29, 2016.  For more information, please call the claims
administrator The Garden City Group, LLC at (855) 907-3222 or
visit www.barrickgoldsecuritieslitigation.com

The postmark deadline for submitting requests for exclusion from
the certified class or written objections to any aspect of the
settlement is Sept. 21, 2016.  The postmark deadline for class
members to submit claim forms is Sept. 29, 2016.

The case is In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, case number
1:13-cv-03851 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.


BASS PRO: Suit Over Discriminatory Hiring Practices Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a
federal appeals court ruling in favor of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's claims against the sporting goods company
Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC could bolster the power of the agency
to police and seek damages for alleged discriminatory hiring
practices.

Bass Pro, represented by King & Spalding, lost its challenge on
June 17 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  A
three-judge panel, ruling unanimously, said the EEOC case in the
Southern District of Texas can proceed.

The agency sued in 2011, alleging Bass Pro demonstrated a "pattern
or practice" of discriminating against African-American and
Hispanic job applicants.  The EEOC estimates that thousands of
prospective employees could be deemed "harmed" by Bass Pro.
At the heart of Bass Pro's argument was a challenge to how the
agency proceeded with its discriminatory-hiring allegations.  Bass
Pro's lawyers argued the EEOC was barred from pursuing a "pattern
or practice" case using Sec. 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act.  A trial judge initially agreed but later reversed course.
The Fifth Circuit upheld the ability of the agency to bring such
claims under Sec. 706, a provision rarely used to look at broad
companywide practices.

Section 706 does not expressly cover pattern or practice claims,
but allows for compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiffs.
The commission in its case also cited Sec. 707, the provision that
includes pattern or practice cases explicitly, but only provides
remedial relief to plaintiffs.

A lawyer for Bass Pro, Michael Johnston of King & Spalding, who
argued the case in the Fifth Circuit, was not immediately
reachable for comment on June 20.  The company, which denies the
discrimination allegations, said in a statement: "The Fifth
Circuit's procedural ruling is perplexing as it provides no
guidance for the district court on how to try the EEOC's claims
without violating Bass Pro's rights under the Seventh Amendment
and Due Process Clause.  In response to this 'figure it out as we
go along' approach, the company is considering a number of
potential actions."

The ruling could place new procedural and financial burdens on
companies that find themselves in the employment commission's
crosshairs on pattern-or-practice discrimination claims.

"This truly is a major new day, a new era for EEOC authority to
pursue major pattern-or-practices cases," said Bill Martucci --
wmartucci@shb.com -- a business and employment litigation partner
at Shook, Hardy & Bacon who is not involved in the Bass Pro case.
"And it's breathtaking because of the fact that this is the Fifth
Circuit, often thought of as being moderate in its approach to
very sensitive employment issues and favorable to employers who
raise issues concerning very pragmatic aspects of the impacts of
given rulings."

The commission's suit sought the amount of damages provided by
Sec. 706, but using the framework developed by the U.S. Supreme
Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States,
which is normally reserved for Sec. 707 cases.  The two-part
Teamsters framework requires the commission first prove that the
discriminatory practices were a standard operating procedure at
the company in question.  Then, the burden shifts to the company
to prove that each individual in the group of plaintiffs who
experienced adverse employment action did not experience
discrimination.

Bass Pro tried to stop the proceedings in Texas federal district
court, arguing that Congress never intended for Secs. 706 and 707
to be combined.

Fifth Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, writing for the
appellate panel, rejected that argument.  Although such a split
might be sound policy, he wrote, "the plain language of the
statute cannot yield to such adversarial persuasion."

"We decline to undo the structure erected by Congress in the guise
of interpretation seduced by judicially preferred policy choices,"
Judge Higginbotham wrote.

The court also rejected other Bass Pro arguments, including the
contention that the use of Sec. 706 to try pattern-or-practice
claims violates employers' rights to due process.  Bass Pro argued
that companies will face intense pressure to settle if plaintiffs
prevail in the first stage of the Teamsters framework process
before the company presents defenses to individual claims.

"If affirmed, the district court's rulings could provide a
government agency with an incentive to exercise its authority to
enforce our nation's anti-discrimination laws in a manner that not
only strays far afield from Congress's intent, but tramples
employers' rights to their day in court to defend themselves,"
Bass Pro lawyers wrote in a Fifth Circuit brief.  "The EEOC's
mission is important and noble, but this undisputed fact does not
excuse the agency from trying its cases in a lawful manner."


BAY AREA RAPID: Faces "Brunker" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JODI BRUNKER, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,
Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-03399-EDL (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2016),
seeks alleged unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest
thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a transit district that governs the Bay Area Rapid
Transit system in the California counties of Alameda, Contra Costa
and San Francisco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Mastagni, Esq.
     Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
     Ace T. Tate, Esq.
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Phone: (916) 446-4692
     Fax: (916) 447-4614


BLATTNER ENERGY: Hoffman Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RODNEY HOFFMAN, the Plaintiff, v.
BLATTNER ENERGY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. CV 14-2195 DMG-DTBx
(C.D. Cal.), Hon. Dolly M. Gee:

     1. certifies these class and subclasses:

        Overall Class: All current and former non-exempt employees
of Defendant who worked on construction projects in California and
were paid on an hourly basis from September 24, 2010 to the
present.

        Meal Period Subclass: Defendant's non-exempt employees who
worked one or more shifts in excess of six hours on construction
projects in California and were not provided a 30-minute break
during which they were relieved of all duties, during the period
from September 24, 2010 to the present.

        Overtime Subclass: Defendant's non-exempt employees who
worked in excess of eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a workweek
on construction projects in California during the period from
September 24, 2010 to the present.

        Minimum Wage Subclass: Defendant's non-exempt employees
who worked on construction projects in California and were not
properly paid all minimum wages during the period from September
24, 2010 to the present.

        Wage Statement Subclass: Defendant's non-exempt employees
who worked on construction projects in California and received an
itemized wage statement during the period from September 24, 2010
to the present.

        Terminated Employee Subclass: Defendants' non-exempt
employees who worked on construction projects in California
during the period from September 24, 2010 to the present, and who
were not properly paid all wages upon termination or within 72
hours thereof.

     2. declines to certify the on-duty meal period, recovery
period, and reimbursement subclasses.

     3. certifies Hoffman's UCL class claim under the "unlawful"
prong to the extent it is derived from the claims that Blattner
failed to provide meal periods or pay all minimum and overtime
wages.

     4. declines to certify Hoffman's UCL class claim to the
extent it is based on the "unfair" practice of failing to provide
shade to employees.

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


BNSF RAILWAY: 7th Cir. Imposes Sanction on Plaintiff's Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case captioned, BEATRICE BOYER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
doing business as BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant, Case Nos. 14-3131,
14-3182 (7th Cir.), Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner of the Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed in part the dismissal of the
complaint, reversed the denial of sanctions and remanded the case.

The suit arises out of a July 2007 flood in Bagley, Wisconsin. A
500-year rain that occurred on July 17 and 18, 2007, sent torrents
of water down those ravines, among them the Glass Hollow Drain. A
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) bridge
crosses over the Glass Hollow Drain near Bagley. Large amounts of
debris swept along by the rainwater clogged the trestle
undergirding the railway bridge, causing the water runoff to back
up and inundate Bagley. Most of the town's 300 to 400 homes were
flooded.

Kenneth Irish and three other Bagley residents filed a class
action suit against BNSF and two of its supervisory employees in
Wisconsin state court in 2008. The suit blamed the flood of Bagley
on faulty design and maintenance of the trestle by BNSF and its
predecessors and sought damages based on theories of negligence
and nuisance. BNSF removed the case to federal court where, after
some initial procedural skirmishes, the district court dismissed
the complaint as to BNSF pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

The court held that Wis. Stat. Sec. 88.87 provides the exclusive
remedy when the negligent design and maintenance of a railroad
grade has caused an obstruction to a waterway or drainage course
and resulted in flooding. That statute authorizes a person injured
by such flooding to sue in inverse condemnation or for other
equitable relief, but not for money damages; moreover, the statute
requires the injured party to first file a claim with the railroad
company within three years of the flood. Sec. 88.87(2)(c).

On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that section 88.87 had a
narrower scope than the courts had attributed to it, one that did
not reach their claims for damages.

In her Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/yQL8y9
from Leagle.com, Judge Rovner concluded that the plaintiffs'
claims are barred by the terms of section 88.87. The decision of
plaintiffs' counsel to file the litigation in Arkansas state court
was objectively unreasonable and vexatiously multiplied the
proceedings, warranting sanctions pursuant to section 1927.

The Court remanded the action with directions to impose sanctions
on the plaintiffs' lead counsel, Christopher D. Stombaugh, in the
amount of $34,575.80.


BOARD OF EQUALIZATION: Carrier Defendants Win More Time to Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALINA BEKKERMAN; BRANDON GRIFFITH; JENNY LEE; and
CHARLES LISSER, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AT&T, INC.; SPRINT CORPORATION;
T-MOBILE US, INC.; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Defendants and Respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-00709-MCE-
EFB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. approved
a Joint Stipulation to Continue Defendants' Time To Respond To
Initial Complaint Pursuant To Local Rule 144.

The Carrier Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is
extended from June 6, 2016, to two weeks after the Court's order
on the remand motions becomes final, or September 12, 2016,
whichever is later.

A copy of the court's June 6, 2016 order is available at
http://goo.gl/lfYbvVfrom Leagle.com.

California Board of Equalization, Defendant, represented by
Michael Sapoznikow -- michael.sapoznikow@doj.ca.gov -- California
Department of Justice & Nhan Thien Vu -- nhan.vu@doj.ca.gov --
State of California Department of Justice.

State of California, Defendant, represented by Michael Sapoznikow
-- michael.sapoznikow@doj.ca.gov -- California Department of
Justice & Nhan Thien Vu -- nhan.vu@doj.ca.gov -- State of
California Department of Justice.

AT&T, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Nadolenco --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Donald M. Falk --
dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.

Sprint Corporation, Defendant, represented by Fred R. Puglisi,
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.

T-Mobile US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rochelle L. Wilcox
-- rochellewilcox@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Verizon Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry
Weissmann -- Henry.Weissmann@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson
LLP.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Conn. Over Pradaxa Safety
-------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND WALTER, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069015-S (Conn. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages, as a result of Defendants'
reckless disregard for safety of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM)
was promoted and sold for use, and as a direct and proximate
consequence of Defendants' reckless disregard for patient safety,
in violation of the Connecticut Products Liability Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants negligently designed
and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling,
prescribing information and patient medication guide which
rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),
throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent
platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood
clot.

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


BROCKELBANK INC: Class Certification Sought in "Lesh" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff moves for Class Certification and Relief from
Memorandum, Supporting Documents, and Automatic Briefing
Requirements in the class action lawsuit titled ANTON LESH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. BROCKELBANK, INC., d/b/a AR OUTSOURCING and d/b/a
GREAT LAKES COLLECTION AGENCY, the Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00727-
PP (E.D. Wisc.).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ibqo3YH3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          4ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


CACH LLC: Court Won't Hear Oral Arguments on FDCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that when
William Echols of Amity made a nearly $1,400 credit card payment
in 2012, he thought he was done with the bill.  But it was only
the beginning.

GE Money Retail Bank, the company that financed the credit for
furniture Echols bought, sold the debt to Cach LLC of Denver,
which then sued Echols in 2013 in Clark County District Court.

Echols turned around and filed a class-action complaint against
Cach and its parent company, SquareTwo Financial Corp.  He alleges
violations of the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

The case was moved to Clark County Circuit Court, and in December,
Circuit Court Judge Robert McCallum gave the case class-action
status, which could include thousands of potential class members
in Arkansas who were subjected to Cach's collection techniques.

The defendants appealed the class-certification order.  The
Arkansas Supreme Court said June 9 that it won't hear oral
arguments on the case, but will instead decide it using the briefs
and the court record.

David Donovan of Little Rock, the attorney for the defendants,
told Arkansas Business that the basis for the appeal is that
Echols' claims are different from others in the class.

Echols had already paid the alleged debt that Cach sued him to
collect.

"The others claimed that Cach was not properly licensed; of
course, that's changed a little bit," said Mr. Donovan, of the law
firm Watts Donovan & Tilley.  "But that's for another day. That's
not the subject of the appeal."

When Echols filed the lawsuit, debt collectors had to be licensed
by the Arkansas State Board of Collection Agencies.

But during the 2015 legislative session, Rep. Dan M. Douglas,
R-Bentonville, sponsored a bill that allowed collection agencies
that had collected money without a license to retroactively get
their license by paying a $10,000 fine, the only consequence they
would face.  The bill passed.


Mr. Douglas told Arkansas Business that he sponsored the
legislation because he was approached by collection agencies that
said they didn't realize that they needed to be licensed.

"The way the laws were written, they had to be licensed,"
Mr. Douglas said.  "It was just very poorly worded language."


CALIFORNIA: Judge Disallows Access to Inmate Witnesses
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. GRISSOM, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB (PC), (E.D.
Calif.), District Judge Stanley A. Boone denies plaintiff's motion
for a court order granting him access to communicate to inmate
witnesses. A copy of the court's June 2, 2016 decision is
available at http://goo.gl/i8BB7Afrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling the California Medical
Facility litigation coordinator, a non-party, to provide access to
the location of inmate witnesses listed in Plaintiff group appeal.

The court held that (1) the plaintiff does not have an unfettered
right to access to legal materials and witnesses; (2) that this
court does not have jurisdiction in this case; (3) the inmates may
only correspond with one another if they obtain written
authorization from the appropriate prison officials; and (4) that
plaintiff cannot bring a class action or join other individuals in
this action.

Grissom et al., Defendants, represented by Kelly Ariana Samson --
kelly.samson@doj.ca.gov -- Office of the Attorney General.

Akanno, Defendant, represented by Janine K. Jeffery --
Jjeffery@reilyjeffery.com -- Reily & Jeffery, Inc.


CAREFIRST INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Chambliss" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned, PAMELA CHAMBLISS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CAREFIRST, INC, et. al., Defendants, Case No. RDB-
15-2288 (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs Pamela Chambliss (Chambliss) and Scott Adamson
(Adamson) (Plaintiffs) bring the putative class action against
Defendants CareFirst, Inc., CareFirst of Maryland, Inc.
(Defendants or CareFirst), and Does 1-10, alleging various tort,
negligence, and statutory claims arising under Maryland law.
Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to secure
adequately the computer hardware storing their customers' personal
information, including names, birth dates, email addresses, and
subscriber identification numbers.

At the time of the breach, named Plaintiffs Pamela Chambliss and
Scott Adamson held health insurance issued by CareFirst. They seek
to bring a putative class action on behalf of other holders of
CareFirst health insurance. Plaintiffs subsequently filed the
present action asserting five claims arising under federal and
Maryland law: negligence (Count I); breach of implied contract
(Count II); unjust enrichment (Count III); declaratory judgment
pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S. Code Sections
2201 (Count IV); and the Maryland Personal Information Protection
Act, Md. Code Ann, Com. Law Sections 14-3501, et seq. (Count V).

Defendants move to dismiss the present Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a sufficient
injury in fact to satisfy Article III of the Constitution.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated May 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/W1zSHu from Leagle.com, Judge Bennett held that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the
future harm from the CareFirst data breach is "certainly
impending" or that there is "a substantial risk that the harm will
occur" and that Plaintiffs have not alleged any benefit-of-the-
bargain loss that could constitute a cognizable injury in fact.

Pamela Chambliss and Scott Adamson are represented by Price O.
Gielen, Esq. -- pog@nqgrg.com -- NEUBERGER QUINN GIELEN RUBIN AND
GIBBER PA, Joshua D. Wells, Esq. -- jdw@federamnlaw.com -- and
William B. Federman, Esq. -- wbf@federamnlaw.com -- FEDERMAN AND
SHERWOOD

CareFirst, Inc. and CareFirst of Maryland are represented by
Matthew Owen Gatewood, Esq. -- matt.gatewood@sutherland.com -- and
Gerin Brendan Ballard, Esq. -- gerin.ballard@sutherland.com
-- SUTHERLAND ASBILL AND BRENNAN LLP


CARING FOR MONTANANS: Sued Over Benefit Plans Surcharge Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE DEPOT, INC., a Montana Corporation, UNION CLUB BAR, INC., a
Montana Corporation, and TRAIL HEAD, INC., a Montana Corporation,
on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CARING FOR MONTANANS, INC., F/K/A BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC. (BCBSMT), HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORP.,
and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-00074-DLC (D.
Mont., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover improperly obtained and
misappropriated funds relating to health insurance contracts
between BCBSMT and Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek repayment of
all amounts charged by BCBSMT and paid by Chamber Choices
consumers in excess of the medical premium; costs and attorney's
fees; treble damages for violation of the Consumer Protection Act;
an order of disgorgement and/or restitution and/or other
appropriate equitable order; and pre-judgment interest to the
extent permitted by law.

The Class includes thousands of others similarly situated
entrusted BCBSMT with their employee benefit plans through the
Chamber Choices health insurance arrangement.

According to the complaint, BCBSMT violated trust by charging
Plaintiffs and the others unauthorized and undisclosed surcharge
amounts exceeding the medical premium, which amounts it used to
pay for unlawful kickbacks to an association that marketed the
health insurance to its members and to purchase other insurance
products that the customers did not request or authorize. In doing
so, BCBSMT misappropriated plan assets for its own benefit while
misrepresenting and concealing these facts, violating its duties
under ERISA and state common law and causing Plaintiffs and others
significant economic losses.

Caring For Montanans is a large-sized hospital & medical service
plan company in Helena, Montana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Morrison, Esq.
          Linda M. Deola, Esq.
          MORRISON SHERWOOD WILSON DEOLA PLLP
          401 N. Last Chance Gulch! P.O. Box 557
          Helena, MT 59624-0557
          Telephone: (406) 442 3261
          E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com
                  ldeola@mswdlaw.com

               - and -

          John Heenan, Esq.
          BISHOP & HEENAN
          1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste. 1
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 839 9091
          E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com


CB1 INC: Must Defend Against "Wittman" FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court
for the District of Montana denied CB1, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the case captioned, WILLIAM WITTMAN and AMBER BELLAMY, for
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CB1,
INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 15-105-BLG-BMM (D. Mont.).

Plaintiffs William Wittman and Amber Bellamy (Plaintiffs) bring
the putative class action against CB1, Inc. (CB1) alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692et seq., and the Montana Consumer Protection
Act (MCPA), MCA Sections 30-14-101 et seq.

Magistrate Judge Carolyn Otsby entered Findings and
Recommendations in the matter on April 8, 2016, recommending that
the Court deny CB1's motion to dismiss and strike class
allegations. He determined that Plaintiffs adequately have stated
a claim for relief under sections 1692f and 1692e(2)(B) of the
FDCPA and relief claim under MCPA.

CB1 filed objections to Judge Otsby's Findings and Recommendations
on April 25, 2016, and argued that the Court should strike
paragraphs 43 through 49 of the Complaint because Montana law
prevents Plaintiffs from representing a class of individuals under
the MCPA.

In his Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/kN46CG
from Leagle.com, Judge Morris determined that the MCPA's class
action prohibition does not apply in federal court and adopted in
full the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Otsby
finding that he properly determined that Plaintiffs adequately
have alleged that CB1 imposed an incidental fee in the payment of
their debt.

William Wittman and Amber Bellamy are represented by:

D. Michael Eakin, Esq.
EAKIN, BERRY & GRYGIEL, PLLC
251 Edelweiss Dr
Bozeman Gallatin
MT 59718-3933

     - and -

John C. Heenan, Esq.
BISHOP AND HEENAN
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Tel: (406)839-9091

CB1, Inc. is represented by Abraham J. Colman, Esq. --
acolman@reedsmith.com  -- and Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. --
rkim@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH.

CB1 is also represented by:

Martin Steve Smith, Esq.
FELT, MARTIN, FRAZIER & WELDON, P.C.
208 North Broadway, Suite 313
Billings, MT 59101
Tel: (406)248-7646


CHASE BANK: Court Denies Objector's Motion for Fees and Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois denied Objector Tamiqueca J.
Johnson D'Oyley's motion for attorney fees, expenses, and an
incentive award in the case captioned, JONATHAN I. GEHRICH, ROBERT
LUND, COREY GOLDSTEIN, PAUL STEMPLE and CARRIE COUSER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., Defendants, Case No. 12 C 5510 (N.D. Ill.).

In July 2012, Jonathan Gehrich filed the class action against
Chase Bank for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). On March 2, 2016, the court certified the
settlement class and modified and approved a proposed settlement
as follows:

     (1) $21,531,656.39 to the Collection Call Subclass;

     (2) a dedicated cy pres distribution of $50,000 to the CFA;

     (3) settlement administration expenses of approximately
$5,152,929.51;

     (4) court-approved incentive awards to the five class
representatives in the amount of $1,500 each ($7,500 total); and

     (5) court-approved attorney fees and costs of $7,257,914.10;
the court reduced Class Counsel's requested attorney fees
approximately $2.25 million and $950,000 proposed cy pres award
from its designated recipient to the class.

On March 2, 2016, the day the court issued the final approval
order, D'Oyley moved for $285,000 or $297,000 in attorney fees,
$9,216.53 in costs, and an incentive award "equal to or greater
than" $1,500.

D'Oyley premises her fee request on the court's reallocation of
$950,000 from the proposed dedicated $1 million cy pres
distribution to the Collection Call Subclass.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/gHfEu6 from Leagle.com, Judge Feinerman held that
D'Oyley did not contribute materially to the settlement class's
recovery or to the court's decision to reallocate $950,000.

Jonathan I. Gehrich is represented by Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. --
eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq. -- mark@ankcorn.com -- ANKCORN LAW FIRM,
PC, Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. -- ali@sllawfirm.com -- SAEED & LITTLE,
LLP, Todd M. Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
-- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. -- and Alexander Holmes
Burke, Esq. -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

Robert Lund is represented by Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq. --
gmb@cglaw.com -- CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD
LLP, Mark Daniel Esq. -- mark@ankcorn.com -- ANKCORN, ANKCORN LAW
FIRM, PC, Todd M. Friedman, Esq. --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M.
FRIEDMAN, P.C. -- and Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. --
ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

Corey Goldstein is represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq. --
mark@ankcorn.com -- ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC, Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
-- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M.
FRIEDMAN, P.C. -- and Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. --
ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

Chase Bank USA, N.A. is represented by Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
-- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Julieta Stepanyan, Esq. --
jstepanyan@stroock.com -- and Arjun Patibandla Rao, Esq. --
arao@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, Kenneth Michael
Kliebard, Esq. -- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com -- and Tedd
Macrae Warden, Esq. -- tedd.warden@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS
& BOCKIUS LLP

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is represented by Julieta Stepanyan,
Esq. -- jstepanyan@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP &
Kenneth Michael Kliebard, Esq. -- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com
-- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement of McIntyre Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Max O. Cogburn of the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina granted preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement in the case captioned, CAMERON
McINTYRE, Plaintiff, v. CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-213-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.).

Lead Plaintiff Roman Zak, on behalf of all Class Members, on the
one hand, and Defendants Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd.,
Simon Pedder, and William D. Schwieterman, on the other hand, by
and through their respective counsel, have made an application,
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
an order preliminarily approving a settlement in accordance with a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated as of May 23, 2016.

In his Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/F7K0L7
from Leagle.com, Judge Cogburn. Jr. found the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate and that the prerequisites for a class
action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure have been satisfied.

The Court appointed Roman Zak as Lead Plaintiff, Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP as Class Counsel and Rust Consulting, Inc. as Claims
Administrator.

Cameron McIntyre is represented by Jeremy Allan Lieberman, Esq.
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
-- and Gary W. Jackson, Esq. -- gjackson@ncadvocates.com -- THE
JACKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC

Roman Zak is represented by Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq. --
klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Megan M. Sullivan, Esq. --
msullivan@faruqilaw.com -- and Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP -- and Paul
Anthony Daniels, Esq. -- Paul.Daniels@oxnerpermarlaw.com -- OXNER
PERMAR + RICHARDSON PLLC

Chelsea Therapeutics International, LTD., Simon Pedder, L. Arthur
Hewitt, J. Nick Riehle and William D. Schwieterman are represented
by Lee M. Whitman, Esq. -- lwhitman@wyrick.com -- Paul J. Puryear,
Jr., Esq. -- ppuryear@wyrick.com -- and Sarah M. Johnson, Esq. --
jjohnson@wyrick.com -- WYRICK ROBBINS YATES & PONTON LLP, Barry M.
Kaplan, Esq. -- bkaplan@wsgr.com -- Gregory Lewis Watts, Esq. --
gwatts@wsgr.com -- and Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Esq. --
isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI


CONAIR CORP: Courts Denies Class Certification in "Wilson"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the case captioned, DELIA
WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-00894
WBS SAB (E.D. Cal.).

On February 12, 2014, plaintiff suffered injuries to her eye,
face, and chest when the power cord on her Conair curling iron
began to crackle and emit sparks. She was diagnosed with a corneal
abrasion that continues to require treatment.

Plaintiff brought the putative class action against Conair, a
health and beauty supply company, asserting that it has allegedly
failed to follow standard policies and procedures for protecting
consumers from a defective line cord in its styling irons and
failed to comply with reporting laws.

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action in her First
Amended Complaint on behalf of herself and the proposed class
members: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA);
(2) unfair business practices to conceal the power cord defect
from consumers and false and misleading advertising in violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and (3) breach of
implied warranty, Cal. Com. Code Sec. 2314. Plaintiff also asserts
the following individual causes of action: (4) strict products
liability due to design or manufacture defect; (5) strict products
liability due to failure to warn; and (6) negligence.

In the motion, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that consists
of: "All persons who purchased Conair Styling Irons in
California."

In his Order dated June 3, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Dzm62B
from Leagle.com, Judge Shubb found that plaintiff fails to satisfy
the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a) and that plaintiff is an
inadequate representative of the class under Rule 23(a).

Delia Wilson is represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. --
lhurst@bholaw.com -- Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq. --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- Timothy G. Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- and Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq. --
jmacpherson@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP

She is also represented by:

Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
ODENBREIT LAW, APC
16835 Algonquin St., Ste. 221,
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Tel: (888)490-3510

Conair Corporation is represented by Ryan Donald Saba, Esq. --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- ROSEN SABA


DELTA AIR: Wants Judge to Halt Class Action Over Baggage Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Law.com, reports that two national
airlines are fighting to persuade a federal judge in Atlanta to
stop ongoing antitrust litigation over baggage fees from
proceeding as a class action on behalf of an estimated 28 million
passengers.

At a hearing on June 21 before U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten,
attorneys for Delta Air Lines and codefendant AirTran Airways (now
part of Southwest Airlines) argued that the multidistrict
litigation -- which accuses Delta of illegally colluding with
AirTran to impose first-bag fees on the flying public -- does not
qualify for class action status because millions of passengers may
have been reimbursed for their costs by employers or had their
tickets and bag fees paid for by other third parties, meaning they
did not actually sustain a loss.
Citing their own experts, airline attorneys also claimed the
first-bag fees -- which have risen from $15 to $25 since they were
introduced in 2008 -- likely led to lower airline ticket prices.

But lawyers who filed the antitrust actions in 2009 on behalf of
airline passengers alleged that an underlying price-fixing
conspiracy led to the first-bag fees directly affecting every
passenger, and said the resulting financial damages can be
documented through ticket and financial records.  Relying on their
own experts, they also challenged as misleading and inaccurate
airline lawyers' assertions that first-bag fees had resulted in
lower air fares.

"If this case can't be certified, we don't know how any class
action could be certified," said attorney Daniel Low --
dlow@kotchen.com -- of Washington's Kotchen & Low -- one of a team
of lawyers representing plaintiff passengers.

The stakes are high.  The multidistrict litigation seeks both full
monetary and treble damages for all passengers who have paid first
bag fees since Delta and AirTran instituted them.  Delta attorneys
told the court on June 21 that as of 2013, an estimated 28 million
passengers had paid the first-bag fees.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Delta
has collected $5.9 billion in baggage fees since 2009, and AirTran
earned $462.8 million before its 2011 merger with Southwest, which
allows passengers to check two bags free of charge.

The suits contend the two airlines used a series of 2008 public
earnings conference calls with securities analysts, industry
conferences and joint negotiations with Atlanta's Hartsfield-
Jackson International Airport over gate leases to illegally
coordinate plans to implement a first-bag fee, cut back on the
total number of daily flights, and increase ticket prices -- all
at the expense of passengers who had previously benefited from the
airlines' vigorous competition.

Attorneys also argued in court papers that emails uncovered during
the litigation suggest that AirTran executives also were
communicating with Delta through an unofficial "grapevine."
In seeking to dismiss the case, Delta lawyers have argued that the
antitrust allegations rested "on entirely conclusory
characterizations" of statements made by Delta and AirTran to the
investment community.  But Delta has also paid $8.4 million in
court-ordered sanctions for its repeated failure to preserve files
and records that were lost, misplaced or destroyed.
The June 21 hearing gave the airlines a second opportunity to
defeat the push for a class action.  Last year, Judge Batten
certified the litigation as a class action, rejecting arguments
that charging first-bag fees had allowed the airlines to lower
fares.  The judge also held that individual claims by passengers
would be "so small that the cost of individual litigation would be
far greater than the value of those claims."

But two weeks after certifying the class, Judge Batten vacated his
order and asked for additional briefs to address reports by
competing experts as to whether, or how, bag fees had influenced
ticket prices.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Class Certified in "Nitsch" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted in part Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and certified as modified
Plaintiffs' proposed class in the case captioned, ROBERT A.
NITSCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

The case is a consolidated class action brought by former
employees alleging antitrust claims against their former
employers, who are various animation and visual effects studios
with principal places of business in California. Plaintiffs
contend that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix and
suppress employee compensation and to restrict employee mobility.

Plaintiffs are artists and engineers who were previously employed
by four of the named Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
conspired to suppress compensation in two ways:

     -- Defendants allegedly entered into a scheme not to actively
solicit each other's employees.

     -- Defendants allegedly engaged in "collusive discussions in
which they exchanged competitively sensitive compensation
information and agreed upon compensation ranges," which would
artificially limit compensation offered to Defendants' current and
prospective employees.

In their Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of "All animation and visual effects employees
employed by defendants in the United States who held any of the
jobs listed in Ashenfelter Report Appendix C during the following
time periods: Pixar (2001-2010), Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC (2001-2010),
DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (2003-2010), The Walt Disney
Company (2004-2010), Sony Pictures Animation, Inc. and Sony
Pictures Imageworks, Inc. (2004-2010), Blue Sky Studios, Inc.
(2005-2010) and Two Pic MC LLC f/k/a ImageMovers Digital LLC
(2007-2010). Excluded from the Class are senior executives,
members of the board of directors, and persons employed to perform
office operations or administrative tasks."

In her Order dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/WT3Hhx
from Leagle.com, Judge Koh found that Plaintiffs have satisfied
all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and
granted a class of "All animation and visual effects employees
employed by defendants in the United States who held any of the
jobs listed in Ashenfelter Reply Report Amended Appendix C during
the following time periods: Pixar (2004-2010), Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC
(2004-2010), DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (2004-2010), The Walt
Disney Company (2004-2010), Sony Pictures Animation, Inc. and Sony
Pictures Imageworks, Inc. (2004-2010), Blue Sky Studios, Inc.
(2005-2010) and Two Pic MC LLC f/k/a ImageMovers Digital LLC
(2007-2010). Excluded from the Class are senior executives,
members of the board of directors, and persons employed to perform
office operations or administrative tasks. "

The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification as to class members who worked at Pixar and
Lucasfilm in 2001-2003 and as to class members who worked at
DreamWorks in 2003.

The Court appointed named Plaintiffs Robert A. Nitsch, Jr.,
Georgia Cano, and David Wentworth as Class Representatives. The
Court appoints as class counsel Daniel A. Small of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Marc M. Seltzer of Susman Godfrey L.L.P., and
Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, along with
their respective firms.

Robert A. Nitsch, Jr. is represented by Daniel A. Small, Esq. --
dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. --
mruan@cohenmilstein.com -- Brent W. Johnson, Esq. --
bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- and Daniel Hershey Silverman, Esq. -
- dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL
PLLC, Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W.
Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- and Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. -
- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Steven Gerald Sklaver, Esq. --
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- and Jordan Lee Talge, Esq. --
JTalge@susmangodfrey.com -- SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP -- and Richard L.
Grossman, Esq. -- PILLSBURY & COLEMAN, LLP

Georgia Cano is represented by Craig Justin Ackermann, Esq. --
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C., Jeff D Friedman, Esq. --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve W. Berman, Esq. --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Esq. --
jdubner@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC,
Julian Ari Hammond, Esq. -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com --
HAMMONDLAW, PC, Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. --
ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- Matthew Robert Berry, Esq. --
mberry@susmangodfrey.com -- Steven Gerald Sklaver, Esq. --
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.comv -- John Edward Schiltz, Esq. --
jschiltz@susmangodfrey.com -- and Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. --
mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. is represented by Daniel Glen
Swanson, Esq. Rodney Joseph Stone, Esq. -- and Shannon Edward
Mader, Esq. -- GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP, Robert Addy Van Nest,
Esq. -- KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

Pixar, Lucasfilm Ltd., The Walt Disney Company, Image Movers
Digital, Sony Pictures Animation and Blue Sky Studios, Inc. are
represented by Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. -- ejhenn@gibsondunn.com
-- Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq. -- chlannin@gibsondunn.com -- Deborah
A. Garza, Esq. -- ogarza@gibsondunn.com -- and Kathryn Elizabeth
Cahoy, Esq. -- COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP, John Watkins Keker, Esq.
-- jkeker@kvn.com -- Cody Shawn Harris, Esq. -- charris@kvn.com --
and William Hamilton Jordan, Esq. -- wjordan@kvn.com -- KEKER AND
VAN NEST LLP


EBAY INC: $1.2MM Accord in "Rosado" Case Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, and
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative
Enhancement Award in the case captioned, LUIS ROSADO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EBAY
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:12-CV-04005-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the deal, eBay will pay $1.2 million into a non-
reversionary Gross Settlement Fund, which will be used to pay for:
(1) Class member settlement payments in the form of either cash or
eBay credit (or both) and check payments (2) the named Plaintiff's
enhancement award, attorneys' fees and costs, and (3)
administrative costs. Funds that remain after all payments are
made will not revert to eBay.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that eBay's business practice of
automatically delisting the item and kept it delisted for the
entirety of the listing period even in the instances when
prospective buyers failed to purchase the item deprived sellers of
the full value of their listing.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of fees
paid for these listings.

Plaintiff asserts six causes of action: (i) violation of
California's False Advertising Law; (ii) violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act; (iii) breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; (iv) violation of the Unfair Competition Law; (v)
breach of quasi-contract; and (vi) declaratory judgment.

On September 10, 2015, the Court granted the parties' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, conditionally certified a
settlement class, and appointed counsel.

Plaintiff now seeks final approval of the class action settlement,
and attorneys' fees in the amount of $300,000, reimbursable
expenses in the amount of $13,050.04, and a class representative
enhancement payment in the amount of $2,500.

The Court received a written objection to the settlement from
Daniel Zubia.

In his Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/zSlUnq
from Leagle.com, Judge Davila concluded that the requirements of
Rule 23(b) remain satisfied and overruled Zubia's objection as
unpersuasive. The Court held that the request for attorneys' fees,
costs, and class representative enhancement award is within the
rage of reasonableness.

Luis Rosado is represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. --
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP -- Jordan
L. Lurie, Esq. -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Rebecca
Labat, Esq. -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Kenneth
Friedl, Esq. -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Arvin
Ratanavongse, Esq. Cody Robert Padgett, Esq. --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
-- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAWYERS APC --
David Lishian Cheng, Esq. -- dcheng@fordharrison.com -- FORD &
HARRISON LLP -- and Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq. --
lweaver@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, SHARON G. YAACOBI

eBay Inc. is represented by Whitty Somvichian, Esq. --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- and  John C. Dwyer, Esq. --
dwyerjc@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP


EL MILAGRO: "Solorzano" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages & Relief
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SOLORZANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. EL,
MILAGRO, INC, Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-07910 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
June 13, 2016), seeks judgment in the amount of the monetary
equivalent of all earned vacation pay due Plaintiffs and the Class
as provided by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act(IWPCA); statutory damages; a declaration that Milagro's
vacation policy violates the IWPCA; an order enjoining Defendant
from violating the IWPCA in the future; and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA.

The Class consists of all Milagro's employees who earned vacation
pay but did not receive a pro rata share of their earned vacation
pay.

Milagro maintains offices, restaurants and manufacturing
facilities in Cook County, Illinois and has conducted and
transacted business within Cook County, Illinois. The Defendant
manufactures tortillas for purposes of wholesale and for use in
the multiple restaurant locations that it owns and operates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          Christopher J Williams, Esq.
          Neil Kelley, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC
          53 W. Jackson blvd., Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 795 9121


ENAGIC USA: Class Certification Sought in "Makaron" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves for Class Certification and to be Appointed
Class Counsel, in the class action lawsuit styled EDWARD MAKARON,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ENAGIC USA, INC., the Defendant, Case 2:15-cv-05145-
DDP-E (C.D. Cal.).

Accordingly Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class consisting
of:

   "All persons within the United States who received any
telephone calls from Defendant or one of its Distributor-Agents to
said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or rerecorded
voice and such person had not previously consented to receiving
such calls within the four years prior to the filing of the
Complaint."

The Plaintiff also asks the Court for his appointment as Class
Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys as
Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


EXPEDIA INC: Travel Firms Liable for Hotel Occupancy Tax Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen Illinois municipalities, on behalf of a putative class of
similarly situated municipalities, sued a number of online travel
companies alleging that they failed to remit taxes owed under
plaintiffs' municipal hotel tax ordinances. Defendants removed the
case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) & 1453. In October 2014, plaintiffs moved
to certify a class of 276 municipalities under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3), which the Court denied
without prejudice to renewal.

In September 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification of 154 municipalities under Rule 23(b)(3)
alone.  Since that time, one plaintiff -- City of Oakbrook Terrace
-- voluntarily dismissed its claims against defendants.

The remaining parties on both sides have moved for summary
judgment on counts 1 and 2 of their complaint. They contend that
summary judgment should be granted in their favor on count 1
because the evidence indisputably shows that online travel
companies that sell rooms under the merchant model are subject to
each municipality's hotel occupancy ordinance.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/uP61JD from Leagle.com, District Judge Matthew F.
Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs
as to liability on the Village of Lombard's claims under counts 1
and 2, holding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of
defendants on Lombard's claims that defendants have failed to
properly collect and remit taxes under its hotel room tax.

The case is captioned, VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, CITY OF
WARRENVILLE, CITY OF OAKBROOK TERRACE, VILLAGE OF OAK LAWN,
VILLAGE OF ORLAND HILLS, CITY OF ROCKFORD, VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK,
VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, VILLAGE OF BURR RIDGE, CITY OF DES
PLAINES, VILLAGE OF LOMBARD, VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK, VILLAGE OF
TINLEY PARK, and VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG, Plaintiffs, v. EXPEDIA,
INC. (WA), HOTELS.COM, LP, HOTWIRE, INC., EGENCIA, LLC, TRIP
NETWORK, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORP. (d/b/a
LODGING.COM), PRICELINE.COM INCORPORATED (n/k/a THE PRICELINE
GROUP INC.), PRICELINE.COM LLC, TRAVELWEB LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
SITE59.COM, LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE, Defendant,
Case No. 13 C 5633 (N.D. Ill.).

Village of Bedford Park, et al. are represented by Dominick L
Lanzito, Esq. -- and -- Paul A O'Grady, Esq. -- PETERSON JOHNSON
AND MURRAY, Donald J. Storino, Esq. -- dstorino@srd-law.com -- and
Richard J. Ramello, Esq. -- rramello@srd-law.com -- STORINO,
RAMELLO & DURKIN

They are also represented by:

John W. Crongeyer, Esq.
CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, P.C.
2170 Defoor Hills Road
Atlanta, GA 30318
Tel: (404) 542 6205

     - and -

Kristen L. Beightol, Esq.
William Q. Bird, Esq.
BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C.
2170 Defoor Hills Rd NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
Tel: (404)873-4696

Expedia, Inc. is represented by Mark P. Rotatori, Esq. --
mprotatori@jonesday.com -- Meghan Sweeney Bean, Esq. --
msbean@jonesday.com -- and Nicole C. Henning, Esq. --
nchenning@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY

Trip Network, Inc. is represented by Elizabeth Brooke Herrington,
Esq. -- beth.herrington@morganlewis.com -- and Mark Jacob
Altschul, Esq. -- mark.altschul@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP -- and Jeffrey A. Rossman, Esq. --
jrossman@freeborn.com -- FREEBORN & PETERS LLP


FARMERS INSURANCE: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Wilson" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amy D. Hogue of the California Court of Appeals affirmed an
order denying class certification in the case captioned, AUDREY
WILSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FARMERS INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B260729 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiffs Audrey Wilson, Helene Diamond, and Connie Gilbert were
employed as claims adjusters in Farmers Insurance Exchange's
commercial liability group. Their operative second amended
complaint alleges Farmers improperly classified claims adjusters
on its commercial liability lines as "exempt" employees. As a
result of the alleged misclassification, the complaint asserts
Farmers unlawfully required claims adjusters to work uncompensated
overtime and without off-duty meal and rest periods, while failing
to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the Labor Code
and Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiffs argued the misclassification claim could be resolved on
a class basis because all of Farmers's claims adjusters performed
the same primary job duties. The trial court denied the motion,
finding the proposed class and subclasses lacked the requisite
community of interest.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion for class
certification, contending that the trial court improperly ruled on
the merits of their misclassification claims and erroneously
concluded Farmers's interrogatory responses were insufficient to
establish class liability on their theory of recovery.

In her Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xRj3D1
from Leagle.com, Judge Hogue held that the court did not err in
ruling individual inquiries were necessary to determine whether a
particular claims adjuster's work satisfied the directly related
prong of the administrative exemption. As the trial court
concluded, all of these differences will be relevant to
determining whether an individual adjuster's qualitatively
administrative work was "of substantial importance to the
management or operation of the business."

Audrey Wilson, et al. are represented by Michael Rubin, Esq. -
Mmrubin@altber.com -- and Peder J. Thoreen, Esq. --
pthoreen@altber.com -- ALTSHULER BERZON

They are also represented by:

R. Rex Parris, Esq.
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
Kitty Szeto, Esq.
John M. Bickford , Esq.
R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th St W
Lancaster, CA 93534
Tel: (661)949-2595

Farmers Insurance Exchange is represented by Andrew M. Paley, Esq.
-- apaley@seyfarth.com -- James M. Harris, Esq. --
jharris@seyfarth.com -- Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq. --
sskibbe@seyfarth.com -- and Kiran Aftab Seldon, Esq. --
kseldon@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW


FINE FINISH: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Non-Payment of OT Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN MICKEVICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINE FINISH, INC., FINE
FINISH CUSTOM CARPENTRY, INC., PETER MURRAY and IRENE MURRAY, the
Defendants, Case No. 16-1682 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016),
seeks overtime wages from Defendants pursuant to the Massachusetts
Overtime Law.

Mr. Mickevich also asks the Court to:

     1. certify this action as a class action;

     2. appoint Mr. Mickevich as class representative; and

     3. award treble damages, interest, reasonable attorney's
fees, and costs for non-payment of overtime wages on behalf of Mr.
Mickevich and the class.

The class consists of all hourly employees of the defendants who
worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek, but were not
paid at a rate of one and one-half-times their regular rate of pay
for overtime hours, at any time during the three-year period prior
to the commencement of this action.

Fine Finish specializes in custom molding, complicated radial
design, sequenced panels, or custom balusters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORGE: Liquidator Mulls Class Action Against Former Directors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Williams, writing for The West Australian, reports that the
liquidator of Forge Group is seeking funding to investigate the
prospects of legal action against former directors of the
collapsed engineering company.

The move could include public examinations of ex-board members of
Forge, which left debts of about $800 million when it folded in
early 2014.

Liquidator Ferrier Hodgson has previously obtained litigation
funding from IMF Bentham to investigate insider trading claims
against engineering company Clough, once Forge's biggest
shareholder.

In an annual report to creditors, the insolvency specialist said
negotiations with a litigation funder were substantially advanced
for investigating "other causes of action".

Ferrier Hodgson partner Martin Jones -- martin.jones@fh.com.au --
said directors and other third parties could be the subjects of
such action.

"At the moment we just don't have enough money to conduct a
thorough investigation to see whether those claims may or may not
arise," Mr. Jones told WestBusiness.

Mr. Jones said investigations of the Clough claims were at a
preliminary stage.  Examinations of Clough officials would also be
pursued.

The liquidator has so far failed to grill executives of Samsung
C&T in court in connection with the Roy Hill iron ore project
manager's seizure of $111 million in Forge bond money.

Samsung has held off the examinations through a series of legal
challenges, including that the claims be heard by an arbitrator in
Singapore.

The report said a subpoena that prevented a substantive hearing on
the matter had been resolved in the liquidator's favor but had
further delayed the process.

Ferrier Hodgson is also defending Forge against a class action
suit by former shareholders in the Federal Court.

Neither the liquidator nor receiver KordaMentha Restructuring is
involved in a NSW Supreme Court action by bond issuers Assetinsure
and QBE Insurance against the insurers of Forge's directors.  That
case also relates to the seizure of bonds for the Roy Hill
project.

The report said the Federal Government had paid about $20 million
in compensation in response to claims by 1656 former Forge
employees.

The payout fell about $13 million short of claimed entitlements in
line with caps on individual payouts and eligibility.


FRITO-LAY: Court Denies Preliminary Approval of "Sanchez" Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California denied plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval and
conditional class certification in the case captioned, ELIAZAR
SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-00797-
DAD-MJS (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Eliazar Sanchez filed the putative class action in state
court on April 11, 2014. The complaint states 10 causes of action
under California law: (1) failure to pay regular hourly wages, (2)
failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to pay the correct
overtime rate of pay, (4) failure to pay premium wages for denial
of meal and rest periods, (5) failure to pay vested vacation
wages, (6) illegal deductions of vested vacation wages, (7) breach
of contract for failure to pay vested wages, (8) failure to pay
final wages due upon termination, (9) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and (10) violations of California Unfair
Competition Law.

First, plaintiff alleges defendant Frito-Lay engaged in a company-
wide practice by which employees were denied a second meal period
for every shift of ten or more hours. Second, plaintiff alleges
Frito-Lay's company-wide practice and written rest break policy
failed to authorize and permit a third rest break for shifts of
ten or more hours.

After submitting to mediation, the parties executed a settlement
agreement. On December 11, 2014, plaintiff filed an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement and
conditional certification of the class. On August 5, 2015, the
assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that the motion be denied after concluding that
plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information to establish a
class or to permit a determination that the proposed settlement
falls within the range of possible approval. The then-assigned
district judge adopted those findings and recommendations and
denied plaintiff's motion.

On December 4, 2015, the case was reassigned and on January 14,
2016, plaintiff filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval
and conditional class certification in response to the court's
findings and included additional factual evidence supported by
declarations of plaintiff Sanchez and his counsel.

In the motion, the plaintiff proposed a class of "all present and
former employees of Frito-Lay, Inc. in the State of California who
have held the title of Maintenance Mechanic or any similar
position at any point between April 11, 2010, and March 10, 2015."

The parties agree to establish a settlement fund of $600,000.00,
inclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses; the incentive
payment to the named plaintiff; payment to the Labor Workforce
Development Agency; and all costs of administration, including
settlement administration fees.

In his Order dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/C1DNoL
from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd concluded that the plaintiff has
failed to establish that the Amended Settlement is fair or
reasonable in light of the evidence before the court and because
the court denies preliminary approval of the proposed settlement,
it also declines to address whether plaintiff has provided
sufficient information to certify the class for settlement
purposes.

Eliazar Sanchez is represented by:

Brian D. Chase, Esq.
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
BISNAR CHASE, LLP
1301 Dove St #120
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel: (949) 203-3814

Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha D. Hardy, Esq.
-- shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Ashley Teiko Hirano, Esq. --
ahirano@sheppardmullin.com -- and Daniel Francisco De La Cruz,
Esq. -- ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON LLP


GATEWAY FUNDING: Courts Grants Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John R. Padova of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs'
Motion for Order Authorizing Notice to Similarly Situated Persons
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) in the case captioned, CESAR
ROCHA and RALPH JETER, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. GATEWAY FUNDING DIVERSIFIED MORTGAGE
SERVICES, L.P, Case No. 15-482 (E.D. Pa.).

Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P. is a mortgage
lender with more than 50 branch offices, which markets home loans
to residential customers across the country through nearly 500
loan officers. Plaintiffs Cesar Rocha and Ralph Jeter were
employed by the said company. Plaintiffs have brought the matter
as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., and as a class action pursuant to New
Jersey law. They contend that their former employer, Gateway,
misclassified them as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the FLSA and New Jersey law and failed to pay them
required minimum and overtime wages.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and the prospective members
of the collective class did not receive overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours of work per week. The Complaint
asserts two claims pursuant to the FLSA and two claims pursuant to
New Jersey law. Count I asserts a claim on behalf of the FLSA
Collective for failure to pay required minimum wages in violation
of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(a)(1)(C). Count II asserts a claim on behalf
of the FLSA Collective for failure to pay required overtime wages
in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a)(1). Count III asserts a
claim on behalf of Plaintiff Jeter and a sub-class of individuals
who were employed as inside sales Loan Officers for Gateway in the
state of New Jersey at any time during the maximum limitations
period (the New Jersey Sub-Class) for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. 34:11-56(a)(4) and
N.J. Admin. Count IV asserts a claim on behalf of Plaintiff Jeter
and the New Jersey Sub-Class for failure to pay for all hours
worked in violation of N.J. Admin.

The proposed class is defined as "All People who worked as inside
sales Loan Officers for Defendant, its subsidiaries, or affiliated
companies at any time during the maximum limitations period who
worked more than 40 hours in any week without receiving all
overtime compensation required by federal law or wages over the
required minimum level for every hour worked."

In the motion, Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of
this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b), and asked the Court to authorize the service of their
proposed Notice "to a seventeen-state putative collective defined
to include all persons Gateway employed as a commission-only Loan
Officer during any workweek in the last three years. "

Gateway opposes conditional certification of the putative FLSA
Collective on four grounds: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to identify
a company-wide policy or practice that is actually unlawful; (2)
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that that such policy or
practice applies to all of Gateway's loan officers nationwide; (3)
Plaintiff's claims would require individualized determinations
that may not be adjudicated efficiently through a collective
action; and (4) Plaintiffs are bound by a decision declining to
conditionally certify a FLSA collective in a similar case in
another court.

In his Memorandum dated June 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/AuG8ez from Leagle.com, Judge Padova concluded that
Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for conditional
certification of a FLSA collective because they make a "modest
factual showing" that the employees described in the Complaint as
members of the proposed collective "can be provisionally
categorized as similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs."

Cesar Rocha and Ralph Jeter are represented by David J. Cohen,
Esq. -- dcohen@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP; and Erik
H. Langeland, Esq. -- elangeland@tostrudlaw.com -- and Jon A.
Tostrud, Esq. -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- TOSTRUD LAW GROUP PC

Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, LP is represented
by Frederick G. Sandstrom, Esq. -- Sandstrom@BlanRome.com -- and
Jenna Berman, Esq. -- Jberman@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP


GAW MINERS: Group of Customers File Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that an angry
group of former customers has sued a collapsed Bitcoin mining
company, GAW Miners, in a proposed class-action lawsuit. The group
alleges that it was duped by the company and its founders.
This is the second civil suit filed against the company within the
last six months -- it was sued by the Securities and Exchange
Commission in December 2015 over similar accusations of fraud. The
SEC alleged $19 million worth of fraudulent deals. (That SEC case
was put on hold for six months, starting in April 2016, according
to court records.)

In early 2014, GAW Miners was first introduced to the Bitcoin
public by re-selling mining rigs.  Later, the company shifted to
cloud-based mining (Hashlets), and in early 2015, it introduced
its own altcoin, dubbed "Paycoin." GAW also tried its hand at its
own cloud-based wallet service (Paybase) and its own online
discussion board (HashTalk).

For about a year, there has been active speculation amongst the
Bitcoin community that GAW may be a scam or at least could be
engaged in illegal behavior. There have been threads both on
BitcoinTalk and reddit with titles like "GAW Miners - Liars,
Frauds - A brief recap of what we know."

According to the suit, GAW founders Joshua Homero Garza and Stuart
Fraser (who at the time was a vice president at the investment
firm Cantor Fitzgerald) scammed those that paid money, believing
they were getting something for that payment.  The four named
plaintiffs, who seek unspecified damages, hope to represent the
approximately 10,000 customers that they say were taken for a ride
by Garza and Fraser.

As the plaintiffs allege:

Defendants' activities had the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme.
Because defendants sold far more computing power than they owned
and dedicated to virtual currency mining (with respect to hosted
mining services and Hashlets), they owed investors a return that
was larger than any actual return they were making on their
limited mining operations.  Investors were simply paid back
gradually over time, as "returns," the money that they and others
had invested in GAW Miners' products and paid to GAW Miners for
purported "maintenance" fees.

In January 2015, Garza told Ars that he "started the company
because of scammers."  He claimed that he first heard of Bitcoin
around a year ago, at which point he tried to buy a hardware
mining rig and "spent $100,000 for a product I never got."  He
declined to say which company he purchased the rig from.

"I'd never had any experience with that -- realizing a couple
weeks later that these guys didn't care how much money I can
afford to lose," he said.  "I got really frustrated and thought we
should start a company to try to fix this."

Garza told Ars that GAW made "over $1 million in sales our first
month," adding that within a few months, "we leveled at $60
million to $80 million per year."

At the time, Garza claimed the company had 100,000 customers, with
"10,000 to 15,000 new accounts per day."

Neither Garza, nor Fraser, nor Garza's attorneys have responded to
Ars' request for comment.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in "Volin" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Complaint in the case captioned, SYLVIA VOLIN,
Plaintiff, Civ. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
15-4111 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.).

On January 30, 2013, Sylvia Volin, a resident of Tenafly, New
Jersey, purchased a GE-branded 30" Free Standing Gas Range Oven
for $1,087 from Oberg & Lindquist, a GE-authorized dealer, in
Westwood, New Jersey.

Volin brings the putative class action against the defendant for
damages relating to the allegedly defective design of gas range
ovens. The complaint asserts six causes of action, for violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 56:8-1
et seq.; breach of implied warranties; breach of express
warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec.
12A2-101 et seq.; the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
2301; unjust enrichment; and the New Jersey Products Liability
Act.

Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state
a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In his Opinion dated May 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/nqkdKM from Leagle.com, Judge McNulty granted the
motion to dismiss as to Count III, to the extent it alleges a
breach of an express warranty of fitness and that the goods would
be free from the alleged safety defect, and as to Count VI.
Dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of an Amended
Complaint within 30 days. Dismissal of the remaining claims are
denied since they were sufficiently alleged.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael F. Brady, Esq. --
tbrady@tbradyandassociates.com -- Sara Tess Ballew, Esq. --
sballew@tbradyassociates.com -- and Mark A. Kistler, Esq. --
mkistler@tbradyandassciates.com -- BRADY AND ASSOCIATES

EGS Financial Care, Inc. represented by David Israel, Esq. --
disrael@sessions.legal -- and Justin Homes, Esq. --
jhomes@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL,
L.L.C., Gregory K. Wu, Esq. -- gwu@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY &
BACON, LLP


GENUINE TITLE: Court Narrows Claims in "Fangman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland ruled on motions to dismiss
filed by several defendants in the case captioned, EDWARD J. AND
VICKI FANGMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENUINE TITLE, LLC, et al.
Defendants, Case No. RDB-14-0081 (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in
the putative class action, alleges violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Sections 2607(a),
(b), and Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. Sec. 14-127 (Section 14-
127)(Count I)  by Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege
violations of Section 14-127 alone against Defendant Eagle
National Bank.

Defendants West Town, Net Equity, Wells Fargo, PNC, Eagle
National, MetLife, Competitive Advantage, Dog Days Marketing,
Chase, and E Mortgage Management have filed motions to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims under Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. Sec. 14-127,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants have contended that Section 14-127 does not contain a
private right of action under Maryland state real estate law.

In his Memorandum Order dated May 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FiqpRr from Leagle.com, Judge Bennett granted in
part all motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
previously stayed by the Court with respect to Plaintiffs' Section
14-127 claims because Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for relief
under Section 14-127 in the putative class action since Md. Code
Ann., Real Prop. Sec. 14-127 does not contain a private right of
action.

The Court further ruled that Eagle National Bank's Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is granted in its totality
because Plaintiffs' Section 14-127 claim against Defendant Eagle
National Bank was the only remaining claim against that Defendant.

The action survives only with respect to Plaintiffs' federal
claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C.
Sections 2607(a), (b), against Defendants Genuine Title, Brandon
Glickstein, Inc.; Dog Days Marketing, Competitive Advantage, Wells
Fargo, West Town, PNC, MetLife, Net Equity, E Mortgage Management,
and Chase.

Edward J. Fangman,et al. are represented by Michael Paul Smith,
Esq. -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- and Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq. --
szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- SMITH GILDEA AND SCHMIDT LLC

They are also represented by:

Timothy Francis Maloney, Esq.
Veronica Byam Nannis, Esq.
JOSEPH GREENWALD AND LAAKE PA
6404 Ivy Ln #400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Tel: (301)220-2200

Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media Group, LLC
and Dog Days Marketing, LLC are represented by Ari Karen, Esq. --
akaren@offitkurman.com -- and Gregory P. Currey, Esq. --
Gcurrey@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. and Wells Fargo, N.A. are
represented by Russell J. Pope, Esq. -- rjpope@tph-law.com -- and
Virginia Wood Barnhart, Esq. -- vwbarnhart@tph-law.com -- TREANOR
POPE AND HUGHES PA -- and John Augustine Bourgeois, Esq. --
jbourgeois@kg-law.com -- KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA


GREEN TREE: Judge Sends "Buckles" Dispute to Nev. Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, SANFORD BUCKLES, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC
and WALTER INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:15-CV-01581-GMN-(CWH) (D. Nev.), Chief District Judge Gloria M.
Navarro of the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada denied Ditech's motion to dismiss and certified questions
of Nevada statutory law to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against mortgage servicer
Ditech, claiming it violated Nevada Revised Statutes 200.620 by
recording telephone conversations involving him and other class
members without each class member's consent. Plaintiff defined the
class to include "All persons in Nevada whose inbound and outbound
telephone conversations were monitored, recorded, and/or
eavesdropped upon without their consent by Ditech within three
years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in the
action."

Ditech moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (1) that Nevada
Revised Statutes 200.620 does not govern telephone calls recorded
by persons outside Nevada on equipment located outside of Nevada,
and (2) that the United States Constitution precludes
extraterritorial application of Nevada Revised Statutes 200.620 to
telephone recordings made outside of Nevada.

The Parties have met and conferred on the issue but could not
agree as to the language of the question(s) of law to be certified
to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Plaintiff's proposed question:

     "Does Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 apply to telephone recordings
made by a party outside Nevada, who regularly records telephone
conversations with Nevada residents, of telephone conversations
with a person in Nevada without that person's consent?"

Defendant's proposed question:

     "Does Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 apply to telephone recordings
made by a party outside Nevada who uses equipment outside Nevada
to record telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without
that person's consent? If so, does that decision apply
retroactively or prospectively only?"

In her Certification Order dated May 25, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/tsxWnm from Leagle.com, Judge Navarro held that
Ditech's motion to dismiss turns on a dispositive question of
Nevada's statutory law best decided by the Nevada Supreme Court,
since "there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the state" and give Ditech permission to renew
the motion within 30 days of the resolution of the Court's
certified question to the Nevada Supreme Court. As to the
questions of law, the Court believes there is "no controlling
precedent" from the Nevada Supreme Court on these precise
"questions of law" and therefore has decided to certify the
questions to that court.

Sanford Buckles is represented by:

David H. Krieger, Esq.
HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
5041 N Rainbow Blvd
Las Vegas, NV 89130
Tel: (702)666-0668

     - and -

Michael Kind, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
7854 W Sahara Ave
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Tel: (800) 520-5523

Green Tree Servicing LLC is represented by Gregg A. Hubley, Esq.
-- ghubley@brookshubley.com -- and Michael R. Brooks, Esq. --
mbrooks@brookshubley.com -- BROOKS HUBLEY, LLP, Michael R.
Pennington, Esq. -- mpennington@bradley.com -- and Elizabeth A.
Hamrick, Esq. -- ehamick@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP


H2O HAIR: Court Rejects LUTPA Claim in "Biggio" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Carrie Biggio, et al. are employed as hair stylists at H2O Hair,
Inc. (H2O). Plaintiffs assert claims individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages among other
state law claims. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants required them to sign a Training Agreement and
Contract, requiring H2O to train the Plaintiffs as part of an
apprenticeship program, which Defendants unilaterally valued at
$8,000. Plaintiffs also claim that they were not compensated for
the training sessions.

Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiffs' Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices Act claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, Defendants contend
that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the LUTPA
claims because they do not arise out of a common nucleus of
operative fact with the FLSA claims. Additionally, Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs cannot maintain their claims under LUTPA
because they have not alleged an "ascertainable loss of money or
property" resulting from the unfair trade practices. Finally,
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert LUTPA
claims in this proceeding because LA. STAT. ANN. Sec. 51:1409
expressly prohibits parties form bringing LUTPA claims in a
representative capacity.

The motion derives from a previous Order and Reasons issued by the
Court that granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
so that they could fully address certain claims for "gap wages,"
which they first raised in an opposition to an earlier motion
filed by Defendants.

In his Order and Reasons dated June 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/YuKxwr from Leagle.com, District Judge Ivan L.R.
Lemelle of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana held that under the unambiguous terms of the
LUTPA, Biggio and Luminais may not maintain a claim under the Act
because they are proceeding in a representative capacity.

The case is captioned, CARRIE BIGGIO, et al. v. H20 HAIR INC., et
al, Case No. 15-6034 (E.D. La.).

Carrie Biggio and Chelsea Luminais are represented by:

Kenneth Charles Bordes, Esq.
KENNETH C. BORDES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
917 Neyrey Dr.
Metairie, LA 70001

Michael John Gaspard and Holli M. Gaspard are represented by:

Kenneth Charles Fonte, Esq.
Edmund Werner Golden, Esq.
John Arnold Kopfinger, Jr., Esq.
GOLDEN & FONTE
1 Galleria Blvd # 1822
Metairie, LA 70001
Tel: (504)849-2600


HALLMARK CARDS: Faces "Strougo" Suit Over Crown Media Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA STROUGO, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. HALLMARK CARDS, INC., DONALD JOYCE HALL,
JR., WILLIAM J. ABBOTT, DWIGHT C. ARN, MOLLY BIWER, ROBERT C.
BLOSS, WILLIAM CELLA, GLENN CURTIS, BRIAN E. GARDNER, A. DRUE
JENNINGS, PETER A. LUND, JAMES C. SHAY, and DEANNE R. STEDEM,
Defendants, Case No. 12476- (Del. Ch., June 17, 2016), was filed
on behalf of the former public minority stockholders of Crown
Media Holdings, Inc., in relation to a merger with Hallmark Cards,
Inc.

Hallmark retails greeting cards and gifts. Hallmark sells paper
party supplies, gifts, wrapping papers, ornaments, decorative
items, and customized photo cards. Hallmark Cards serves customers
throughout the United States.

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
     Phone: (302) 295-5310

        - and -

     Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Gets Favorable Ruling in Flooding Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Flynn, writing for Houston Press, reports that the Texas
Supreme Court dealt a blow on June 17 to hundreds of families
whose homes were ruined by 1998's Tropical Storm Frances, 2001's
Tropical Storm Allison and a 2002 flooding event.

The high court dismissed a class-action lawsuit that Edward and
Norma Jean Kerr filed 15 years ago against the Harris County Flood
Control District on behalf of roughly 400 families, claiming that
the district essentially turned their Jersey Village neighborhood
near the White Oak Bayou into a stormwater detention basin for
upstream commercial developments.  The Kerrs blamed the flooding
on the district's failure to complete regional flood plans that
had been in the works for years.  They also alleged the district
failed to enforce its own policy requiring upstream commercial
developers to build their own stormwater detention ponds.

Because the district had known about the flooding risks since as
early as 1976, according to court documents, the plaintiffs argued
that its lack of action to protect them from substantial flooding
should make the district liable for property damages the
homeowners incurred.  The Kerrs, for example, faced roughly
$80,000 in damages following Allison in 2001 -- and that was with
flood insurance.

Prominent Houston environmental attorney Jim Blackburn, who
represented the plaintiffs, told us back then, "My view is, the
county was just hoping people wouldn't flood.  I don't think
hoping people won't flood is sufficient to get around liability
under the Texas Constitution."

However, the Supreme Court on June 17 ruled that it doesn't see
how the county could have known about possible floods while
approving development plans and saw no major flaws with the White
Oak Bayou regional flood-control plan.  Therefore, the court
concluded, county officials should not be at fault.

Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan, in a statement, celebrated the
victory.  Mr. Ryan said a ruling in favor of the homeowners would
have discouraged governments from developing further flood-control
plans for "fear of possible liability claims."

Residents affected by past and recent flooding in Harris County,
however, may find Mr.  Ryan's reaction tone-deaf.

The Supreme Court ruling comes amid even more outrage from
Houstonians following the April and May flooding events that led
President Barack Obama to twice issue a disaster declaration in
Harris County.  More than 10,000 families have been approved for
FEMA assistance since April 24, tallying more than $60 million in
federal relief funds.  And dozens of residents have again blamed
city and county leaders for failing to do more to prevent the
flooding.

After the Memorial Day flood event in 2015, the Houston Press's
Steven Jansen reported on the federal flood-prevention project
along Brays Bayou that had somehow managed to fall eight years
behind, despite the threat of a looming 100-year flood (or
multiple, as we have now learned).  After the April 18 flood, he
revisited the Meyerland residents -- who now feel as if they are
the detention pond for the Texas Medical Center, also thanks to
what they believe are development and planning failures.

Most recently, just before Memorial Day weekend (and yet another
flooding event), Residents Against Flooding filed a lawsuit
against the City of Houston and Memorial City's redevelopment
authority, arguing the city approved commercial developments in
the area without thinking about flood prevention for nearby
residential areas.

Mary Conner, who is representing Residents Against Flooding in the
new case, disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling on
June 17.  She said citizens have long been angry over local flood-
control plans.

"What people want to hear is not for the government to wave their
hands and say, 'Leave me alone; I'm not at fault,' but for the
government to say, 'Gosh, this is a real problem -- we're gonna
find a solution,'" Ms. Conner said.

Ms. Conner cautioned against any comparisons of the Residents
Against Flooding lawsuit to the Kerrs' class-action suit.  For
one, Residents Against Flooding is not asking for any money --
it's asking the city to take action and fix flooding
infrastructure problems.

While the class action claimed that Harris County essentially
"took" the residents' property because it was liable for the
flooding, RAF is arguing the city arbitrarily chose to protect
commercial developers from flooding but did nothing to protect
nearby residents.  The group believes that in doing so, Houston
violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal
protection under the law.

Just as the Kerrs argued that Harris County officials knew for
decades about the threat of dangerous flooding, Residents Against
Flooding claims its efforts to protect commercial developers for
the past ten years prove the city knew, too.  "So many studies
have been done. They know what they need to do," Ms. Conner said.
"They need to build some detention ponds.  They need to make
improvements in drainage. They know the solutions, but they're not
doing them."

Turner said at a press conference he was committed to addressing
drainage issues, but could not fix them immediately, and could not
promise that the city would not flood again in the meantime.


HOBBS TRUCKING: Bid for Collective Action Certification Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted in part
plaintiff's a Motion for Collective Action Certification and
Expedited Court-Facilitated Notice in the case captioned, ANTHONY
YOUNG, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOBBS TRUCKING
COMPANY, INC. and STEPHANIE KEITH, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-
991 (M.D. Tenn.).

The plaintiff, Anthony Young, is a former employee of the
defendants, Hobbs Trucking Company, Inc. and Stephanie Keith. Mr.
Young worked for the defendants as a dump truck driver from 2014
to September 4, 2015. Mr. Young filed this action pursuant to Sec.
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of himself
and other current and former employees of the defendants.

Mr. Young alleges that the defendants failed to pay him and other
similarly situated employees overtime pay for hours worked over 40
hours per week. Mr. Young alleges that, until the defendants
changed their pay practices in February of 2015, he and other
drivers were paid a flat rate of $115 per day for each day that
they worked, regardless of how many hours they worked in a day.
Mr. Young further alleges that, throughout his employment with the
defendants, he worked more than forty hours per week "on a regular
and repeated basis" but was never paid overtime wages.
On February 22, 2016, Mr. Young filed the Motion for Collective
Action Certification and Expedited Court-Facilitated Notice.  Mr.
Young seeks conditional certification of his FLSA claim and court-
authorized notice to all "current and former employees of the
defendants who worked as drivers at the defendants' Murfreesboro,
Tennessee location at any time during the last three years."

He also requests that the defendants provide him with a "computer
readable data file" containing the name, last known address, last
known email address, and dates of employment for each such
employee. Mr. Young requests that the notice be issued by (1)
first class mail, (2) posting "in the break rooms" of the
defendants' Murfreesboro location, and (3) dissemination with
putative class members' paychecks. Finally, Mr. Young requests
that the court approve his proposed form of notice, which is
attached to the motion.

In her Memorandum and Order dated June 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/2a8Em8 from Leagle.com, Judge Trauger concluded that
Mr. Young has provided sufficient factual support to demonstrate
that conditional certification of his FLSA claim is appropriate
but the court considers the defendants' objections to certain
aspects of the notice proposed by Mr. Young, including its content
and manner of publication.

The Court directed the parties to file with the court agreed-upon
notice and consent forms consistent with the findings within 20
days of the date of the Order.

Anthony Young, Plaintiff, represented by:

Kerry E. Knox, Esq.
CASTELLI & KNOX, LLP
117 S Academy St
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Tel: (615)896-1000

Hobbs Trucking Company, Inc. and Stephanie Keith are represented
by James K. Simms, IV, Esq. -- jk@thompsonburton.com -- and
Jennifer M. Lankford, Esq. -- Jennifer@thompsonburton.com --
THOMPSON BURTON PLLC


HOMEOPET LLC: Must Send Notice to Attorney General
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Peterson prompts defendant to file proof
that it has mailed notice to the Attorney General of the United
States by certified or registered mail and likewise directed the
clerk of court to send a copy of this order to the Attorney
General of the United States and to the United States Attorney for
the Western District of Wisconsin.  Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5.1, a party whose pleading calls into question the
constitutionality of a federal statute must provide notice to the
Attorney General of the United States.

The case, decided on June 2, 2016, is DAIRYLAND ANIMAL CLINIC,
S.C., Plaintiff, v. HOMEOPET, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. No. 16-cv-147-jdp. (W.D. Wisc.).

Dairyland Animal Clinic, S.C. alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. Dairyland
alleges that defendants sent it and at least 25 others an
unsolicited fax in January 2015.

A copy of the decision is available at http://goo.gl/RpsMcWfrom
Leagle.com.

Dairyland Animal Clinic, S.C., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson + Wanca & Ryan
Michael Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca.

Homeopet, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Michael D. Leffel --
mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner & Eric Joseph Hatchell --
ehatchell@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP.


HORTONWORKS INC: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Davis of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California appointed Randall A.
Arvidson as Lead Counsel and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel in the
case captioned, WILLIAM MONACHELLI, Plaintiff, v. HORTONWORKS,
INC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-00980-SI (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff William Monachelli brings the class action lawsuit for
violation of the federal securities laws against defendants
Hortonworks, Inc., Robert G. Bearden, and Scott J. Davidson. He
sues on behalf of a class of persons who bought or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Hortonworks between November 4, 2015,
and January 15, 2016 (the class period), both dates inclusive. He
brings claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The suit alleges that defendants made "materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, cash position, prospects, and internal controls."

On April 29, 2016, Babu Pinnamraju and Randall A. Arvidson filed
motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 12, 2016,
Pinnamraju filed a statement of non-opposition to Arvidson's
motion.

In his Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/5be2iD
from Leagle.com, Judge Illston found that Arvidson is properly the
most adequate plaintiff and approved his selection of Pomerantz
LLP as lead counsel.

William Monachelli is represented by J. Alexander Hood, Esq. --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Esq. --
mltucillo@pomlaw.com -- and Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP

Hortonworks, Inc., Robert G. Bearden and Scott J. Davidson are
represented by Jordan Eth, Esq. -- jeth@mofo.com -- Anna Erickson
White, Esq. -- awhite@mofo.com -- and Ryan M. Keats, Esq. --
rkeats@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


HUDSON COUNTY: Brodowski Seeks Damages v. Community College
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BRODOWSKI, and all other individuals similarly situated.
the Plaintiff, v. HUDSON COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE; DR. GLEN GABERT
and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-2418-16
(N.J. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks judgment with compensatory
damages for emotional distress and personal hardship, punitive
damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced
attorneys' fees, equitable back pay, equitable front pay,
equitable reinstatement, equitable instatement or promotion, and
any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff disclosed to members of
upper management that he reasonably believed that the actions of
Torturelli and others at the college changing the terms of a
contract after it was bid, was in violation of a law, a rule or
regulation promulgated pursuant to law, fraud, or actions
incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy. In acting as
he did, plaintiff objected to and refused to participate in
activities, policies, and practices which he reasonably believed
were in violation of a law, a rule or regulation promulgated
pursuant to law, an act of fraud, or actions incompatible with a
clear mandate of public policy. Subsequent to Plaintiff engaging
in this protected activity by making these complaints, objecting
to these actions, and refusing to participate in this activity, he
was subjected to retaliation that included discipline, and
indefinite suspension and ultimately being terminated from his
employment.

The Defendant is a public institution operating in the State of
New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


INNERWORKINGS INC: October 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
regarding the InnerWorkings Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

PETER IKAI VAN NOPPEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

INNERWORKINGS, INC., ERIC D. BELCHER, and JOSEPH M. BUSKY,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01416

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED
COMMON STOCK AND/OR CALL OPTIONS, AND/OR SOLD THE PUT OPTIONS, OF
INNERWORKINGS, INC. ("INNERWORKINGS" OR THE "COMPANY") DURING THE
PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2012 THROUGH NOVEMBER 6, 2013, INCLUSIVE,
(THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
"SETTLEMENT CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that Lead Plaintiff
Plymouth County Retirement System, on behalf of itself and the
Settlement Class, on the one hand, and InnerWorkings, Eric D.
Belcher and Joseph M. Busky (collectively with InnerWorkings, the
"Defendants"), on the other, have reached a proposed settlement of
the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of
$6,025,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved,
will resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable John Robert Blakey of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division in Courtroom 1725, United States
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 at
9:45 a.m. on October 13, 2016 to, among other things, determine
whether: (a) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated as of May 11, 2016; (c) the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement
Amount, and any accrued interest, less Court-awarded attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses,
Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the
Court (the "Net Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (d) Lead Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses should be
approved.  The Court may change the date and/or time of the
Settlement Hearing without providing another notice.  You do NOT
need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received
the full Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement
and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a
Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
or visiting its website:

InnerWorkings Securities Litigation
c/o GCG, LLC
P.O. Box 10291
Dublin, OH 43017-5891
855-907-3241
www.InnerWorkingsClassSettlement.com

Inquiries may also be made to Lead Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
888-219-6877
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or received on or before October 8, 2016,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  If you do not
timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will
nevertheless be bound by all judgments and orders entered in the
Action.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions
in the Notice such that it is received on or before September 21,
2016.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by all
judgments and orders entered in the Action.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of litigation
expenses must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for
the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice such
that it is received on or before September 21, 2016.  If you
submit an objection, you have the right, but are not required, to
attend the Settlement Hearing; if you wish to speak at the
Settlement Hearing, you must include in your written objection a
statement that you intend to appear and speak at the Settlement
Hearing.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.

Dated: June 20, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


INT'L ASSOCIATION: Doping Class Action Appeal Heads to Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters' Vladimir Soldatkin, citing R-Sport news agency, reports
that Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko said on June 19 the
world athletics governing body, the International Association of
Athletics Federations (IAAF), has unfairly shifted blame for the
doping scandal onto Russia's athletics federation and should be
disbanded.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) on June 18 backed the
IAAF's decision to extend its ban on Russia for systematic doping,
ending any slim hopes that Russian athletes might have had of
competing at the Rio Games in August.

The decision is being contested by the Russian athletes: race-
walkers Denis Nizhegorodov and Svetlana Vasilyeva launched an
appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport over the decision to
uphold the doping ban, which would bar them from competing in Rio,
All Sport news agency reported.

The agency quoted Andrey Mitkov, a sports agent, as saying that
the "class action" appeal was set to be delivered to the court in
Lausanne on June 21.

The president of the IAAF Sebastian Coe has said that Russia has
made some progress in tackling the use of prohibited substances by
athletes, but it was "not enough" to lift the ban.

"In essence, by shifting the responsibility to the All-Russia
Athletics Federation, they have exonerated themselves from
responsibility.  The IAAF should be disbanded," Mr. Mutko was
quoted as saying on June 19.

The IAAF suspended Russia last year over concerns its athletes
were guilty of systematic doping.


INTEGRATED AIRLINES: "Haurat" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Haurat, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Integrated Airline Services,
Inc., the Defendant, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC623647
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a
result of Defendants' violations of California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have increased their
profits by violating the following state wage and hour laws:

     a. Failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages);

     b. Failing to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu;

     c. Failing to authorize or permit rest break or provide
compensation in lieu;

     d. Failing to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment;

     e. Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and

     f. Failing to reimpburse all business expenses.

Integrated Airline provides tailor-made passenger, cargo, and ramp
handling services to air carriers in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, 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
          E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Sued Over Defective Mitral Valve Instrument
---------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL FERNANDO NASSAR CURE and ALAN M. KOZARSKY, M.D.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC., INTUITIVE SURGICAL
OPERATIONS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01948-ODE (N.D. Ga., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover
damages including but not limited to the lodging of metal
fragments in their brains, physical, neurological, and mental
effects, including but not limited to emotional distress, and past
medical expenses, as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' defective design of their instruments.

Mr. Nassar, Dr. Kozarsky and the Class have suffered injuries and
damages, and are also anticipated to incur future medical expenses
and lose future wages.

Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold
and/or introduced into interstate commerce one or more instruments
that would ultimately be used in mitral valve repair surgeries
performed on Mr. Nassar on June 19, 2015 and Dr. Kozarsky on June
16, 2015, at Saint Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta, as well as mitral
valve repair surgeries to be performed on Class members at other
hospitals throughout the country.

According to the complaint, Defendants knew or had reason to know
of defects in the Instrument used in such surgeries, including but
not limited to that artifacts consistent with metallic microemboli
had been found on brain MRIs of patients resulting from mitral
valve repairs using the Instrument and/or similar instruments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Q. Bird, Esq.
          Kristen L. Beightol, Esq.
          Paul I. Hotchkiss, Esq.
          Alexandria S. Cash, Esq.
          BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2170 Defoor Hills Road
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 873 4696

               - and -

          John W. Crongeyer, Esq.
          CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2170 Defoor Hills Road
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 542 6205


ISORAY MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Lung Cancer Study Results
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Cary, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that IsoRay
Medical of Richland says it acted in good faith and met the
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission when it
released a news release that led to a lawsuit.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit have asked that it be certified as a
class action.

The news release, which described results of a study looking at
lung cancer treatment with an Isoray medical isotope product, was
quickly followed by a near doubling of the stock price under what
was heavy trading for the stock.

The news release was issued on May 19, 2015, and the stock price
went from $1.62 a share to $3.12 the next day.

But on May 21, 2015, the investment website The Street posted an
article with the headline "IsoRay Takes Liberties With Lung Cancer
Study Results to Prop Up Stock Price."

The share price dropped by about a third that day with 52 million
trades made, which was 37 times the usual daily volume of trades.
Within days, the stock was back to its usual price before the news
release.

The lawsuit claims violations of federal securities laws.  It
seeks damages for those who bought the stock as its price rose
based on what plaintiffs say was information that mischaracterized
the findings of the lung cancer study.

The 2015 IsoRay news release said that its lung cancer treatment
had 96 percent success in local control and 100 percent patient
survival at five years in high risk patients according to a new
peer-reviewed study published in the on-line journal
Brachytherapy.

The IsoRay treatment relies on seeds of radioactive cesium
implanted during cancer-removal surgery to release radiation to
kill remaining cancer cells.  In contrast, conventional radiation
requires many trips to a hospital or clinic for treatment.

The study compared IsoRay results with surgery alone and surgery
with more traditional radiation.

But the news release failed to make clear that other treatments
used historically, such as surgery plus more traditional
radiation, provided equivalent rates of local cancer control,
plaintiffs said.

It also did not make clear that the five-year survival rate for
surgery plus the IsoRay radiation treatment was not significantly
different than for patients who had only surgery, plaintiffs said.

IsoRay said the news release linked to the online study.

"It is implausible that the analysts and investors who followed
IsoRay and anticipated the release of the study would fail to read
the complete study when it became available," IsoRay said in court
documents.

Had the company been intending to mislead investors and analysts,
it would not have pointed them to the study, IsoRay said.

While there was no cost to read the abstract of the study, reading
the full study required a $35.95 subscription fee, plaintiffs
argued.

Plaintiffs also complained that IsoRay did not say in the news
release that it sponsored the study, giving money to the doctor
who conducted it.

Earlier this month, U.S. Judge Lonny Suko declined to dismiss the
lawsuit against IsoRay.

IsoRay in a statement said that the judge found that allegations
against the company, if true, state a plausible claim for legal
relief.

"The order did not adjudicate the merits of the lawsuit," the
IsoRay statement said.  "No other issues were decided in the
ruling."

A trial date has not been set.


JACKSON, MI: Settles Class Action Over Misdemeanor Case Arrests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chevel Johnson, writing for Associated Press, reports that a
federal class-action lawsuit against the city of Jackson,
Mississippi, has been settled, bringing to an end a system of
illegally jailing people because they couldn't pay court fines.

The lawsuit was filed by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit
civil rights group Equal Justice Under Law and the Roderick and
Solange MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi
School of Law.  Jackson municipal judges ordered each of the seven
plaintiffs jailed because they were unable to pay fines and fees
imposed in misdemeanor cases.  All owed at least $1,200.

People sent to jail under the previous system received credit
toward their unpaid debts at a rate of $25 per day of
incarceration at the Hinds County Jail or $58 per day if they
participated in a work program at the Hinds County Penal Farm.  As
a result, some people spent several months in jail while working
off their debts.

Under the June 20 settlement, the city agreed to give indigent
defenders the choice of paying their fines at the rate of $25 per
month or performing community service and getting a credit toward
their debt at the rate of $9 per hour.

In addition, the city has agreed to prohibit the use of secured
money bail and requiring that all misdemeanor defendants be
released upon their written agreement to appear for court hearings
and to abide by specified conditions of pre-trial release.  As an
alternative to money bond, the city's judges will have the option
to place nonmonetary pre-trial conditions on people arrested for
misdemeanor offenses.  For example, a judge might order someone
accused of shoplifting to stay away from the affected location
until the case is resolved.

The plaintiffs also will have their debts to the city forgiven and
will get settlement payments totaling $128,400.

"No human being should be kept in a cage because she cannot make a
monetary payment," said Alec Karakatsanis, co-founder of Equal
Justice Under Law.  "The Constitution forbids it, and communities
across the country are finally beginning to end the scourge of
debtors' prisons and money bail."

Jackson Mayor Tony Yarber, in a statement on June 20, said the
city "is committed to fair treatment of all its citizens."

"Please know that no crime will go unpunished.  All misdemeanors
will be strictly enforced, and fines indeed will be paid. . . .
This settlement protects the indigent with an inability to pay
their fines, which will be determined during court proceedings.
The settlement also is reflective of changing policies across the
nation.  The City of Jackson remains committed to prosecuting all
crime within its boundaries to the highest degree.  It's a new day
in the City of Jackson," the statement said.

"The processes and procedures adopted by the Capital City pursuant
to our agreement are a model for the rest of the state," said
Cliff Johnson, director of the MacArthur Justice Center.  "It is
our hope that cities and counties throughout Mississippi will
adopt these same practices rather than continuing to jail poor
folks unjustly and forcing us to file lawsuits seeking millions of
dollars in damages."

Similar suits have been filed in Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri.
All accuse court systems of ignoring U.S. Supreme Court decisions
that say courts must determine whether people have the ability to
pay fines before jailing them for nonpayment.

Last year, Equal Justice Under Law and the MacArthur Justice
Center negotiated a settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit
against Moss Point, Mississippi, that brought an end to the use of
money bail in misdemeanor cases prosecuted there.

A pending federal lawsuit in New Orleans accused the city's
criminal court judges of running what amounts to a debtors' prison
by jailing poor people who can't afford to pay court fees.


KBK SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Decertify "Chambliss" Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Peterson of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied KBK Services
Inc.'s motion to decertify plaintiffs' FLSA collective action in
the case captioned, PAMELA CHAMBLISS, et. al, Plaintiffs, v.
CAREFIRST, INC, et. al., Defendants, Case No. RDB-15-2288 (W.D.
Wis.).

Plaintiffs Andrew Ricard and Tim Mackay accuse their former
employer, KBK Services, of underpaying employees. Plaintiffs seek
to represent a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19, and a class action under
Wisconsin wage and hour laws, Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 109.03 and
Wisconsin Administrative Code DWD Sec. 272.12.

Plaintiffs have moved to certify their proposed state-law class of
all "all KBK employees who, during the time period of April 18,
2013 and thereafter, traveled at least 90 miles from their home to
work on a KBK jobsite, and was [sic] not paid for all of their
travel time between their home and the KBK jobsite and/or did not
have all of their travel time counted as hours worked in
determining their eligibility for overtime pay."

Defendant contends that the named plaintiffs and the proposed
class are not similarly situated, precluding resolution of their
claims on a class-wide basis.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/5be2iD from Leagle.com, Judge Peterson held that
plaintiffs meet all requirements for both class certification
under Rule 23 and collective action certification under the FLSA.

Andrew Ricard and Tim Mackay are represented by:

Yingtao Ho, Esq.
PREVIANT, GOLDBERG, UELMEN, GRATZ, MILLER & BRUEGGEMAN
310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Tel: (888) 213-0123

KBK Services, Inc. is represented by Brittany L. Lopez Naleid,
Esq. -- bnaleid@reinhartlaw.com -- John H. Zawadsky, Esq. --
jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com -- and Robert S. Driscoll, Esq. --
rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com -- REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.


LANDRYS INC: "Saechao" Class Settlement Has Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court
for the Northen District of California granted plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval of a class settlement agreement in the
case captioned, MOUANG SAECHAO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDRYS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and McCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. C 15-00815 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Mouang Saechao filed the action individually and on
behalf of five classes of hourly non-exempt employees and former
employees at Spenger's Fresh Fish Grotto in Berkeley, California,
who allegedly suffered various injuries relating to meal breaks,
rest breaks, split-shift premiums, and inaccurate wage statements.

Throughout the case, including after the certification of the
class, the parties engaged in extensive class-wide discovery,
including several requests for production of documents,
interrogatories, and requests for admissions. Defendant produced
more than 65,000 pages of documents and tens of thousands of lines
of data. The parties met and conferred regarding discovery on
various occasions, resulting in amendments and supplementation of
responses and one discovery dispute (later withdrawn). Both sides
deposed numerous witnesses. Plaintiff also retained an economics
expert who conducted a damages study and produced a report based
on payroll records, timesheets, paystubs, and employee schedules.

Following class certification, the parties negotiated extensively
before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero including attending three
settlement conferences that ultimately resulted in the instant
classwide settlement agreement. Plaintiff moves for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement
contemplates an incentive payment of $500 to Saechao for her
efforts, and class counsel intend to seek $150,000 in attorney's
fees and $50,000 in costs.

In his Order dated May 25, 2016 available at  https://is.gd/iVdkLJ
from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup granted preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement agreement and approved the proposed form of
notice which will administered by the settlement administrator,
Simpluris, Inc.

The proposed settlement is not contingent on approval of the
anticipated motion for attorney's fees and costs or the incentive
payment. The Court ordered Plaintiff must file a separate motion
for attorney's fees and costs at the final approval stage.

Mouang Saechao is represented by Katharine Chao, Esq. --
kathy@chaolegal.com -- CHAO LEGAL

Plaintiff is also represented by:

Cari Ann Cohorn, Esq.
COHORN LAW
101 California St., Suite 2710
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415)993-9005

McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp. is represented by Aaron
Nathan Colby, Esq. -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Tracy Thompson, Esq.
-- tracythompson@dwt.com -- Nicholas Anthony Murray, Esq. --
nicolasmurray@dwt.com -- Janet Lynn Grumer, Esq. --
janetgrumer@dwt.com -- and Evelyn F. Wang, Esq. --
evelynwang@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP


LANDSCAPE GROUP: "Wilch" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WILCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE LANDSCAPE GROUP, INC., and FRANK
C. SCHAFFER, SR., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01951-CAP (N.D.
Ga., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all overtime hours
worked at a rate of time and one-half the required regular rate
-- inclusive of all compensation not excludable from the regular
rate calculation under applicable law -- for all hours worked
above 40 in a work week, and failing to pay Plaintiff and the
Similarly Situated Individuals all overtime compensation owed on a
timely basis.

Landscape Group is a full service landscape company offering Lawn
Maintenance programs with weed prevention and fertilizing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Jerilyn E. Gardner, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1170 Howell Mill Rd, NW, Suite 305
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 924 4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796 7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  jgardner@headlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Dawson Morton, Esq.
          DAWSON MORTON, LLC
          104 Cambridge Ave
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 590 1295
          Facsimile: (404) 377 7637
          E-mail: dawson@dawsonmorton.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Court Narrows Claims in Suit by LCD TV Buyers
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Michael Vazquez of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendant LG
Electronics USA's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action
Complaint in the case captioned, WILLIAM EBERHART, Plaintiff, v.
LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-1761 (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff, William Eberhart, bought a 60 inch LG 60LB5200
television at a Walmart near his home in Toms River, New Jersey.
The essence of Plaintiffs complaint is that LG deceives consumers
as to the refresh rates for its televisions. Television consumers
perceive motion on a television screen by observing a display of
numerous still images in rapid succession.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 9, 2015, seeking to
represent a class of purchasers of LG LCD televisions from March
1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs complaint contained the
following counts: (1) violations of the New Jersey Consumer fraud
Act (CFA), N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 56:8-2; (2) breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing; (3) common law fraud; (4)
negligent misrepresentation; (5) breach of express warranty; and
(6) unjust enrichment.

LG filed a motion seeking to dismiss all six counts of the
Complaint on May 21, 2015. On December 30, 2015, Judge Arleo
granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Judge Arleo
dismissed Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim with prejudice and
the remaining five counts were dismissed without prejudice,
providing Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff
filed his Amended Complaint on January 15, 2016, asserting causes
of action under the CFA, common law fraud, and negligent
misrepresentation.

In the motion, Defendant seeks for the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint in its entirety. LG argues for dismissal
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In his Opinion dated May 24, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/x8K9Es from Leagle.com, Judge Vazquez dismissed
Plaintiff's CFA claim because Plaintiff does not provide a
practical means to justify the ascertainable loss and negligent
misrepresentation claim because LG had no duty to disclose facts
to Plaintiff and denied  as to LG's motion to dismiss as to the
fraud claim rejecting LG's argument that the inclusion of these
articles negates Plaintiffs reasonable reliance.

William Eberhart is represented by Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. --
AWF@chimicles.com -- and Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. --
BenJohns@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP and Benjamin
David Elga, Esq. -- belga@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
LLP

LG Electronics USA, Inc. is represented by John B. Kearney, Esq.
-- kearneyj@ballardspahr.com -- and Christopher Neal Tomlin, Esq.
-- tomlinc@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP


LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE: Court Favors Stay of Action Over Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, LANISA KELLY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00126-TWP-DML
(S.D. Ind.).

Instead, the court stayed petitioner's "offset" class claim
pending resolution of both the state court action and a previously
filed Kennedy lawsuit. The court likewise reiterated that "when
prudence calls for putting a redundant suit on hold, it must be
stayed rather than dismissed unless there is no possibility of
prejudice to the plaintiff."

LANISA KELLY, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Grabhorn --
a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com -- GRABHORN LAW OFFICE PLLC & Michael
D. Grabhorn -- mdg@grabhornlaw.com -- GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC.

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
Bart A. Karwath -- bart.karwath@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG
LLP, Jennifer Tudor Wright -- jennifer.tudor@btlaw.com -- BARNES &
THORNBURG LLP & John M. Scannapieco --
jscannapieco@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, pro hac vice.

A copy of Judge Pratt's June 2 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/3szqDpfrom Leagle.com.


LOUISIANA CLEANING: Court Trims Claims in Misclassification Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER FRENCH, v. LOUISIANA CLEANING
SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., Case 2:16-cv-00277-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.), Hon.
Jay C. Zainey granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  The motions are denied as to French's FLSA
wage claim pertaining to the two weeks of mandatory training and
denied as to the state law statutory wage claim. The motions are
granted in all other respects.

French's motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action
is denied. French's motion to strike is denied.

Defendant The Scott Fetzer Company d/b/a The Kirby Company
manufactures "Kirby" brand home cleaning systems and vacuums.
Kirby does not sell its vacuum cleaning systems directly to
consumers; rather, Kirby sells the systems to independent
distributors, who in turn retain sales forces of Independent
Dealers to sell systems to customers.

Defendant Louisiana Cleaning Systems, Inc., which is located in
Kenner, Louisiana and owned by defendant Charles Nugent, is one
such distributor.

Plaintiff Christopher French was an Independent Dealer/Kirby
vacuum salesman for two weeks in November-December 2014.  The crux
of French's complaint is that he was wrongfully characterized as
an independent contractor when he should have been considered an
"employee." French seeks to represent an FLSA collective class of
Kirby/LCS "employees" who were denied both wages and overtime pay
under federal law. French also asserts a plethora of supplemental
state law claims.

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


MDL 1566: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada granted motion to reconsider and
motions for summary judgment, and denied motions to dismiss in the
case captioned, In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litigation. ARANDELL CORP. et al., Plaintiffs, v. XCEL
ENERGY INC. et al., Defendants. REORGANIZED FLI, INC., Plaintiff,
v. WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. et al., Defendants, MDL No. 1566, No.
2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL., 2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL, 2:05-cv-01331-RCJ-
PAL (D. Nev.).

The consolidated cases arise out of the energy crisis of 2000-
2002. Plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) allege that
Defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price of natural
gas by reporting false information to price indices published by
trade publications and engaging in wash sales.

In 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
transferred seven class action cases from various districts in
California to this District under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 as
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro
to preside. In 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several summary
judgment orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt
state law anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin- and
Missouri-based Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack
of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as
to preemption under the Natural Gas Act and affirmed. The case was
soon thereafter reassigned to the District of Nevada when Judge
Pro retired. The Court granted three motions to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs Briggs & Stratton Corp. and Carthage College
(collectively, Movants) ask the Court to reconsider its dismissals
of Defendants Reliant Energy, Inc. (New Reliant), CMS Energy Corp.
(CMS), and Cantera Gas Co. (Cantera)  arguing that Defendants
failed to note in their previous motion that Movants were not yet
parties to the case when Judge Pro granted the previous motions to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants in two of
the actions have separately moved for summary judgment.

In his Order dated May 24, 2016 available at https://is.gd/z9NaU2
from Leagle.com, Judge Jones found that the allegations concerning
personal jurisdiction over Defendants in Wisconsin are sufficient.
As to CES's motion for summary judgment the Court found that it is
not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient
to support a verdict under section 133.03(1) and as to Oneok's
summary judgment, the court found that notice to the class had
been sufficient and that the settlements were fair and reasonable,
and Oneok provides evidence that the claims administrator mailed
both notices to Farmland's agent.

Plaintiffs are represented by Amy Irene Washburn, Esq. --
awashburn@kmksc.com -- and Melinda Anne Bialzik, Esq. --
mbialzik@kmksc.com -- KOHNER, MANN & KAILAS, Susan G. Kupfer, Esq.
-- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- and Sylvie K. Kern, Esq. --
skern@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, Michael John
Miguel, Esq. -- mmiguel@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- MCKOOL SMITH
HENNIGAN PC, Nitin Reddy, Esq. -- nreddy@sidley.com -- SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP -- and Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. --
oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK
Aquila, Inc. is represented by Khai LeQuang, Esq. -- and William
Molinski, Esq. -- wmolinski@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE, LLP, Martin M. Loring, Esq. -- BLACKWELL, SANDERS,
PEPER, MARTIN, Bradley C. Weber, Esq. -- Bweber@lockelord.com --
LOCKE LORD LLP -- and Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. --
oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK
Cantera Natural Gas, Inc. and CMS Energy Resources are represented
by Mark E. Haddad, Esq. -- mhaddad@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN
LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Esq. -- LOCKE LORD LLP -- and Orrin L.
Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST
JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK


MDL 1827: HannStar Must Pay $2MM for Plaintiffs' Legal Costs
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Master File No. 07-MD-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827, Case No. 10-CV-4572
(N.D. Cal.), District Judge Susan Illston ordered judgment in
favor of plaintiffs Best Buy Co., Inc.; Best Buy Purchasing LLC;
Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc.; Best Buy Stores, L.P.;
Bestbuy.com, L.L.C.; and Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., to recover
attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $2,037,011.22 against
the defendant HannStar Display Corporation.

A copy of the Court's June 6, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/ooENQIfrom Leagle.com.

HannStar Display Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau -- cnedeau@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP,
Jerome Cary Roth -- Jerome.Roth@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Belinda S Lee -- belinda.lee@lw.com --  Latham & Watkins,
Daniel Murray Wall, Latham & Watkins LLP, Elizabeth Ann Gillen --
egillen@ftc.gov -- Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, Harrison J.
Frahn, IV, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, James Glenn Kreissman --
jkreissman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP, Jason
Matthew Bussey -- jbussey@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thatcher and
Barlett LLP, Jerry Chen, Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP & Melissa
Derr Schmidt, Simpson Thatcher and Bartlett LLP.


MDL 2159: JPML Rejects Plaintiff's Move to Vacate Order
-------------------------------------------------------
An order to transfer the case, LOZACRUZ v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, C.A.
No. 8:16-00049 (C.D. Cal.), to MDL No. 2159 is sustained after the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denies plaintiff
Lozacruz's request to be excluded from the existing MDL, IN RE:
AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2159.

District Judge Sarah S. Vance, who penned the Panel's decision,
said Lozacruz and the MDL actions share allegations and,
therefore, will share discovery concerning AutoZone's employment
policies and practices in California.

Judge Vance further ordered that the Lozacruz action will be
transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer
for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

A copy of the JPML's June 2, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/nh9sxjfrom Leagle.com.


MDL 2185: Court Narrows Issues in Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas granted in part
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment in its entirety in the case captioned,
In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation. This document relates to:
In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation (federal securities class
action), Case No. 4:10-MD-2185 (S.D. Tex.).

The Deepwater Horizon, an off-shore drilling rig leased by BP,
exploded around 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 20th, 2010, resulting
in the deaths of eleven workers and a catastrophic oil spill. In
the days and weeks following the explosion, scientists at BP,
several independent contractors, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association (NOAA) employed methodologies to estimate
the rate at which oil was leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.

Plaintiffs argue that BP publicly misrepresented the range of its
internal flow-rate estimates on four different occasions, causing
the market to conclude that the oil spill would be relatively
small, when in fact BP's internal estimates suggested that the
flow rate (and, by extension, the ultimate size of the spill) was
far more severe than BP publicly represented. Plaintiffs bring
their claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss
Plaintiffs' case in its entirety. Plaintiffs have filed a motion
for partial summary judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law
with respect to the elements of falsity and scienter.

In his Memorandum and Order dated June 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/vRK5mQ from Leagle.com, Judge Ellison denied summary
judgment in favor of the Defendants holding that Plaintiffs have
established that there is a genuine dispute of material fact with
respect to: the falsity and scienter of Suttles's statements on
April 24th, April 28th, and April 29th; loss causation for the
decline in value of BP ADS on April 29th and May 3rd; and damages
for the decline in value of BP ADS on April 29th and May 3rd; and
granted to the extent that Plaintiffs' claims rely on the decline
in value of BP ADS on May 10, June 1, June 9, or June 14 because
Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence that his
alleged misrepresentation proximately caused Plaintiffs' loss.

Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in its entirety because
their evidence is insufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of
law in their favor.

Robert Ludlow Is Represented by Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. --
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. --
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- Matthew K. Edling, Esq. --
medling@cpmlegal.com -- Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. --
nfineman@cpmlegal.com -- and Victor S.  Elias, Esq. --
velias@cpmlegal.com -- COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP, Richard
Warren Mithoff, Jr., Esq. -- rmithoff@mithofflaw.com -- MITHOFF
LAW FIRM, Hester H. Cheng, Esq. -- hcnguyen@garciagurney.com --
GARCIA & GURNEY, ALC

Alan R. Higgs is represented by Ana M. Cabassa, Esq. --
acabassa@zsz.com -- Robert S. Schachter, Esq. --
rschachter@zsz.com -- and Sona R. Shah, Esq. -- sshah@zsz.com --
ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, Anthony Chu, Esq. --
anthonychu888@gmail.com -- and  Don K. Ledgard --
DLedgard@capretz.com -- CAPRETZ & ASSOCIATES -- and Mary K. Blasy,
Esq. -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Johnson Investment Counsel Inc. is represented by Dianne M. Nast,
Esq. -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NAST LAW LLC, Richard J. Arsenault,
Esq. -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- NEBLETT BEARD ET AL -- and
Wilbert B. Markovits, Esq. -- bmarkovits@msdlegal.com --
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC

BP PLC is represented by Robert Mike Brock, Esq. Kristopher S.
Ritter, Esq. -- kristopher.ritter@kirkland.com -- and Scott W.
Fowkes, Esq. -- scott.fowkes@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP,
Thomas W. Taylor,  Esq. -- ttaylor@andrewskurth.com -- ANDREWS AND
KURTH, Daryl A. Libow, Esq. -- libowd@sullcrom.com --Diane Lee
McGimsey, Esq. -- mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com --  Marc De Leeuw, Esq.
Richard C Pepperman, II, Esq. -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, George
Denegre, Jr., Esq. John C. Anjier, Esq. -- jcanjier@liskow.com --
and Russell Keith Jarrett,  Esq. -- rkjarrett@liskow.com -- LISKOW
LEWIS, Lois O. Rosenbaum, Esq. -- laura.rosenbaum@stoel.com --
STOEL RIVES LLP,  Morgan D. Hodgson, Esq. -- mhodgson@steptoe.com
-- and  Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr.,  Esq. -- pondrasik@steptoe.com --
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP -- and Frances Floriano Goins, Esq. --
fgoins@ulmer.com -- and  Isaac J. Eddington,  Esq. --
ieddington@ulmer.com -- ULMER & BERNE


MDL 2591: Certification of 9 Corn Producer Classes Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek class certification, or in the alternative, for
certification of an issue class in the lawsuit In Re: Syngenta AG
MIR162 Corn Litigation (MDL No: 2591), Case No. 2:14-md-02591-JWL-
JPO (D. Kan.)

Specifically, they ask the Court to certify these classes:

     (1) the Nationwide Corn Producer Class, asserting a claim
under the Lanham Act;

     (2) the Arkansas State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims
under the Lanham Act, for common law negligence, and for tortious
interference;

     (3) the Illinois State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims
under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, and for common law negligence;

     (4) the Iowa State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims
under the Lanham Act and for common law negligence;

     (5) the Kansas State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims
under the Lanham Act and for common law negligence;

     (6) the Missouri State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims
under the Lanham Act, for common law negligence, and for tortious
interference;

     (7) the Nebraska State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims
under the Lanham Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, and
for common law negligence;

     (8) the Ohio State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims
under the Lanham Act and for common law negligence; and

     (9) the South Dakota State Corn Producers Class, asserting
claims under the Lanham Act and for common law negligence.

The Plaintiffs further seek to appoint as Class Counsel, Don M.
Downing, Patrick J. Stueve, Scott Powell, and William Chaney.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ay8JzdsT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714 7100
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5620
          E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com

               - and -

          William B. Chaney
          GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C.
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 320 6031
          E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com

               - and -

          Scott Powell, Esq.
          HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
          2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328 5330
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com


MDL 2617: Court Rules on Dismissal Bids
---------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted, in part, the Anthem
Defendants' motion to dismiss, granted in part the Non-Anthem
Defendants' motion to dismiss, and denied the Non-Anthem
Defendants' motion for clarification in the case captioned, IN RE
ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK
(N.D. Cal.).

In February 2015, Anthem publicly announced that "cyberattackers
had breached the Anthem Database, and had accessed the PII of
individuals in the Anthem Database." Plaintiffs bring the putative
class action against Anthem, Inc., 27 Anthem affiliates, Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association, and 14 non-Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield Companies.

The Court refers to Anthem, Inc. and the Anthem affiliates as the
"Anthem Defendants," and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and
the non-Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Companies as the "Non-Anthem
Defendants."

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not sufficiently heed these
warnings, which allowed cyberattackers to extract massive amounts
of data from Anthem's database between December 2014 and January
2015. In general, these lawsuits bring putative class action
claims alleging (1) failure to adequately protect Anthem's data
systems, (2) failure to disclose to customers that Anthem did not
have adequate security practices, and (3) failure to timely notify
customers of the data breach.

The Anthem Defendants filed one consolidated motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint (SAC). The Non-Anthem
Defendants also filed one consolidated motion to dismiss the SAC.
The Non-Anthem Defendants have also filed a motion for
clarification of the Court's First Motion to Dismiss Order.

In her Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xRj3D1
from Leagle.com, Judge Hogue granted with prejudice:

     -- the Anthem Defendants' motion to dismiss the California
breach of contract claim as to Plaintiffs Daniel Randrup, Kelly
Tharp, and Daniel Tharp,

     -- the Non-Anthem Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
request for Benefit of the Bargain Losses under the New Jersey
breach of contract claim,

     -- Defendants' motions to dismiss the California Unfair
Competition Law claim as to the unlawful prong as that prong
relates to the California Insurance Information and Privacy
Protection Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act,

     -- Defendants' motions to dismiss the California Unfair
Competition Law claim as to the fraud prong as that prong relates
to a misrepresentation theory of liability,

     -- Defendants' motions to dismiss the New York General
Business Law Sec. 349 as to Plaintiff Marne Onderdonk, and

     -- the Anthem Defendants' motion to dismiss the Georgia
Information and Privacy Protect Act claim.

The Court granted with no leave to amend Defendants' motions to
dismiss the New York unjust enrichment claim as to Plaintiff Marne
Onderdonk.

Loralee Giotta and Laura Fowles are represented by Eve Hedy
Cervantez, Esq. -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- ALTSHULER
BERZON LLP, Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. -- jkravec@fdpklaw.com --
Thomas Payne, Esq. -- wpayne@fdpklaw.com -- and Wyatt A. Lison,
Esq. -- wlison@fdpklaw.com -- FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC,
Nicole Diane Sugnet, Esq. -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER
HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP -- and Stephen Francis Yunker, Esq. --
YUNKER & SCHNEIDER, WILLIAM

Danny Juliano is represented by Donald W. Stewart, Esq. --
donaldstewart5354@yahoo.com -- dstewart@altshulerberson.com -- and
Eve Hedy Cervantez, Esq. -- ecervantez@alrshulerberzon.com --
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP, Greg William Foster, Esq. -- and -- T. Dylan
Reeves, Esq. -- STEWART & STEWART PC, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Esq. --
nsugnet@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

Anthem, Inc. is represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Esq. --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Michael McDonald Maddigan, Esq. -
- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Allison Marie Holt, Esq. --
allison.holt@hoganlovells.com -- and Craig H. Smith, Esq. --
craig.smith@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Alexandria
J. Reyes, Esq. -- and Chad R. Fuller, Esq. -- TROUTMAN SANDERS
LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford, Esq. --
cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com -- Lucile Hartley Cohen, Esq.
-- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Mark A. Stafford, Esq. --
mark.stafford@nelsonmullins.com -- and John Derrick Martin, Esq.
-- john.martin@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY
SCARBOROUGH LLP, Cavender C Kimble, Esq. -- ckimble@balch.com --
BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Christopher W. Brooker, Esq. --
cbrooker@wyattfirm.com -- and Gregory Haynes, Esq. --
ghaynes@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS LLP, Geraldine G.
Sanchez, Esq. -- gsanchez@rhrsb.com -- ROACH HEWITT RUPRECHT
SANCHEZ & BISCHOFF, P.C., Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Esq. --
gvwhitaker@vorys.com -- VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE -- and Matthew
H. Geelan, Esq. -- Mgeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- DONAHUE, DURHAM &
NOONAN, P.C.


MDL 2710: JPML Finds Centralization of 19 Cases Unnecessary
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: COMCAST CORP. EMPLOYEE WAGE AND HOUR
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2710, the Hon. Sarah S.
Vance, Panel Chair of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, is not convinced with the motion by
plaintiffs in 19 lawsuits seeking centralization of their actions
in the Northern District of California.

The litigation consists of 19 actions that pose the question of
whether California Comcast technicians were properly compensated
for meal and rest breaks while on call. Comcast defendants support
centralization in the Northern District of California.

The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary to serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation.

A copy of the JPML's June 2, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/R81miufrom Leagle.com.


MDL 2715: JPML Sees No Need to Centralize Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
A four-judge member of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation denied a motion by plaintiffs Winn-Dixie
Stores, Inc., et al. for centralization of actions in the case, IN
RE: FRESH DAIRY PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III), MDL No.
2715.

The order denying the transfer of four actions in the Southern
District of Illinois was based largely on the grounds that (1)
there were, as a practical matter, only two actions in two
districts, given that the California actions had been
consolidated; (2) the California actions were brought on behalf of
indirect purchasers, whereas the action outside of California was
a direct purchaser action; and (3) informal coordination and
cooperation appeared practicable, especially in light of the small
number of actions.

A copy of the JPML order dated June 2, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/lQdeGPfrom Leagle.com.

Winn-Dixie is a plaintiff in the case, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., ET
AL. v. SOUTHEAST MILK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-01143 (M.D.
Fla.).

The cases pending in the Southern District of Illinois are:

     -- FIRST IMPRESSIONS SALON, INC. v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS
        FEDERATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:13-00454

     -- BELLE FOODS TRUST, ET AL. v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS
        FEDERATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-01014

     -- PIGGLY WIGGLY MIDWEST, LLC, ET AL. v. NATIONAL MILK
        PRODUCERS FEDERATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-00750


MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: "Pedro" Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California sent the case
captioned, NINA PEDRO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-05253-MMC (N.D. Cal.), to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

Plaintiffs Nina Pedro and Rosalind Lewis are residents of
California and Washington, respectively, who seek to represent a
class comprised of consumers in the United States who purchased,
"within two years before the date this suit was filed, any of the
kombucha products manufactured by defendants."

Defendant Millennium Products, Inc. manufactures "two separate
lines of kombucha," the "Enlightened" line, marketed "as
containing less than 0.5% alcohol," and the "Classic" line,
marketed "as containing in excess of 0.5% alcohol." Defendant GT
Dave is the founder and chief executive officer of Millennium
Products, Inc. Defendant Whole Foods sells Millennium Products,
Inc.'s kombucha to consumers.

The Fourth Amended Complaint asserts, as against Millennium
products, Inc. and Whole Foods, these four causes of action: (1)
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2)
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), (3)
violation of the California False Advertising Law, and (4)
violation of the New York Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

In the motion, Millennium argues that the Court should stay or
transfer the action pursuant to the "first-to-file rule."
Alternatively, Millennium argues that the Court should grant a
stay pursuant to its "inherent power to manage its own docket."

In her Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/biTQzc
from Leagle.com, Judge Chesney denied to the extent Millennium
seeks a stay of the action and granted to the extent Millennium
seeks a transfer of the action.

Nina Pedro and Roseline Lewis are represented by Joshua Haakon
Watson, Esq. -- jwatson@justice4you.com -- and Clayeo C. Arnold,
Esq. -- ccacorp@aol.com -- CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
CORPORATION

Millennium Products, Inc. is represented by Scott Michael Voelz,
Esq. -- svoelz@omm.com -- and Daniel James Faria, Esq. --
dfaria@omm.com -- OMELVENY MYERS LLP

Whole Foods Market California, Inc. is represented by James
Mitchell Lee, Esq. -- james.lee@ltlattorneys.com -- David
Alexander Crane, Esq. -- david.crane@ltlattorneys.com -- and
Joedat Hani Tuffaha, Esq. -- joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL
ATTORNEYS LLP


MICHIGAN: Huron Valley Male Corrections Officers File Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that it's not
just female corrections officers who are being discriminated
against at Michigan's only women's prison, according to those
pressing a class action on behalf of male corrections officers at
Women's Huron Valley prison.

On June 13, the U.S. Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit
against the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging the
department discriminates against female corrections officers at
the prison near Ypsilanti by designating too many positions as
"women only."  As a result, officials "required female employees
at Huron Valley to work excessive overtime hours at a cost to
their health," the suit alleges.

There's a flip side to that claim, said Tom Nowacki, a corrections
officer at Women's Huron Valley since 2004 and the lead plaintiff
in a class action by about 90 current and former male corrections
officers at the facility: men have been unfairly excluded from
certain jobs and denied overtime opportunities.

"The women are forced to work mandatory overtime while the men are
sent home, simply because of our gender," Mr. Nowacki told the
Free Press on June 17.

James Fett, a Pinckney attorney representing Mr. Nowacki and the
other plaintiffs, said the Justice Department's action strengthens
his case, which was filed in Washtenaw County Circuit Court in
2011 and also is being litigated in the Michigan Court of Claims
and the Michigan Court of Appeals.

"The state is now looking down a double-barreled shotgun, instead
of just a single-barreled shotgun," Mr. Fett said on June 17.
"Both the DOJ and my legal team are singing from the same song
book."

Andrea Bitely, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office,
which is representing the Corrections Department in the case,
declined to comment.  And Chris Gautz, a spokesman for the
Corrections Department, declined to comment.

The department banned male corrections officers from working most
jobs at Women's Huron Valley in response to multimillion-dollar
2008 jury awards related to sexual abuse of female inmates by male
corrections officers at other women's prisons in Michigan, which
are no longer open.

Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility houses about 2,200
inmates.  The prison also has been in the news due to complaints
from inmates about overcrowding.

"Male correctional staff do not want to work in the residential
units," but they've been unfairly excluded from jobs in the gym,
food services, schools, and gate control, among others,
Mr. Nowacki said.

Though Mr. Nowacki and the other lawsuit members played no part in
the abuses that led to the successful lawsuits by female inmates,
"the administration has been treating us like we're a bunch of
convicted sex offenders," Mr. Nowacki said.

In March, the department moved to soften its "women's only"
policy, opening up to male corrections officers certain jobs in
food services, the gym, the infirmary, the property room, schools
and yard control, according to a letter sent to the Michigan Civil
Service Commission.

But Mr. Fett said "there are far more changes that need to be
made," and the March changes were only an unsuccessful "attempt to
appease the DOJ, so they wouldn't file a suit."

The suit has already survived appeals of its certification as a
class action, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals and which
the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear.

The department transferred the non-monetary claims, such as
requests for injunctions, to the Michigan Court of Claims.
Mr. Fett said the plaintiffs have offered to withdraw those non-
monetary claims so they can have a circuit court trial related to
damages.  But the department, through the Attorney General's
Office, is fighting the plaintiffs' attempt to abandon those
claims, in the Court of Appeals, saying the action could legally
prejudice the department.

In an April court filing, Mr. Fett accused the state of "repeated
delay tactics."


MICROSOFT INC: Pro-Sys Permitted to Subpoena Former Apple Exec
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
permission to issue a subpoena to depose Jean-Louis Gassee in
connection with an antitrust proceeding between Pro and Microsoft
in the case captioned, IN RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PRO-SYS
CONSULTANTS AND NEIL GODFREY, Case No. 16-MC-80118-JSC (N.D.
Cal.).

Pro-Sys Consultants and Neil Godfrey are the plaintiffs in a
certified class action now pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada. Pro alleges that Microsoft
engaged in anticompetitive conduct globally with respect to the
markets for operating systems, middleware, and applications
software from 1988 to the present. Microsoft denies the
allegations.

Pro filed an ex parte application to take discovery pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1782 seeking to subpoena Gassee, former executive at
Apple Computer, and the founder of Be, Inc. and creator of the
BeOS operating system. Pro argues that Mr. Gassee possesses first-
hand knowledge of the effect of Microsoft's restrictive Original
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) licensing practices on Be, BeOS, and
the operating systems software market more generally.

Pro filed the pending application on May 27, 2016. It asks the
Court to appoint Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., as Commissioner and
authorize him with the power to issue a subpoena for deposition
testimony on Mr. Gassee.

In her Order dated June 3, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XyjuK4
from Leagle.com, Judge Corley determined that Pro's application
satisfies the minimum requirements of Section 1782 and appointed
Gralewski, Jr., as Commissioner and authorized him to serve the
proposed deposition subpoena on Mr. Gassee.

In re Ex Parte Application of Pro-Sys Consultants & Neil Godfrey
is represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. --
bgralewski@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP


NANOSPHERE INC: "Beveridge" Suit Enjoins Merger with Luminex
------------------------------------------------------------
JO-ANNE BEVERIDGE, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NANOSPHERE, INC., MICHAEL K.
MCGARRITY, LORIN J. RANDALL, GENE CARTWRIGHT, ERIK HOLMLIN,
MICHAEL J. WARD, KRISTOPHER A. WOOD, LUMINEX CORPORATION, and
COMMODORE ACQUISITION, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-
07896 (Ill. Cir. Ct, June 13, 2016), seeks to enjoin the merger
between Nanosphere and Luminex Corporation and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Commodore Acquisition, Inc.

On May 15, 2016, the Board caused Nanosphere to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Luminex. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of Nanosphere will receive
$1.35 per share in cash.

The complaint says the proposed transaction is the product of a
flawed process and deprives Nanosphere's public stockholders of
the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects.
Furthermore, in approving the Merger Agreement, the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and
the Class. Moreover, as alleged herein, Nanosphere and Luminex
aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties.

Nanosphere provides targeted molecular diagnostic tests that can
lead to earlier disease detection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
          SALAS WANG LLC
          73 West Monroe, Suite 219
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 803 4963
          E-mail: jsalas@salaswang.com

               - 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


NAT'L HOCKEY: Two Ex-Sabres Players Join Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Vogl, writing for The Buffalo News, reports that ex-Sabres
Rob Ray and Mike Hartman are among the 104 former players who have
filed a lawsuit against the NHL claiming the league was negligent
in its care and fraudulently concealed the long-term risks of head
injuries.

Mr. Hartman, according to the lawsuit, suffers from a variety of
post-concussion symptoms, including headaches, memory loss and
sleep problems.  Mr. Stevenson is on permanent disability due to
anxiety, depression, speech problems, a lack of concentration and
comprehension, difficulty sleeping and memory loss.

The retired players are seeking medical monitoring and
compensatory damages from the NHL.

"The problem is their cognitive health is deteriorating at a rapid
rate, much more than the average citizen," Charles "Bucky"
Zimmerman, founding partner of a law firm representing the
players, said by phone.  "It's because they played the sport. It's
because they took a lot of hits and a lot of banging, and now
they're paying the price."

The plaintiffs include longtime NHLers like Bernie Nicholls, who
scored 475 goals in 1,127 games, and guys like Mr. Stevenson, who
totaled two assists in 27 appearances.  There are 16 former
Sabres.  Much like the overall group, some are well-known while
others appeared in Buffalo just long enough to get toll money for
their next stop.

Along with Mr. Hartman, the ex-Sabres are Shawn Anderson, Doug
Barrie, Mal Davis, Richie Dunn, Jim Hofford, Edward "Dean"
Kennedy, Reed Larson, Grant Ledyard, Gary McAdam, Craig Muni, Jeff
Parker, Steve Patrick, Mike Robitaille, Morris Titanic and the
late Steve Montador, who is being represented by his father, Paul.

According to the lawsuit, many of them have had problems as a
result of concussions and subconcussive hits:

   -- Anderson, the No. 5 overall pick by Buffalo in the 1986 NHL
Draft, was driven to substance abuse.  He entered a substance
abuse program after his last game in 1995 and has been sober for
20 years.

   -- Barrie, a member of the original 1970-71 Sabres, suffers
from mood swings, depression, alcohol abuse, headaches, anxiety
and temper-control issues.

   -- Davis, who played in Buffalo and Rochester from 1981 to
1986, suffers anxiety attacks, dizziness, disorientation, memory
loss, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), mood swings, problems with
impulse control, concentration difficulties, sleep disorder and
cognitive deficits.

   -- Hofford, who played 17 games for the Sabres in the mid-
1980s, has depression, anxiety, irritability and difficulty
concentrating.  He says the conditions negatively affected his
personal relationships.

   -- Ledyard, an 18-year veteran who spent parts of five seasons
in Buffalo, has had headaches, mood swings, sensitivity to light
and depression while losing his temper for little or no reason.

   -- Muni, who spent three of his 16 seasons with the Sabres,
suffers from depression, short temper and mood swings.

   -- Titanic, who played his 19 NHL games with Buffalo in the
mid-1970s, has memory loss, tinnitus, post-traumatic headaches and
cognitive deficit.

How many other former Sabres are hurting?

"More than you can imagine," said Mr. Ray, the hockey pugilist
turned broadcaster who serves as president of the Buffalo Sabres
Alumni Association.  "The help isn't there for the guys when
they're done. Yeah, there's concussions, but I think in the big
picture a lot of guys are to the point where things need to be
fixed, all because of the game, and there's nobody there to help
them.

"A lot of the guys are getting to that age now where things that
they had fixed playing -- whether it was a knee, shoulder, teeth,
whatever -- it's fixed at that time.  But 30, 40, 50 years down
the road when it starts falling apart again or things fall apart
due to what you did, you're on your own dime.  That's the part
that's hard, and that's the part that most guys look at."

The first small group of retired players filed suit against the
NHL in November 2013.  The timing created backlash.  The NFL had
settled its lawsuit with former players just three months earlier,
and the payout was $765 million.  The immediate perception was
hockey players were merely looking to cash in.

Mr. Ledyard heard those rumblings.  He followed the proceedings
through news stories and conversations with players and lawyers.
The longtime defenseman learned the primary purpose was to get
help for players in need, so he joined in November 2015.

"I hesitated to join the lawsuit for a long time because people
were calling it a money grab," Ledyard said.  "No one ever said
anything about money to me.  It was never mentioned that way. For
a couple years, I listened to information that was coming out from
both sides, and I just felt like it was being straightened out
more.  People were starting to understand through not only some of
the experiences of players in hockey but also from football.

"I'm just hoping this is a situation where some of the older guys,
much older than myself, can get taken care of and get a little bit
of peace in their old age."

Mr. Ledyard was an NHL Players' Association union representative
in Buffalo and other cities.  He says his longtime desire to work
for his hockey brothers prompted him to join.  Mr. Nicholls,
slated to serve as a class representative, has said the same
thing.

But of the thousands and thousands of retired players, why have
only 104 joined the lawsuit? There are three main reasons:

   -- The NHL hires its own.

The staff directories for the 30 teams are filled with former
players.  Once guys hang up their skates, they slide into
scouting, coaching or broadcasting jobs.

"It's hard to go and sue your team," Mr. Ray said.  "A lot of guys
don't join because they're still involved in the game."

   -- Hockey comes with acknowledged risks.

Since its inception, the NHL has been a league where toughness is
valued as much as skill.  Players signed up knowing that fights,
hits and physical play were part of the job.  Mr. Ray's minor-
league coaches in Rochester told him the best path to Buffalo was
to fight and fight some more.  So he did, throwing and absorbing
more punches than nearly everyone in NHL history.

   -- Lawyers approached him about joining the lawsuit, but he
declined.

"Sometimes you take the notion that you kind of know what you're
getting into," Ray said.  "I know you're young and dumb and you do
a lot of things, and you don't think about things sometimes.  I
know a lot of guys are affected by it, but I think if you would
have asked any of them at that time that there's this chance" of
long-term injury, "they'd all say, 'Screw it, let's roll the
dice.' "

   -- The lawsuit doesn't need any more players.

The next major step in the case, being heard in U.S. District
Court in Minnesota, is a motion for class certification in
September.  If Judge Susan Richard Nelson rules the case should
become a class-action lawsuit, then the plaintiffs will represent
all retired players, not just the ones who signed up.

"The definition includes everyone who played," Mr. Zimmerman said
from his law office in Minneapolis.  "It really isn't necessary
that other people file lawsuits because the lawsuit is proceeding
on behalf of the class representatives.  There's no vote. There's
no critical mass that's necessary.  The case is proceeding, and
most of the players know about it."

Mr. Zimmerman, who also represented NFL players in their lawsuit,
said the potential retired player pool is 4,500 to 5,000. By
comparison, the NFL pool included more than 20,000 former players.

"A lot of people are on the sidelines just waiting to see what
happens and hoping that they can participate as class members,"
Mr. Zimmerman said.  "The heroes of this case are the players that
are in this and trying to help their brethren.  For the most part,
these are players that played the game hard, left a lot of the
best times of their lives on the ice, and now toward the end or
middle of their life, they're trying to help the guys that played
with them.

"It's that group of people that we're vigorously trying to find a
remedy for because many of them -- many, many of them, more than
you can imagine -- have been significantly impaired and their
lives are really on a very downward trajectory.  We're trying to
do something to help them and their families navigate through
these difficult times."


NATIONAL MILK: Case Management Conference Continued to Aug. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION et al., Defendants, Case No.
11-CV-04766-JSW (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Jeffrey S. White of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied the parties' stipulated request to vacate the
case management conference set for June 17, 2016. However, the
Court continues the case management conference to August 26, 2016
at 11:000 a.m. A joint case management statement is due August 19,
2016.  A copy of the Court's June 13 order is available at
https://is.gd/vKbjok from Leagle.com.

In an earlier ruling, dated May 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/gWLVB4 from Leagle.com, Judge White ordered that the
status conference set for at 11:00 a.m. June 3, 2016, be continued
to June 17, 2016, with a further joint status conference report
due by June 10, 2016.

The parties in the case participated in mediation on January 16,
2015, before the Hon. Layn R. Phillips, but were unable to resolve
the case at that time. The parties recently had another mediation
session before the Hon. Layn R. Phillips on May 16, 2016. The
mediation did not result in an agreement.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
adjudication, and Defendants filed a motion for decertification, a
Daubert motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert, and a motion for
summary judgment.

Danell Tomasella, et al. are represented by Sara Payne, Esq. --
spayne@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- and -- Jason S. Kilene, Esq. --
jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, Steven N.
Berk, Esq. -- steven@berklawdc.com -- BERK LAW PLLC, Shpetim
Ademi, Esq. -- sademi@ademilaw.com -- ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP,
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
-- and Mark Reinhardt, Esq. -- m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com --
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD, Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

National Milk Producers Federation is represented by Dylan Ruga,
Esq. -- dylan@stalwartlaw.com -- John J. Kavanagh, III, Esq. -
john@steptoe.com -- and Kenneth P. Ewing, Esq. -
kenneth@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. is represented by Jesse William
Markham, Esq. -- JMarkham@bakerandmiller.com -- Amber L. McDonald,
Esq. -- AMcDonald@bakerandmiller.com -- Ishai Zvi Mooreville, Esq.
-- IMooreville@bakerandmiller.com -- W. Todd Miller, Esq. --
TMiller@bakerandmiller.com -- BAKER & MILLER PLLC, Carl R. Metz,
Esq. -- and Steven R. Kuney, Esq. -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP


NAVISTAR INT'L: October 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CONSTRUCTION WORKERS PENSION
TRUST FUND - LAKE COUNTY AND
VICINITY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.



NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, DANIEL C. USTIAN,
ANDREW J. CEDEROTH, and JACK
ALLEN,

Defendants.

     Civ. No. 1:13-cv-2111
     CLASS ACTION


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED COMMON
STOCK OF NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ("NAVISTAR" OR THE
"COMPANY") (TICKER SYMBOL: NAV) BETWEEN March 10, 2010 and
August 1, 2012, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed Settlement has been
reached in this Action.  A hearing will be held with respect to
the Settlement on October 25, 2016, at 10:30 A.M. before the
Honorable Sara L. Ellis at the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, United States Courthouse, 219
South Dearborn Street, Courtroom 1403, Chicago, IL 60604.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things,
whether the proposed Settlement of the securities class action
claims asserted in this Action, pursuant to which Navistar, on
behalf of all Defendants, will cause to be deposited into a
Settlement Fund the sum of nine million one hundred thousand
dollars ($9,100,000.00) in exchange for the dismissal of the
Action with prejudice and a release of claims against the
Defendants and other Released Parties, should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of
the Class.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Navistar common
stock (ticker symbol: NAV) during the Class Period, you may be
entitled to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund if
you submit a Proof of Claim Form no later than
September 16, 2016, and if the information and documentation you
provide in that Proof of Claim Form establishes that you are
entitled to a recovery.

This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding
the Action and the Settlement.  A detailed notice (the "Notice")
describing the Action, the proposed Settlement, and the rights of
Class Members to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing, to
request to be excluded from the Class, and/or to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known
to be potential Class Members.  You may obtain a copy of that
Notice, a Proof of Claim Form, or other information at
www.NavistarSecuritiesSettlement.com or by writing to the
following address or calling the following telephone number.

Navistar Securities Settlement
P.O. Box 4540
Portland, OR 97208-4540
(844) 778-5949

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses,
or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written
objection in accordance with the procedures described in the
Notice.  The objection must be filed and served so that it is
received no later than October 7, 2016.  You also have the right
to exclude yourself from the Class by submitting a written request
for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the procedures
described in the Notice.  The request for exclusion must be
received no later than October 7, 2016.  If the Settlement is
approved by the Court, you will be bound by the Settlement and the
Court's Judgment, including the releases provided for in the
Settlement and Judgment, unless you submit a request to be
excluded.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed
Notice referenced above and a Proof of Claim Form, may be made to
Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff:

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312) 357-0370
Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

Dated: June 9, 2016
By Order of the Court,

United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois


NEGVEST LIMITED: Faces "Torecchio" Suit Under FLSA, NJ Wage Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW TORECCHIO, Plaintiff, v. NEGVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, dba
FIVE GUYS, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-03517 (D.N.J., June 17, 2016),
seeks recovery against Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or manages a restaurant, which
served customers and purchased products throughout New Jersey and
throughout the tri state area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
     Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
     JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: (201) 687-9977
     Fax: (201) 595-0308
     E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


OLD DOMINION: "Blanco" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under Wage Order
------------------------------------------------------------
ISSAC BLANCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., and DOES l-100, the Defendants,
Case No. RG16819118 (Cal. Super. Ct, June 13, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendant allegedly failed to comply with Wage Order by
failing to maintain time records and showing hourly piece rate
compensation, and did not compensate its drivers and/or industrial
truck workers on a piece rate basis that is determined based upon
the particular route and/or load.

Old Dominion is a trucking company in California engaged in
transportation services for new and used vehicles from
manufacturing plants, ports, railhead, and/or auctions, to retail
dealerships.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048


ORLEANS PARISH: Court Granted Class Certification in "Yarls" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. James J. Brady entered an order in the class action lawsuit
styled Darwin Yarls, Jr., Leroy Shaw, Jr. and Douglas R. Brown on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Derwyn Bunton, in his official capacity as Chief
District Defender for Orleans Parish, Louisiana; James T. Dixon,
Jr., in his official capacity as Louisiana State Public Defender,
the Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00031-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.), granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Class is defined as Orleans Parish arrestees with a right to
appointed counsel who have been or will be denied counsel
indefinitely, or for a critical stage of their representation, due
to their placement on a waiting list for representation by the
Orleans Public Defender.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BvJo2zvo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J. Buskey, Esq.
          Ezekiel Edwards, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          Criminal Law Reform Project
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-284 7364
          E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org
                  eedwards@aclu.org

               - and -

          Candice C. Sirmon, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF LOUISIANA
          P.O. Box 56157
          New Orleans, La 70156
          Telephone: (504) 522 0628
          Facsimile: (888) 534 2995
          E-mail: csirmon@laaclu.org

               - and -

          William P. Quigley, Esq.
          COLLEGE OF LAW
          Loyola University New Orleans
          7214 St. Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70118


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Court Allows PAGA Claimants to File Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
a California corporation, et al., Debtors, Case No. 16-10882
(LSS)(Jointly Administered)(Bankr. D. Del.), Judge Laurie Selber
Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware granted in part and denied, in part, the motion of the
class and California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA) claimants for leave to file class proof of claim.

By the motion, Charles Pfeiffer and Tamaree Beeney sought
permission to file proofs of claim in a representative capacity.

First, Judge Silverstein concluded that there is no need to
approve any claims brought under the PAGA.  Second, the Judge
certified the following:

          Class: All hourly, non-exempt employees of PacSun
          working in retail locations in the State of California
          from March 18, 2007 through the 181st day prior to the
          filing of the bankruptcy petition concerning Ms.
          Beeney's claims for:

          (a) failing to authorize and permit employees to take
              duty-free breaks every four hours or major fraction
              thereof and to compensate employees therefor; and

          (b) requiring employees to undergo security checks and
              perform closing duties off-the-clock without
              compensation.

A full-text copy of Judge Silverstein's June 22, 2016 order is
available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb16-10882-487.pdf.

                    About Pacific Sunwear of California

Founded in 1982 in Newport Beach, California, as a surf shop,
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., operates in the teen and
young adult retail sector, selling men's and womens apparel,
accessories, and footwear.  The Company went public in 1993
(NASDAQ: PSUN), and peaked with 965 stores in 2006.  At present,
the Company has approximately 593 retail locations nationwide
under the names "Pacific Sunwear" and "PacSun," which stores are
principally in mall locations.  The Company has 2,000 full-time
workers. Through its ecommerce business, the Company operates an
e-commerce site at http://www.pacsun.com/

On April 7, 2016, Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., and two
affiliated debtors each filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  The cases are
jointly administered under Case No. 16-10882 and are pending
before the Honorable Laurie Selber Silverstein.

The Debtors sought Chapter 11 protection with a Chapter 11 plan
that would convert debt into equity.

The Debtors tapped Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, and Klee,
Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP as attorneys; FTI Consulting, Inc.,
as financial advisor; Guggenheim Securities, LLC, as investment
banker; and Prime Clerk LLC as claims and noticing agent.


PARKINSON'S SPECIALTY CARE: Settlement in "Ketty" Has Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Davis of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota granted Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Collective Action Settlement in the
case captioned, JOISY MBULI EPSE KETTY, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. PARKINSON'S
SPECIALTY CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-04849 (MJD/JSM) (D.
Minn.).

Plaintiff filed the action against Defendant alleging (1) failure
to pay premium pay of at least one and one-half times the regular
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court conditionally
certified a class of "All individuals who worked for Defendant as
Certified Nursing Assistants and who worked a total of more than
40 hours in two or more of Defendant's locations in one or more
workweeks at any of its locations between November 25, 2012 and
November 24, 2014. "

Settlement Class Members who opted into the FLSA collection action
on or before April 18, 2016, are awarded with a total of
$37,541.79.

A copy of the Court's Order dated May 27, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/wZDC0w from Leagle.com.

Joisy Mbuli Epse Ketty is represented by Cassie C. Navarro, Esq.
Joni M. Thome, Esq. -- jthome@baillonthome.com -- and Shawn J.
Wanta, Esq. -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK &
WANTA LLP

Parkinson's Specialty Care, LLC is represented by William J. Egan,
Esq. -- wjeganiii@gmail.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP.


PEAK SECURITY: Court Denies Motion for Protective Order
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York denied the motion for a
protective order and denied the request to invalidate the opt-out
requests in the case captioned, PAUL CHIME, Individually and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEAK
SECURITY PLUS, INC. and EMMANUEL OSULA, Jointly and Severally,
Defendants, Case No. 13 Civ. 470 (AMD) (PK)(E.D.N.Y.).

In November of 2015, following the Court's decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss and granting conditional
certification of the collective action and class certification of
the NYLL claims, the letter notice of the litigation was mailed to
more than five hundred potential class members. Of that number, 55
people submitted class exclusion requests, and 26 people opted-in
to the FLSA collective action. The opt-in and opt-out notices were
electronically filed with the court between December of 2015 and
February of 2016.

In January of 2016, the plaintiff wrote to Magistrate Judge Peggy
Kuo, again seeking a protective order under Rule 23(d) to prohibit
the defendants and their agents from contacting the class and
collective action members about the litigation, and requesting an
order invalidating the exclusion requests. Judge Kuo denied the
plaintiff's motion because she found that the only evidence of
coercion was the large number of uniform exclusion requests mailed
at the same time.

On June 1, 2016, the plaintiff moved, pursuant to Rule 23(d), for
a protective order prohibiting the individual defendant, Emmanuel
Osula, and his agents from directly or indirectly contacting any
class or collective action member, and sought an order
invalidating 55 exclusion requests.

In her Memorandum and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/rhn3Yx from Leagle.com, Judge Donnelly held that the
plaintiff did not introduce sufficient evidence from which I could
infer that the defendants or their agents interfered with the
class members. Moreover, no individual has been identified as the
caller, making it impossible to fashion an order.

Paul Chime is represented by Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. --
danalgottlieb@aol.com -- GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES and Douglas Brian
Lipsky, Esq. -- dl@bronsonlipsky.com -- BRONSON LIPSKY LLP

Peak Security Plus, Inc. and Emmanuel Osula are represented by:

Raymond Nardo, Esq.
RAYMOND NARDO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
129 3rd St
Mineola, NY 11501
Tel: (516)248-2121


PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Smokers Lose Appeal in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court on June 20
rejected an appeal from Illinois smokers who sought reinstatement
of a $10.1 billion class-action judgment in a long-running lawsuit
against Philip Morris.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place an Illinois
Supreme Court ruling in favor of the cigarette maker.  The smokers
objected to the participation of state Supreme Court Justice Lloyd
Karmeier, who they said benefited from tobacco money in his
retention election.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Illinois
smokers, was one of the nation's first to accuse a tobacco company
of consumer fraud.  Known as Price v. Phillip Morris, the lawsuit
claimed that Philip Morris deceptively marketed "light" and "low-
tar" Marlboro cigarettes as a healthier alternative.  The federal
government now bars cigarette makers from labeling their products
with such terms.

"The action by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ends this case
once and for all," Murray Garnick, an attorney and spokesman for
Philip Morris' parent company, Altria Group Inc., said in a
statement.

"Losing any case after 17 years of intense litigation is obviously
disappointing," Stephen Tillery, a St. Louis-based lawyer for the
plaintiffs, said in a statement.  "But all of us who represented
the plaintiffs in 'Price' feel that the case was socially
significant and brought into public view facts that needed to be
revealed."

The Illinois Supreme Court first overturned the 2003 judgment in
2005.  The plaintiffs eventually revived their lawsuit, and in
2014, a state appeals court reinstated the original verdict.  But
the state Supreme Court overturned that ruling last November in a
4-2 vote.

The case led to aggressive efforts by the plaintiffs' attorneys to
oust Justice Karmeier, whom they accused of being biased in ruling
to overturn the judgment against Philip Morris and another $1.2
billion judgment against State Farm Insurance due to donations his
2004 campaign received from big business.

Justice  Karmeier, who declined to step aside and has denied
receiving direct contributions from Philip Morris, won a November
2014 retention election.  Plaintiffs' attorneys and law firms
spent more than $1 million fighting Justice Karmeier's re-election
through a political action committee.


PJS OF PARMA: Court Denies Class Certification in "Carter" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case captioned, Carol Carter, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. PJS of Parma, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:15 CV 1545 (N.D. Ohio).

Defendants PJS of Parma, Inc. and Lorraine Stancato (defendants)
own and operate Stancato's Italian Restaurant, which maintains a
dining room and also engages in off-site catering. Defendants
employ dining room servers to work the lunch and dinner shifts in
the dining room and banquet servers to work banquets and off-site
catering events.

Plaintiffs who worked as banquet servers for the defendants
dispute that banquet servers received all of the additional tips
left by the customer and allege that defendants kept a portion of
the tips for themselves. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants'
policy was that newly hired banquet servers were not allowed to
receive additional tips for the first five banquet events that
they worked.

Plaintiffs move to certify a class of "all Banquet Servers who
worked for Defendants for any period of time since August 5, 2011"
on their unjust enrichment claim. Plaintiffs allege that members
of the class were the intended recipients of the additional tips
and gratuities and that defendants were unjustly enriched when
they retained the tips.

Defendants oppose plaintiffs' motion, arguing that plaintiffs'
class definition is inadequate.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/XI1Cw0 from Leagle.com, Judge Gaughan concluded
that the plaintiffs did not meet the requisite of class
certification pursuant to Rule 23(b).

Carol Carter, et al. are represented by:

Alix Noureddine, Esq.
Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
VOUDRIS LAW, LLC
Winbury Professional Center
8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
Tel: (440) 543-0670

PJS of Parma, Inc. and Lorraine Stancato are represented by Brian
E. Ambrosia, Esq. -- bambrosia@taftlaw.com -- and William J.
Stavole, Esq. -- wstavole@taftlaw.com -- TAFT, STETTINIUS &
HOLLISTER


POLSKIE LINIE: Must Defend Suit Over Delayed Flights
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part
Lotnicze LOT S.A.'s (LOT) motion to dismiss and rejected LOT's
proposal to deny class certification in the case captioned, IRYNA
DOCHAK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POLSKIE LINIE LOTNICZE LOT S.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 15 C 4344 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs are a group of individuals who purchased airline
tickets from Defendant LOT and arrived at their destination later
than scheduled due to delayed or cancelled flights. They filed the
Complaint asserting individual claims as well as 11 claims as a
class that seek relief for: delay or cancellation of international
airfare in violation of Article 19 of the Convention for
International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) (Count One);
breach of contract for violations of Articles 19 and 22 of the
Montreal Convention (Count Two); breach of contract for violations
of Article 6 of European Union Regulation 261 (EU 261) (Counts
Three, Seven, and Ten); breach of contract for violations of
Article 9 of EU 261 (Counts Four and Eight); breach of contract
for violations of Article 14 of EU 261 (Count Five); violations of
Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (Count Six); breach of
contract for international airfare (Count Nine); and breach of
contract for violations of Articles 5, 7, 9, and 14 of EU 261 and
Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (Count Eleven).

LOT filed a motion to dismiss the claims related to violations of
the Montreal Convention and EU 261 under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. LOT also argues that the Court should not certify
Plaintiffs as a putative class under Rule 23. For the reasons
given below, the Court grants LOT's motion to dismiss Counts
Three, Four, Five, Seven, Eight, Ten, Eleven, and any individual
claims without prejudice to the extent they seek redress for
breach of contract due to violations of EU 261.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/22xPTG from Leagle.com, Judge Kendall granted
LOT's motion to dismiss Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven,
Eight, Ten, Eleven, and any individual claims for relief without
prejudice to the extent that they seek redress for breach of
contract under EU 261 because the provisions of the Conditions of
Carriage quoted in the Complaint, with no other evidence of
incorporation, fall short of plausibly establishing the requisite
"clear and specific" intent to incorporate Articles 6 and 7 of EU
261 into the Conditions of Carriage.

The Court denied LOT's Motion to dismiss as to Counts One, Two,
Six, and Eleven and individual claims for redress under the
Montreal Convention because all of which constitute economic
compensatory damages that can be recovered under Article 29.

The Court declined to consider LOT's arguments with respect to
class certification because they are improper for the motion to
dismiss phase.

Iryna Dochak, et al. are represented by:

Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF VLADIMIR M. GOROKHOVSKY
6045 N. Greenbay Ave
Glendale, WI 53092
Tel: (414)581-1582

Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A. is represented by Anthony U.
Battista, Esq. -- abattista@condonlaw.com  -- and -- Christopher
R. Christensen, Esq. -- cchristensen@condonlaw.com -- CONDON &
FORSYTH LLP -- and  Brent R. Austin, Esq. --
baustin@eimerstahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP


POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted Poseidon Concepts
Corp.'s (Poseidon) and Poseidon's auditor KMPG LLP's (Canada)
(KPMG) motion to dismiss in the case captioned, IN RE POSEIDON
CONCEPTS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 13CV1213 (DLC)
(S.D.N.Y.).

This is a securities class action brought against certain
directors and officers of Poseidon Concepts Corp. and Poseidon's
auditor KMPG LLP pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4 (PSLRA), on behalf of investors
who bought Poseidon stock in the United States. Poseidon was a
Canadian company whose stock traded both on the Toronto Stock
Exchange and over-the-counter in the United States.

The claims against KPMG arise solely from two statements made in
KPMG's audit report for Poseidon's 2011 annual financial
statements (the 2011 Audit Report). These statements are that (1)
in KPMG's opinion, the financial statements fairly presented
Poseidon's financial position in accordance with International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS); and (2) KPMG conducted its
audit in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Auditing
Standards (Canadian GAAS).

The Third Amended Complaint (TAC) asserts two causes of action:
(1) that KPMG and the Individual Defendants committed fraud in
violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5; and (2) that the
Individual Defendants are liable as control persons under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In the motion, KPMG seeks dismissal of the Sec. 10(b) claim
against it on the following four grounds: (1) that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over KPMG; (2) that the district is an
improper venue; (3) the forum non conveniens doctrine; and (4)
that the TAC does not state a claim against KPMG.

In her Opinion and Order dated May 24, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/xGV61Q from Leagle.com, Judge Cote found that the
Lead Plaintiff has not shown that any of these factors required
any change to KPMG's audit procedures under Canadian GAAS and does
not bring a claim for failure to correct, and in fact eliminated
such a claim when he amended his complaint.

Gerald Kolar is represented by Jonathan Richard Horne, Esq. --
jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- and Phillip C. Kim, Esq. --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. -- and Timothy
William Brown, Esq. -- lbrown@leebrownlaw.com -- THE BROWN LAW
FIRM

Tony J. Trunkel is represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. -
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP

Defendants are represented by Paul Thomas Curley, Esq. --
pcurley@kbrlaw.com -- KAUFMAN, BORGEEST & RYAN, LLP -- and Patrick
Stoltz, Esq. -- pstoltz@lcbf.com -- LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD
PC

KPMG LLP (Canada) is represented by John F. Hartmann, Esq. --
john.hartmann@kirkland.com -- Joshua Z. Rabinovitz, Esq. --
joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com -- and Nathaniel Jacob Kritzer,
Esq. -- nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP


PREMIER NUTRITION: Bid to Expand Consumer Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied a request to
represent a larger class of consumers in the case captioned,
VINCENT D. MULLINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PREMIER NUTRITION
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-01271-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Kathie Sonner represents a class of California consumers
who purchased Joint Juice, a drinkable glucosamine hydrochloride
and chondroitin sulfate supplement. She has sought to expand those
classes to include members: (1) who purchased Joint Juice in all
50 states or, in the alternative, (2) who purchased the product in
ten specific states.

Premier contends Minnesota's consumer protection statute conflicts
with the California's Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act because it (1) requires proof of reliance, and
(2) demands an individualized examination of evidence rebutting
the presumption of reliance. Premier points out that Florida and
Michigan do not affirmatively permit plaintiffs to recover
punitive damages.

In his Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mf1Kkq
from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that Premier has carried its
burden to show that California's interest in applying its law to
the consumers in the specific ten states is weak. Sonner's
proposed ten-state class is therefore not appropriate under the
facts and circumstances of the case.

Vincent D. Mullins is represented by Joseph Jeremy Siprut, Esq.
-- jsiprut@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC, Timothy G. Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- and Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST O'REARDON LLP, Adam J. Levitt,
Esq. -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., Todd David
Carpenter, Esq. -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH
SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP

Kathie Sonner is represented by Timothy G. Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- and --- Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST O'REARDON LLP

Premier Nutrition Corporation, formerly known as Joint Juice, Inc.
is represented by Angel A. Garganta, Esq. - aagarganta@Venable.com
-- VENABLE LLP

Premier Nutrition Corporation is represented by Anton A. Ware,
Esq. -- anton.ware@aporter.com -- Jonathan L. Koenig, Esq. --
jonathan.koenig@aporter.com -- and Trenton Herbert Norris, Esq.
-- trent.norris@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Daniel Scott
Blynn, Esq. Guido Emerson Toscano, Esq. -- dsblynn@Venable.com --
getoscano@Venable.com -- and Jessica L. Grant, Esq. --
jgrant@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: FLSA Case Settlement Has Preliminary Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California Court granted preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement agreement in the consolidated
action captioned, SAMUEL BRANDON KRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:08-CV-00965
TLN/AC (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Lac Anh Le originally filed her class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California on October 26, 2007, captioned Le v.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2:07-cv-05476-MMC (N.D. Cal.),
alleging violation by Defendant of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. (FLSA), and state
labor laws on behalf of herself and those similarly situated.

Plaintiff Samuel Brandon Kress, along with Jeffery LaBerge and
Willow Markham, originally filed suit in California Superior
Court, Los Angeles County on January 18, 2008, alleging violation
of state labor laws on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated.

On or about August 14, 2008, the separate Le and Kress cases were
consolidated to form Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, United
States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No.
2:08-cv-00965-TLN-AC (the Consolidated Action). By Order dated
November 25, 2009, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which is
defined as all persons employed by PwC in the United States who,
at any time during the period of December 11, 2005, to April 5,
2010: (a) worked as Associates in the Attest Division of PwC's
Assurance Line of Service; (b) were not licensed as certified
public accountants for some or all of the period they worked in
the position; and (c) were classified as exempt employees while
working in the position.

The Parties engaged in private mediation before Mark S. Rudy on
April 10, 2015, which process resulted in a signed Memorandum of
Understanding, dated April 10, 2015, and the Settlement Agreement
and Release, dated December 21, 2015.  The Class Representatives
and Class Counsel believe that the case is meritorious and that
FLSA conditional certification was and continues to be appropriate
in connection with these four FLSA classes.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ITdEQg from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley held that
plaintiffs meet all requirements for both class certification
under Rule 23 and collective action certification under the FLSA.

The Court appointed Plaintiff Lac Anh Le as Class Representative
of the FLSA Attest Associate Class, Plaintiff Dana Blindbury as
Class Representative of the FLSA TPDG Associate Class, Plaintiff
Jason Patterson as Class Representative of the FLSA TVM Associate
Class and Plaintiffs Lauren Barry San Mateo and Kelly Jones as
Class Representatives of the FLSA DAI Associate Class.

Peter A. Muhic and Monique Myatt Galloway from the firm Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, William Baird from the firm Marlin &
Saltzman LLP, and Edward Wynne from the firm Wynne Law Firm as
Class Counsel for the Settlement and ILYM Group, Inc. as
Settlement Administrator.

Samuel Brandon Kress, Jeffrey LaBerge, Willow Markham , Lac Anh
Le, Jason Patterson, Lauren Barry, James Stekelberg , Samuel
Brandon, Dana Blindbury, Jesse Kenne , Kelly C. Jones and Ricardo
Ochoa represented by Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq. --
mgalloway@ktmc.com -- James Maro, Esq. -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- and
Peter A. Muhic, Esq. -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &
CHECK, LLP, Daria D. Carlson, Esq. -- dcarlson@mzclaw.com -- and -
- Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq. -- jcompton@mzclaw.com -- MARKUN ZUSMAN
& COMPTON LLP, Edward Joseph Wynne, Esq. --
ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- WYNNE LAW FIRM, Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
-- mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com -- Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. --
ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- William Anthony Baird, Esq. --
tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com  -- and  Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
-- kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com -- MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP

They are also represented by:

Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHL & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
2125 Oak Grove Rd Ste 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Tel: (925)945-0200

PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP is represented by Alexander Kosta
Mircheff, Esq. -- amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- Julian Wing-Kai
Poon, Esq. -- apoon@gibsondunn.com -- Michele Leigh Maryott, Esq.
-- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- and Lauren J. Elliot, Esq. --
lelliot@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Joseph C.
Liburt, Esq. -- jliburt@orrick.com -- Julie A. Totten, Esq. --
jatotten@orrick.com -- Lynne C. Hermle, Esq. --
lchermle@orrick.com  -- and  Norman C. Hile, Esq. --
nhile@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Sept. 8 Case Management Conference Set
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that a Case Management
Conference shall be held on September 8 in the case of ROBERT
GALANG, Plaintiff, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03016-PJH, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the
order is available at http://goo.gl/i9dI2C.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9, parties are required to file a
joint case management statement addressing each of the items
listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern
District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement," as
attached in the order and which can also be found on the court's
website. Following the conference, the court will enter its own
Case Management and Pretrial Order.

Robert Galang, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Borondia Grabarsky
-- sgrabarsky@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw, Frank N. Darras --
frank@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw, Lissa Anne Martinez --
lmartinez@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw & Phillip Sinclair Bather --
pbather@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw.


ROBERT DERING: Oviedo Hernandez Suit Has Conditional Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs'
Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and Class Notice under
29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) in the case captioned, JOSE DE JESUS OVIEDO
HERNANDEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT DERING CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-176 (S.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs Jose de Jesus Oviedo Hernandez, Donaciano Nieto,
Lorenzo Vega, Javier Santillan, and Jose Leonel Hernandez
Henriques, on behalf of themselves an all others similarly
situated (Plaintiffs), filed the action against Defendant,
Defendant Robert Dering Construction, LLC (RDC), under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), alleging that
RDC misclassified its laborers as independent contractors and
failed to pay its nonexempt employees at the federally mandated
minimum wage and overtime rates.

Plaintiffs allege that during the relevant statutory period that
they worked for RDC as laborers, that they and other similarly
situated laborers were misclassified as independent contractors
and typically worked in excess of forty hours a week, but were not
paid overtime and/or minimum wages. Plaintiffs allege that instead
of paying overtime wages, RDC paid straight time wages without
overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty hours per
workweek. Plaintiffs allege that during the relevant statutory
period that they worked for RDC as laborers, that they and other
similarly situated laborers were misclassified as independent
contractors and typically worked in excess of forty hours a week,
but were not paid overtime and/or minimum wages. Plaintiffs allege
that instead of paying overtime wages, RDC paid straight time
wages without overtime compensation for all hours worked over
forty hours per workweek.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for
conditional class certification seeking to certify the class.
Plaintiffs' motion asks the Court to (1) conditionally certify
this action for purposes of notice; (2) order that a judicially
approved notice be sent to all Putative Class Members; (3) order
RDC to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the potential class members'
names, addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment; and (4)
authorize a 90-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to
join the case.

RDC urges the Court to deny the pending motion for conditional
class certification because Plaintiffs should be required to meet
a heightened standard in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351
(D.N.J. 1987), and identify other aggrieved individuals who wish
to join the lawsuit because some discovery has been conducted.
Also, RDC argues that Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are
similarly situated with respect to whether they were employees of
RDC.

In his Memorandum and Order dated May 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/etvXMu from Leagle.com, Judge Hanks, Jr. concluded
that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the
first stage of the Lusardi analysis, and the matter should be
conditionally certified as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 216(b) with respect to the putative class members.

The Court gave the Plaintiffs 14 days from the receipt of
information to mail the proposed notice to the potential class
members. The opt-in period shall be 90 days from the date the
notice is mailed.

Jose de Jesus Oviedo Hernandez, Donaciano Nieto, Lorenzo Vega,
Javier Santillan and Jose Leonel Hernandez Henriques are
represented by:

Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq.
WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
1776 Yorktown Street #570
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (713)528-2936

Robert Dering Construction, LLC is represented by:

Jonathan Charles Andresen, Esq.
THE ANDRESEN FIRM PLLC
700 Louisiana St #2770
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713)335-0155


RYANAIR: CaseHub Mulls Class Action Over Hidden Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Toby Walne, writing for Aviation Pros, reports that budget
airlines are heading for a bumpy ride as lawyers plan a class
action to win refunds for millions of passengers hit by the
growing menace of hidden fees.

Legal firm CaseHub is hoping to take Ryanair to court to win at
least pounds sterling 315-million over charges.  The fightback
comes as research firm IdeaWorksCompany found that pounds sterling
26-billion was creamed off in extras -- for everything from
luggage to a pounds sterling 3 glass of water -- by 63 airlines in
2014.  The US firm estimates this so-called 'ancillary revenue'
rocketed to pounds sterling 40-billion last year.

Simultaneously, the Civil Aviation Authority is launching an
investigation into airlines amid concerns that too many passengers
are being stung by 'unfair' charges -- often levied at the last
minute.

No-frills carrier Ryanair claims it is cutting flight prices by 7
per cent this summer in a ticket war among airlines to win back
travellers put off by the recent spate of terrorist attacks.  Yet
the Irish airline fails to advertise how a quarter of the money it
rakes in does not come from tickets but its notorious ancillary
charges.  It is a lucrative strategy as Ryanair enjoyed profits of
pounds sterling 959-million in the year to March.

Ryanair is far from alone in plundering passengers' cash while
boasting of cut-price fares.  No-frills specialist Wizz Air is one
of the worst offenders, grabbing more than a third of its money
from such charges in 2014.

At Jet2, ancillary revenue accounted for 29 per cent of turnover,
while for Flybe it generated 21 per cent of turnover and for
easyJet 19 per cent.

By contrast, just 2 per cent of British Airways' turnover came
from extras.

Jay Sorensen, IdeaWorksCompany president, says: "Airlines are
increasingly using ancillary revenue as a way to cream off more
money from passengers as it enables them to look like they are
selling tickets at keen prices while boosting profits in other
ways."

Among the additional charges passengers incur is a fee for taking
bags on holiday, checking in at the airport, printing a boarding
pass and having a seat allocated.  These costs can add up to more
than the basic price of the flight.

Travel blogger Elle Croft, 31, from Wandsworth in South-West
London, says the last straw for her was when she was charged
pounds sterling 3 for a glass of water.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Preliminary Approval of "Hinkle" Deal Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff moves for Preliminary Approval of Settlement,
Conditional Class Certification and Entry of Scheduling Order, in
the class action lawsuit styled ROBIN L. HINKLE, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CASEY
JOE MATTHEWS, TIMOTHY MAY and CONNIE MAY, Husband and wife,
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois Corporation; SAFE-GUARD
PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, A Georgia limited liability company;
and JOHNNY HINKLE, the Defendants, Case 2:15-cv-13856 (S.D. W.
Virg.).

The Plaintiff requests the following:

1. That the Court enter an order preliminarily approving the
proposed Settlement Agreement, and directing the parties to carry
out their obligations pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

2. That the Court appoint Robin L. Hinkle as class representative
and appoint Jonathan R. Marshall of Bailey & Glasser LLP and
Howard M. Persinger, III, of Persinger & Persinger as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-2205
          Telephone: (304) 345 6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342 1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
                   skinney@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Howard M. Persinger III, Esq.
          PERSINGER & PERSINGER, L.C.
          101 Dickenson Street
          Williamson, WV 25661
          Telephone: (304) 235 2000
          Facsimile: (304) 235 3018
          E-mail: hmp3@persingerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Van Volkenburg, Esq.
          MCNEER, HIGHLAND, MCMUNN
          Varner, L.C.
          Post Office Box 2040
          Clarksburg, WV 26302

               - and -

          Daniel J. Konrad, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL
          611 Third Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25701


SBEEG HOLDINGS: Morgans Hotel Shareholders Sue Over Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
GENE HUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SBEEG HOLDINGS, LLC, TROUSDALE ACQUISITION SUB,
INC., THE YUCAIPA COMPANIES, LLC, HOWARD M. LORBER, ANDREW BROAD,
KENNETH E. CRUSE, JOHN DOUGHERTY, JASON T. KALISMAN, BRADFORD
NUGENT, MICHAEL E. OLSHAN, MICHELLE S. RUSSO and ADAM STEIN,
Defendants, Case No. 12479- (Ch. Del., June 17, 2016), was brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of Morgans Hotel Group Co.
over a planned acquisition by SBEEG Holdings, LLC, of its wholly-
owned subsidiary, Trousdale Transaction Sub, Inc.

SBE Entertainment Group is a privately held hospitality company
that develops, manages and operates hotels, restaurants and night
clubs.

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
     Phone: (302) 295-5310

        - and -

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Phone: (610) 667-6200


SCHERZINGER CORP: Court Tosses "Davenport" Wages Claim
------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Sandra S. Beckwith of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the
pleadings with respect to Steven Davenport's claim of fraudulent
inducement in the case captioned, Robert B. Colley, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. The
Scherzinger Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-720 (S.D.
Ohio).

Plaintiff Robert Colley's original complaint in the case asserted
claims against Scherzinger under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29
U.S.C. Sec.201 et. seq.), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
(Ohio Rev. Code 4111 et seq), and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act
(Ky. Rev. Stat. 337.020 et seq).

On December 4, 2015, Steven Davenport filed a notice of opt-in
consent to join the case as a plaintiff.

H.W. Althaus, Jr. is the President of Scherzinger, and has worked
for the company since 1979. His declaration states that
Scherzinger adopted a written complaint procedure for all its
employees. The copy signed by Davenport on August 14, 2015 is
attached as Exhibit 3 to his declaration.

Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss all claims of
the opt-in Plaintiff, Steven Davenport. Defendant argues that
Davenport signed an agreement to arbitrate any employment-related
claims he may wish to assert against Scherzinger. The motion
argues that the agreement is valid and binding, and requires the
Court to dismiss Davenport as a plaintiff.

In her Order dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/hK1szQ
from Leagle.com, Judge Beckwith found that Davenport's fraudulent
inducement allegations fail to state a plausible claim, because he
has not alleged that Scherzinger made a material false
representation of fact upon which he justifiably relied in signing
the agreement.  Davenport is dismissed as a party plaintiff from
the case. If Davenport wishes to pursue his FLSA and Ohio wage
claims, he must do so in an arbitration proceeding before the AAA
in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Robert R. Colley is represented by Basil W. Mangano, Esq. --
bmangano@bmanganolaw.com -- Joseph J. Guarino, III, Esq. -
jguarino@bmanganolaw.com -- and Ryan Keith Hymore, Esq. -
rhymore@bmanganolaw.com -- MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., LPA

Scherzinger Corporation is represented by Katharine C. Weber, Esq.
-- katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com -- and Ryan Michael Martin,
Esq. -- Ryan.Martin@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C.


SEADRILL LIMITED: Court Dismisses Securities Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion
dismiss and denied, as moot, a motion to strike in the case
captioned, In re SEADRILL LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
14 Civ. 9642 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.).

Purchasers of Seadrill Limited (Seadrill) securities bring this
putative class action lawsuit against Seadrill, its subsidiary and
their officers, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  Lead Plaintiffs Sheldon Glow; Zalman Harari, IRA; Zalman
Harari; Zalman Harari as Custodian for Solomon A. Mandel UTMA;
Aviva Harari IRA; Aviva Harari; Zalman and Aviva Harari and
Abraham S. Harari IRA; and additional named plaintiffs Jeffrey
Greenberg and Wing Lee purchased Seadrill securities.

The Complaint alleges securities fraud based on failure to
disclose the risk that significant contracts between NADL and the
Russian company Rosneft would be thwarted by international
sanctions following Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and
annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in March 2014. Plaintiffs
allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants violated the
Exchange Act by making material misrepresentations and omissions.

Defendants move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
Complaint) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 9(b),
12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA),
15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4, and to strike allegations in the Complaint
against a non-party pursuant to Rule 12(f).

In her Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/aO6PuB from Leagle.com, Judge Schofield concluded
that the Complaint does not sufficiently plead that Defendants
consciously or recklessly made false or misleading
misrepresentations or omissions. As the Complaint is dismissed,
Defendants' motion to strike allegations against non-party John
Fredriksen is denied as moot. Plaintiffs are warned, however,
that, if they move for leave to amend their complaint, they should
include only allegations that are relevant to the case.

Sheldon Glow is represented by Jonathan Richard Horne, Esq. --
jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, Esq. --
kchan@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and Phillip C. Kim, Esq. --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. -- and David Avi
Rosenfeld, Esq. -- d.rosenfeld@roselnlegal.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Harari Group is represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. --
d.rosenfeld@roselnlegal.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Seadrill Limited, et al. are represented by Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
-- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Matthew Barkan, Esq. --
matt.barkan@skadden.com -- and Scott D. Musoff, Esq. --
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP


SHADE TREES: Couples Mull Class Action Over Wedding Venue Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary McKenzie, writing for WBFF, reports that couples have come
forward ahead of a possible class-action lawsuit against Shade
Trees and Evergreens in Frederick, saying they are furious about
how the wedding venue's closure has been handled.

Frederick County shuttered the wedding venue in May for zoning
violations, leaving some couples with no venue for their weddings
and no refund for the money they paid.

The couples have hired attorney Ilona Fisher, who said she will
ask the court to open up a class action suit.  Ms. Fisher also
said she may file a complaint against Frederick County for
allowing the business to operate for years without the necessary
permits.

There could be more than 100 couples affected by the venue's
closing, Ms. Fisher said.  Adam Brill, who works with Fisher, says
the average amount each couple has lost is between four and five
thousand dollars.

The owner of the property filed an application on June 17 to
demolish two of the buildings that lack proper permits, the
Frederick County Executive's Office said.


SIEMENS MEDICAL: 9th Cir. Affirm Ruling in "Pittman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed an
order denying a motion to set aside the judgment against the
plaintiff in the case, RANDALL PITTMAN, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS DIAGNOSTICS, a
California Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 11-55967
(9th Cir.)

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying plaintiff's motion because of failure to
establish extraordinary circumstance. Likewise, Ninth Circuit
lacks jurisdiction to review plaintiff's challenges to the
district court's judgment because plaintiff did not file a timely
notice of appeal which serves as a jurisdictional requirement.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision dated June 6, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/7YqNdbfrom Leagle.com.


SIMON'S SHINE: "Perez" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE LUIS ORDONEZ PEREZ, a/k/a JORGE ORDONEZ, on behalf of
himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, the Plaintiff, v. SIMON'S SHINE SHOP, INC., and Illinois
corporation, d/b/a SIMON'S SHINE SHOP, DR. BEASLEY'S, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, THE LAFEBER GROUP, INC., an Illinois
corporation, and JAMES E. LAFEBER, an individual, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06133 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2016), seeks:

     a. Judgment in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation
found due at the rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's
regular hourly rate of pay for all hours which Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks;

     B. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of
unpaid overtime compensation found due;

     C. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing
and prosecuting this action; and

     D. Such other and further relief as this Court deems
appropriate and just.

Defendants allegedly violated federal and state overtime laws by
failing to pay Plaintiff, and other car wash and auto detailing
employees, an overtime premium when they worked more than 40 hours
in individual workweeks, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).

The Defendants provide hand car wash & detailing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
          Nicholas P. Cholis, Esq.
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 322 1100
          Facsimile: (312) 322 1106
          E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
                  ncholis@nolanwagelaw.com


SINGING RIVER: Montgomery Faces Dismissal of Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOLLY ANN MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SINGING RIVER HEALTH
SYSTEM FOUNDATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16CV17-LG-RHW
(S.D. Miss.), Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. ordered
plaintiff to show cause on or before July 1 as to why her claims
against the defendants should not be dismissed with prejudice,
pursuant to the injunction entered in a related class action
lawsuit, Jones v. Singing River Health System, et al., 1:14 cv447-
LG-RHW.

A copy of the Court's June 20 order is available at
http://goo.gl/ex03r1from Leagle.com.

Dolly Ann Montgomery, Plaintiff, represented by Gary McKay
Yarborough, Jr. -- ylf.garyyarborough@att.net -- YARBOROUGH LAW
OFFICE, PLLC.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Affirmed Commissioner's Rulings in Atkins
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Lungstrum of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas affirmed the Commissioner's final
decision denying Disability Insurance benefits (DIB) and
Supplemental Security Income benefits (SSI) under sections 216(i),
223, 1602, and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act in the
case captioned, TERESA R. ATKINS Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, Case No. 15-
1168-JWL (D. Kan.).

Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI benefits, alleging disability
beginning March 23, 2010. The Commissioner uses the familiar five-
step sequential process to evaluate a claim for disability. The
Commissioner denied Disability Insurance benefits (DIB) and
Supplemental Security Income benefits (SSI) under sections 216(i),
223, 1602, and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C.
Sections 416(i), 423, 1381a, and 1382c(a)(3)(A).

On appeal, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
denying benefits. She argues that the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) erred in his credibility determination and in deciding that
her condition does not meet the criteria of Listing 1.04A. The
Commissioner argues that the ALJ reasonably concluded that
Plaintiff's allegations of symptoms were not fully credible.

In his Memorandum and Order dated May 24, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Wt26KZ from Leagle.com, Judge Lungstrum found no
error in the ALJ's decision because the Plaintiff has not met her
burden to show medical equivalence and admittedly not met her
burden to show that her condition meets the criteria of Listing
1.04A.

Teresa R. Atkins is represented by:

Nicholas D. Purifoy, Esq.
CHAMPION DISABILITY ADVOCATES
3245 Technology Blvd
Lansing, MI 48910
Tel: (877)444-1327

Commissioner of Social Security Administration is represented by:

Brian D. Sheern, Esq.
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Tel: (202) 514-2000


SOLAR CITY: Parties' Supplemental Brief Due July 1
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAVI WHITWORTH, Plaintiff, v. SOLARCITY CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01540-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the parties to submit supplemental
briefing by July 1, as to why the Court should not stay the matter
while a decision is pending on the appeal in the case, Morris v.
Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 13-16599.

The hearing for Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration which is
currently set on June 30, 2016, is vacated.

A copy of the Court's June 20 order is available at
http://goo.gl/IVWpagfrom Leagle.com

Ravi Whitworth, Plaintiff, represented by Jahan C. Sagafi --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, Julia Rabinovich
-- jrabinovich@outtengolden.com -- Outten Golden LLP & Robert Neil
Fisher -- rfisher@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP.

SolarCity Corp., Defendant, represented by Peter David Urias --
purias@solarcity.com -- SolarCity Corporation.


SOUTH CAROLINA: To Make Reforms in Foster Care Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Post and Courier reports that by agreeing to make reforms in
foster care, the state of South Carolina is beginning a critical
process to protect its most vulnerable children -- and to remove a
shameful stain on its reputation for not having done so earlier.

And after having underfunded the Department of Social Services for
years, the Legislature has increased its allocation for the coming
year.  That's a welcome indication that lawmakers are serious
about meeting the needs of children under the care of the state.

South Carolina is under pressure because of a class action lawsuit
alleging 11 children in foster care were abused, neglected,
separated from their siblings and over-medicated.

In settling that lawsuit, DSS agreed to:

   -- Find alternatives to group homes and institutions for
children, far too many of whom were being placed there because
foster families weren't available.

   -- Reduce case loads for workers, who were handling more than
any reasonable standard would allow.

   -- Improve safety oversight.

   -- Ensure that foster children receive adequate medical care.

Yes, accomplishing these pledges will cost the state even more
money in coming years. But surely lawmakers won't quibble over
paying for the care of children who have no parents caring for
them.

Sadly, the Legislature began to make changes only after
devastating reports of children suffering and even dying while
under the care of the state.

The Post and Courier's Lauren Sausser also examined the foster
care situation in a 2015 investigation called "Warehousing our
Children."

And indeed, lawmakers passed two laws aimed at improving the
system on behalf of children in foster care.

One allows families to take in more foster children than before.
The state has a shortage of foster homes, perhaps partly because
they are paid less than foster parents in all but five other
states.  The new law is intended to get more children out of
institutions and into families, where they tend to thrive more.

Currently too many children are being institutionalized -- at a
rate higher than every other state in the country.

In March, Gov. Nikki Haley, as part of an initiative to recruit
1,500 licensed foster parents, called on families across the state
to take in foster children.

The other law allows foster parents to make independent decisions
so that the children in their care can engage in routine
activities like going on a family vacation and getting a drivers
license.  Previously, such decisions required special permission.

As DSS Director Susan Alford adds caseworkers, provides more
training and increases support for foster care parents and
staffers, the state's most helpless children will receive more and
better support.

The General Assembly is being criticized for not getting much done
this year.

But it should be commended for strengthening support for foster
children.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Cal. Judge Sends "Lewis" Case to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00749-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate
Judge Joseph C. Spero approved Defendant's Motion to Transfer
Venue, thus handing over to the Northern District of Texas the
jurisdiction to hear the case. A copy of the Court's decision
dated June 2, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/bbv3ygfrom
Leagle.com.

The district court has great discretion to adjudicate motions for
transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case
consideration of convenience and fairness, Judge Spero noted.

Plaintiff offered several arguments as to why the motion should be
denied: (1) that Southwest has a field office in the district; (2)
that plaintiff and his counsel would suffer inconvenience and
expense from transfer; (3) that his state law claims give
California a local interest in the case; and (4) that this
district has more familiarity with California laws than the
Northern District of Texas.

However, Judge Spero found that relevant considerations weigh in
favor of transfer to the Northern District of Texas: (1) that
Lewis's choice of forum is entitled to minimal deference; (2) that
convenience of the parties favors transfer; (3) that convenience
of witnesses favors transfer; (4) that ease of access to evidence
marginally favors transfer; (5) that familiarity with the
applicable law marginally disfavors transfer; (6) that
consolidation of claims is not relevant; (7) that Texas's local
interest predominates; (8) that court congestion is neutral; and
(9) that the circumstances as a whole favor transfer.

Justin Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Alice A. Kim --
alice@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal
-- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Alison S.
Hightower -- ahightower@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Gilbert
Anthony Castro -- gcastro@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC &
Rod M. Fliegel -- rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C.


SPRINT UNITED: Aug. 12 Post-Mediation Status Conference Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORA SALAMANCA, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v.
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kansas Corporation, and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-05084-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Jeffrey S. White further stayed all
proceedings in this case and set a post-mediation status
conference after finding good cause of stipulation submitted
between both parties.

Proceedings are scheduled to resume until after the completion of
the parties' mediation, while the vacated June 17, 2016 post-
mediation status conference is set for August 12, 2016 at 11:00,
a.m.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/l1Kpjnfrom Leagle.com.

Nora Salamanca, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Tuvia Korobkin --
tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Sprint/United Management Company, Defendant, represented by
Anthony J DiBenedetto -- adibenedetto@proskauer.com -- Proskauer
Rose LLP, Enzo Der Boghossian -- enzoderbo@gmail.com -- Proskauer
Rose LLP, Harold M. Brody, Proskauer Rose LLP & Keith Allyn
Goodwin -- kgoodwin@sheppardmullin.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP.


STARBUCKS CORP: Latte Underfiling Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge said two Starbucks customers may pursue a lawsuit accusing
the coffee chain of cheating patrons by underfilling lattes.

In a decision on June 17, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson in
San Francisco said the California plaintiffs may seek damages from
Starbucks Corp in their proposed nationwide class action,
including for fraud and false advertising.

Starbucks was accused of overcharging customers by systematically
serving lattes that are 25 percent too small, based on a recipe it
adopted in 2009 to save money on milk.

The plaintiffs, Siera Strumlauf of San Francisco and Benjamin
Robles of Carlsbad, said Starbucks requires baristas to use
pitchers for heating milk with etched "fill to" lines that are too
low, and to leave 1/4 inch of free space in drink cups.

They said this shorts customers because Starbucks' cups for tall,
grande and venti lattes hold exactly 12, 16 and 20 ounces.

"This is not a case where the alleged deception is simply
implausible as a matter of law," Judge Henderson wrote.  "The
court finds it probable that a significant portion of the latte-
consuming public could believe that a 'Grande' contains 16 ounces
of fluid."

Judge Henderson did not rule on the case's merits.  He dismissed
three of the plaintiffs' eight claims against Seattle-based
Starbucks, as well as their request for injunctive relief.

Starbucks spokesman Reggie Borges on June 20 said the company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and is prepared to defend
itself against the remaining claims.

He also said that if a customer is not satisfied with how a
beverage is prepared, "we will gladly remake it."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond on June 20
to requests for comment.

The case is Strumlauf et al v. Starbucks Corp, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 16-01306.


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Bower"
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff moves for Class Certification and Relief from
Memorandum, Supporting Documents, and Automatic Briefing
Requirements, in the class action lawsuit styled RHONDA BOWER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. STONELEIGH RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, and BUREAUS
INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO. 15, LLC, the Defendants, Case 2:16-
cv-00728-NJ (E.D, Wisc.)

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UUehQk2A

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          4ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


STRYDEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Badger" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge C. Darnell Jones, II United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned, CORNELIUS A.
BADGER, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. STRYDEN, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. . 2:09-CV-3619-CDJ (E.D. Pa.).

The instant suit began when Cornelius Badger filed a purported
class action Complaint against Stryden Corporation on October 1,
2009, based on allegations of race discrimination in employment.
On July 29, 2010, Mr. Badger filed an Amended Complaint naming
twelve other individuals as co-plaintiffs and adding two
additional defendants, Novos Associates, LLC and Major Logistics.
While Mr. Badger proceeded on his own behalf pro se, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Abdul-Karim, Mr. Horton, and Ms. Hemmingway, (Plaintiffs),
elected to be represented by William Coleman.

Defendant Stryden moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to
state a claim because the action is barred by: (1) res judicata,
(2) laches, (3) the statute of limitations and (4) factual
insufficiency. Defendant's Motion is supported by less than two
pages of points and authority, which focuses primarily on
Defendant's position that both Plaintiffs and their allegedly
discriminatory supervisors were in fact employed by Major
Logistics, LLC, not Defendant.

Defendant makes multiple conclusory arguments unsupported by
points and authority, but more thoroughly argues that Stryden is
not a proper Defendant because the allegations of wrongdoing
occurred under the employ of Major Logistics LLC, which is not
properly alleged to be controlled by Stryden.

In the Memorandum dated May 25, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mu1OR0 from Leagle.com, Judge Jones, II dismissed as
to Count I of the Second Amended Complaint because the facts
pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint fail to state a claim
against Stryden for race-based discrimination and in keeping with
the Court's reasoning regarding Mr. Badger and Count III of the
Second Amended Complaint because the facts pleaded in the Second
Amended Complaint fail to state a claim against Stryden for
misclassifying Plaintiffs as "independent contractors". Plaintiffs
will be permitted to proceed on Count II finding that Defendant's
argument that Plaintiffs are not within the statute of limitations
because their claims do not relate back is unavailing.

James Horton is represented by:

William T. Coleman, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM T. COLEMAN III
1999 Bascom Avenue, Suite 928
Campbell, CA 95008
Tel: (650)641-1800

Stryden, Inc. is represented by Lee C. Durivage, Esq. --
lcdurivage@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
& Stephanie K. Rawitt, Esq. -- srawitt@clarkhill.com -- CLARK HILL
THORP REED

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. is represented by Catherine Thea
Barbieri, Esq. -- cbarbieri@foxrothschild.com -- and Franz
Espanol, Esq. -- fespanol@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP


STYLES FOR LESS: $3,600,000 Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement and the
joint motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the case
captioned, ASAL SALLY MANOUCHEHRI, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STYLES FOR LESS, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, Defendant, Case No.
14CV2521 NLS (S.D. Cal.).

On October 22, 2014, Manouchehri filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging
violations of the TCPA by Styles for Less. On August 4, 2015,
another plaintiff, Pooney Mehrazar-Arzani, filed a class action in
the U.S District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging similar violations of the TCPA by Styles for Less.
Plaintiffs allege that Styles for Less, a retailor, obtained phone
numbers from its customers through its website and in its stores,
then repeatedly and intentionally sent marketing and advertising
text messages to its customers' cell phones. Plaintiffs assert
that Defendant sent them advertising and marketing text messages
using an automatic telephone dialing system without their granting
of prior consent to receiving these messages, in violation of the
TCPA and 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200.

Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of themselves "and all
others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3)," which includes "All consumers who
received a text message from styles for less from October 16,
2013, to December 15, 2015, which text message was not made for
emergency purposes, was not made by a tax-exempt nonprofit
organization, did not deliver a health care message, or was not
made with the recipient's prior express written consent."

Under the terms of the Settlement, defendant agrees to pay a
$3,600,000 Settlement Fund to satisfy awards to class members,
class representative payments, class counsel fees and litigation
expenses, and settlement administrative costs. The parties jointly
request leave to file an amended complaint adding Mehrazer-Arzani
to the action.

In her Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/nC5oPL
from Leagle.com, Judge Stormes granted preliminary approval
because the present class action Settlement Agreement satisfies
the requirements set forth by Rule 23(a) and 23(b), and provides
an adequate means of notice to absent class members and approved
the appointment of representatives and class counsel to the
action.

The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file Exhibit 2 of the James R.
Patterson declaration as the first amended class action complaint
by June 27, 2016.

Asal Sally Manouchehri is represented by James Richard Patterson,
Esq. -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC

Plaintiff is also represented by:

Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive. 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312)893-7002

Styles for Less, Inc. is represented by Jessica A. Mcelroy, Esq.
-- JMcElroy@BlankRome.com -- Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. --
ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com -- and Esteban Morales, Esq. --
EMorales@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP -- and Joshua Briones,
Esq. -- JBriones@mintz.com -- MINTZ LEVIN


SUGAR ROCK: W.Va. Court Reverses Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Robin Davis of the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed a
circuit court's award of partial summary judgment and remanded for
further proceedings the case captioned, SUGAR ROCK, INC.; GERALD
D. HALL; IAMS GAS COMPANY; IAMS OIL COMPANY; CUTRIGHT GAS COMPANY;
AND KEITH OIL COMPANY, Defendants Below, Petitioners, v. D.
MICHAEL WASHBURN; LISA A. BUZZARD; CLAIRE ROBINSON; EDWIN L. DEEM;
REA WEDEKAMM; MARY WAKEFIELD; KENNETH A. TOWNSEND; ANNA LEE
TOWNSEND WELLS; CLYDE TOWNSEND; MICHAEL RUBEL; JEROME RUBEL; KEITH
WHITE, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BERTIE C. COX; AND J.F. DEEM,
Plaintiffs Below, Respondents, Case No. 15-0124 (W. Va.).

Clifton G. Valentine initiated the litigation on November 14,
2011, in the Circuit Court of Ritchie County, West Virginia,
against Sugar Rock seeking a dissolution of the subject
partnerships, alleging them to be mining partnerships. While Mr.
Valentine was the only plaintiff named in his suit, he
specifically referenced many of the respondents herein, attempting
to obtain class action status for his litigation against Sugar
Rock. Several of these same respondents were added as plaintiffs
to the instant proceeding when the First Amended Complaint was
filed on December 1, 2011.

The remaining respondents were added as plaintiffs when the Third
Amended Complaint was filed on or about December 17, 2014. The
Third Amended Complaint also pled in the alternative, averring
that the subject partnerships were either mining partnerships or
general partnerships.

The plaintiffs filed a second motion for partial summary judgment,
requesting that certain leases be declared partnership property
and seeking a dissolution of the subject partnerships as well as
the appointment of a special receiver and a distribution company
to accomplish the dissolution. The circuit court determined that
the partnerships should be dissolved and, in doing so, determined
that certain leases were property of the partnerships.

On appeal, Sugar Rock contend that the circuit court erred by
ordering the dissolution of the parties' partnerships by refusing
to determine the precise type of partnerships at issue herein
because such a determination is essential to ascertaining the
partners thereof, the resolution of which is a necessary
prerequisite to ordering their dissolution.

In his Order dated June 3, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XeK4yT
from Leagle.com, Justice Davis found there exist genuine issues of
material fact so as to render summary disposition of the case
improper given that the crucial initial issue of the specific type
of partnerships at issue has not yet been determined, such that
the members thereof permitted to request their dissolution also
have not been established.

Sugar Rock, Inc. et al. are represented by W. Henry Lawrence, Esq.
-- wlawrence@steptoe.com -- Amy M. Smith, Esq. --
asmith@steptoe.com  -- and  William J. O'Brien, Esq. --
cobrien@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC

Washburn, et al. are represented by:

James S. Huggins, Esq.
Daniel P. Corcoran, Esq.
THEISEN BROCK
424 2nd St
Marietta, OH 45750
Tel: (740)373-5455


SWIFTSHIPS LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Panzer" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff moves for Class Certification in the class action
lawsuit styled PAUL PANZER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWIFTSHIPS, LLC,
SWIFTSHIPS SHIPBUILDERS, LLC, SWIFT GROUP, LLC, ICS NETT, INC, and
ICS MARINE, INC., the Defendants, Case 2:15-cv-02257-CJB-SS (E.D.
La).

The Plaintiff seeks certification of this class of persons:

   "Any person who applied to Defendants and did not receive a
clear and conspicuous written disclosure that a consumer report
may be obtained for employment purposes and on whom Defendants
obtained a consumer report or background check for employment
purposes for the period beginning two years prior to the filing of
the Complaint and continuing through the date the class list is
prepared."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5zAckjht

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599 5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988 6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net

               - and -

          Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
          639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 308 1438
          Facsimile: (504) 308 1446
          E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


TALMER BANCORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors of class
action against Talmer Bancorp, Inc. ("Talmer" or "the Company").
The class action has been filed in the Eastern District of
Michigan on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Talmer common stock on January 26, 2016, in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Talmer by Chemical
Financial Corporation ("Chemical").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants,
Talmer, its Board of Directors (the "Board") and Chemical, for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Talmer entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Chemical on January 25, 2016.  The Merger
Agreement in the "Proposed Acquisition" stated that Chemical would
obtain Talmer by buying all of its remaining shares at a $0.4725
per share of Chemical common stock and $1.61 in per share of
Talmer common stock.  Once stocks are purchased, Talmer would
merge into Chemical.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants forced Talmer and Chemical
to file a Joint Preliminary Prospectus/Joint Proxy Statement on
Form S-4 (the "Proxy") on March 31, 2016 in effort to secure
shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition.  The Proxy
encouraged Talmer investors to vote in favor of the Proposed
Acquisition, and failed to disclose material information essential
for shareholders to make informed decisions regarding the Proposed
Acquisition, including material information about the biased sales
procedure, conflicts of interest, the unfair consideration offered
in the Proposed Acquisition, the real worth of Talmer on an
individual basis and as to be acquired by Chemical, and the data,
inputs and assumptions Talmer's and Chemical's financial advisors
employed in their fairness analyses.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint and join the action, visit the
firm's website: http://www.bgandg.com/#!tlmr/ldzbz

To discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or
via email info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
Talmer you can request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  It represents institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as
well as securities arbitration.


TEXAS: Denial of Class Cert. in Taxpayers' Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------
Justice Anne Gardner of the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's order denying a motion to certify a class action
under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42 in the case captioned, CITY
OF ALEDO, Appellant, v. TODD C. BRENNAN AND VALERIE S. SMITH,
FRANK GALLISON AND NANETTE GALLISON, REBECCA HANLEY, GORDON
HIEBERT AND KIMBERLY HIEBERT, WILLIAM HOOD AND LEONILA HOOD, LAYNE
KASPER AND JESSICA KASPER, JAMES KITCHEN AND MARTHA KITCHEN, SHAUN
KRETZSCHMAR AND NATALIE KRETZSCHMAR, SCOTT MITCHELL AND LESLIE
MITCHELL, EVAN PETERSON AND GAYLE PETERSON, BRIAN STAGNER AND AMY
STAGNER, STEVEN TOMHAVE AND JETTY TOMHAVE, AND ROBERT WOOD AND
MARY FRANCES WOOD, Appellees. AND TODD C. BRENNAN AND VALERIE S.
SMITH, FRANK GALLISON AND NANETTE GALLISON, REBECCA HANLEY, GORDON
HIEBERT AND KIMBERLY HIEBERT, WILLIAM HOOD AND LEONILA HOOD, LAYNE
KASPER AND JESSICA KASPER, JAMES KITCHEN AND MARTHA KITCHEN, SHAUN
KRETZSCHMAR AND NATALIE KRETZSCHMAR, SCOTT MITCHELL AND LESLIE
MITCHELL, EVAN PETERSON AND GAYLE PETERSON, BRIAN STAGNER AND AMY
STAGNER, STEVEN TOMHAVE AND JETTY TOMHAVE, AND ROBERT WOOD AND
MARY FRANCES WOOD, Appellants, v. CITY OF WILLOW PARK, TEXAS,
PARKER COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, PARKER COUNTY APPRAISAL REVIEW
BOARD, CITY OF ALEDO, TEXAS, AND LARRY HAMMONDS IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PARKER COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR, Appellees, Case
No. 02-14-00147-CV, 02-14-00153-CV (Tex. App.).

In March 2010, the City of Willow Park brought suit against
Brennan and Smith to collect taxes for the years 2003 through
2007. Brennan and Smith counterclaimed, the rest of the Taxpayers
intervened, and the Taxpayers joined as third parties the City of
Aledo, the Parker County Appraisal District, the Parker County
ARB, Hammonds in his official capacity as Parker County Tax
Assessor/Collector, and the members of the Parker County ARB in
their official capacities.

The Taxpayers asserted counterclaims and third-party claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus relief
against the City of Willow Park, the City of Aledo, the Parker
County Appraisal District, the Parker County ARB (collectively,
the Government Entities), Hammonds, and the members of the Parker
County ARB (collectively, the Government Officials). The Taxpayers
sought declaratory relief as to the impropriety of the Government
Entities' and Government Officials' actions, as well as a refund
of the taxes they paid to the Cities for the tax years 2003-2007.
The Taxpayers also filed a motion to certify a class action of "no
less than 250" property owners in the Cities who, in 2008, were
assessed city property taxes on their properties for the tax years
2003 through 2007.

The Government Entities and Hammonds filed pleas to the
jurisdiction, alleging that that the Taxpayers had failed to
exhaust their administrative remedies, and that, in any event, the
Government Entities and Hammonds were entitled to governmental
immunity. The trial court granted the pleas to the jurisdiction
and dismissed with prejudice the Taxpayers' counterclaims and
third-party claims.

The Taxpayers appealed. This court determined that the trial court
erred in granting the pleas to the jurisdiction on both grounds,
reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded the Taxpayers'
claims to the trial court.

After remand, the City of Aledo filed a motion for summary
judgment alleging that the assessed back taxes were not invalid or
void on several grounds. The trial court heard the City of Aledo's
motion and the Taxpayers' motion to certify a class action on the
same day.

The City of Willow Park nonsuited its collection suit because by
then all of its taxes had been paid. The trial court rendered
orders denying the City of Aledo's motion for summary judgment and
the Taxpayers' motion to certify a class action.

Both the Taxpayers and the City of Aledo appeal the denial of
their respective motions. The Taxpayers argue in the context of
their class certification appeal that the facts pled to defeat the
Government Entities and Hammonds's jurisdictional arguments in the
prior appeal support "an eventual outcome" in their favor. The
City of Aledo complains in its appeal that the trial court erred
by denying its motion for summary judgment on the Taxpayers'
claims.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated June 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/HoG7wn from Leagle.com, Judge Gardner also held that
the trial court erred by granting the Government Entities and
Hammonds's plea to the jurisdiction on the ground that the
Taxpayers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under
the tax code. As to the appeal of the City of Aledo, the Court
concluded that the City failed to prove as a matter of law that
Hammonds correctly followed section 25.21 in assessing the back
taxes in the case.

The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in
accordance with the opinion.


THERANOS INC: Boies Schiller Serves as Chief Case Defender
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that as lab test
startup Theranos Inc.'s woes multiply with a wave of class action
lawsuits, board member David Boies is showing no sign of reducing
his firm's role as chief defender of the company.

In filings in federal court here on June 22, three Washington-
based attorneys for Boies, Schiller & Flexner entered appearances
on behalf of Theranos in a proposed class action suit that alleges
the company misled consumers about the reliability of its blood
testing technology.

Earlier this month, Los Angeles-based Sean Eskovitz -- a Boies
Schiller alum -- came to the company's aid as local counsel in the
case. (Theranos' general counsel, Heather King, is also a Boies
Schiller alum.)

It's the continuation of a long relationship between the now
embattled Silicon Valley company and the litigation powerhouse.
Mr. Boies himself, chairman and founder of the firm, went to
battle for Theranos in a bitter patent dispute against a father-
son inventor team that ended with a settlement in 2014.  In 2015,
Mr. Boies joined the company's board of directors and then
represented them in connection with claims the company's
technology was flawed.

Since then, observers like UC-Berkeley law professor Steven
Davidoff Solomon have questioned Mr. Boies' dual roles:
representing the interests of Theranos' private investors as a
board member, and defending the company as its lawyer.

With the June 23 appearances in the consumer class actions, "he's
just doubling down on the conflict" Mr. Solomon said.  If the
company's regulatory and legal problems ultimately evaporate, that
may not pose an actual problem, Mr. Solomon added.  But if things
go south, that could put Mr. Boies in a "sticky situation," he
said.

Mr. Boies could not be reached for comment.

In an interview with The New York Times in April, Mr. Boies said
that Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes continues to have the board's
full backing.  At the same time, he said another unnamed law firm
was responding to queries from the U.S. Attorney's Office in
San Francisco and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
conducting an independent investigation into whether Theranos made
proper disclosures to investors.

The Boies Schiller attorneys who appeared on June 23 in the class
action suit are Michael Brille, Amy Mauser and Evan North.
Theranos has not named counsel for at least four other pending
suits that involve similar claims.

The class action blitz comes after Theranos in March voided two
years' worth of blood test results following warnings from federal
regulators about the adequacy of the labs.  The Wall Street
Journal has also reported that Ms. Holmes and a former executive
who has now departed have also been threatened by regulators with
a two-year ban from running any lab.


THERANOS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action Over Lab Test
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawsuits are
continuing to pile up against Theranos Inc., the once vaunted
Silicon Valley medical startup, in the wake of the company's May
disclosure that it had been forced to void thousands of blood
tests because the results were unreliable.

On June 21, attorneys at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer joined the fray,
filing a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all consumers who
purchased a Theranos lab test back to 2013.  The suit throws
breach of contract claims at Theranos and alleges violations of
California false advertising and unfair competition laws.

"Defendant's aggressive conduct without regard to public safety,
and its inaccurate public statements about its new testing process
with the Edison [device], have affected the ability of the
reasonable consumer to rely on the Theranos' results provided or
make health care decisions based upon them," the suit, filed by
Kaplan Fox's Laurence King, says.

The complaint is the latest in a wave of litigation now facing the
embattled company, headed by Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford drop out
who until recently drew comparisons to Steve Jobs.
Theranos has turned to Sean Eskovitz of Los Angeles litigation
boutique Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz to defend one of the first
complaints filed in the Northern District.  Mr. Eskovitz, a former
Munger Tolles & Olsen partner, has a record of representing both
individuals and companies in government investigations and
prosecutions and spent four years as a federal prosecutor in the
Southern District of New York, according to his law firm bio.

The firms lining up against Theranos include class action
heavyweight Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, which launched a suit on
behalf of consumers in California and Arizona -- the two states
where Theranos offered tests.

Attorneys at Girard Gibbs have also sued and named Walgreens as a
defendant.  The pharmacy chain had a partnership with Theranos to
offer blood tests, but the suit alleges its executives never
conducted due diligence into Theranos' technology and failed to
notify customers when it learned that the tests were unreliable.
Lawyers at McCuneWright have at least two suits pending against
Theranos, one of which also involves Walgreens.
Theranos' claim to fame was developing a device called "Edison"
that could use only a tiny amount of blood in conducting tests for
a wide range of diseases. But the company didn't have regulators'
approval to use the Edison device outside of a laboratory setting
for anything but a herpes simplex test, the suits allege.

In March, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found
serious problems with operations at the company's labs in Newark
and in Scottsdale, Arizona, revelations first reported by The Wall
Street Journal.  Regulators have proposed revoking the license for
Theranos' Newark lab and banning Holmes from the business for two
years.

Forbes Magazine estimated Ms. Holmes's net worth last year at $4.5
billion.  This month, the magazine reduced its estimate of her net
worth to $0.


TICKETMASTER: Customers Get Free Concert Tickets Under Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Kahn, writing for Jambase, reports that a recent class action
settlement involving Ticketmaster has resulted in the company
supplying many of its customers with codes for free concert
tickets.  Qualifying class members in the Schlesinger v.
Ticketmaster Class Action Settlement have had their accounts
awarded with vouchers that can be used to purchase tickets to
future concert events.

According to the administrators of the Class Action Settlement:

Each Class Member who made a purchase transaction on
www.ticketmaster.com between October 21, 1999 and February 27,
2013, should anticipate receiving, on or around June 18, 2016, at
least one Ticket Code potentially redeemable for two tickets for
concert events at Live Nation owned or operated venues, subject to
availability and limitations.

At this time, the page purporting to list eligible events for
redeeming the free ticket vouchers currently does not detail any
participating concerts.  Each eligible live concert event, which
as noted above will be at Live Nation venues such as House Of
Blues, will have a limited allotment of tickets that can be
secured using the free ticket vouchers and will be available on a
first-come, first-served basis.

In addition to free ticket vouchers, class members can expect to
have received discount codes for the use of UPS to ship tickets
during the relevant time period.  Up to a max of 17 discount codes
worth $5 toward a future UPS payment were given to qualifying
ticket buyers.  Discount codes were also issued, with a maximum of
17 per account, offering a $2.25 credit on future online ticket
sales.

All of the discount codes and ticket vouchers must be used on or
before June 18, 2020 at which point they will expire.


TILE SHOP: Certification of Deduction & Overtime Classes Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff moves for class certification in the lawsuit styled
ADRIEL OSORIO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. THE TILE SHOP, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00015 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff requests that the Court certify these Classes:

   Excessive Deduction Class:

     All persons employed in a Tile Shop retail store in the State
of Illinois, except store managers, who had a deduction made, to a
paycheck received at any time from January 2, 2005 up to and
including the date of trial, in order to recoup a cash advance
where the deduction was in excess of 15% of the gross pay received
in that paycheck.

   Overtime Class:

     All persons employed in a Tile Shop retail store in the State
of Illinois, except store managers, who worked in excess of forty
hours in any workweek, from January 2, 2012 up to and including
the date of trial, in which the total amount of compensation
received, divided by the total number of hours worked, was less
than 1.5 times the applicable minimum wage rate in effect.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B32xdDbV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Bulgarelli, Esq.
          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          140 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 315
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Tel: (312) 787-2717


TIME WARNER: Fails to Refund Cable Overcharges, Probe Shows
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lardner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Senate investigation of cable TV costs says two major cable
companies have consistently failed to provide refunds to customers
they knew had been overcharged.

At a congressional hearing on June 23, Senators Rob Portman of
Ohio and Claire McCaskill of Missouri released a report finding
Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications made no effort to
trace equipment overcharges and provide refunds to customers.

Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications recently merged.

The report says Time Warner Cable estimates customers were
overbilled $640,000 nationwide in the first four months of 2016.
The report says the company overbilled consumers nationwide by
about $2 million annually for the past six years.

Kathleen Mayo of Charter Communications says the company will
explain to customers that they were overcharged and give them a
one-year credit.


TOTAL ACCOUNT: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JOEL ABAYA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOTAL ACCOUNT RECOVERY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-01269-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.),
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration but declined to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

Plaintiff Joel Abaya (Plaintiff) alleges that Defendant Total
Account Recovery, LLC (Defendant) violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. (TCPA) by making
autodialed calls to Plaintiff's cell phone without his consent in
the course of trying to collect on an allegedly outstanding debt.

Although Plaintiff purports to sue not only on his own behalf but
also on behalf of others similarly situated, Defendant now seeks
an order compelling arbitration under the terms of Plaintiff's
loan agreement with FSST Financial Services, LLC d/b/a Bottom
Dollar Payday (Lender). Defendant contends that as an agent
retained by the Lender to collect on Plaintiff's debt, it falls
within the Loan Agreement's definition of "related third parties."

Plaintiff makes a number of substantive challenges to Defendant's
attempt to compel arbitration in the matter, including contentions
that 1) the claims encompassed by the arbitration clause do not
include Plaintiff's unlawful debt collection claims under the
TCPA; 2) the arbitration clause fails because of lack of mutual
assent; and 3) the arbitration clause is unconscionable in any
event.

In his Memorandum and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/8F6yt4 from Leagle.com, Judge England, Jr. held that
the arbitration clause at issue is clear in mandating that
"gateway" issues determining the validity and scope of arbitration
be determined by the arbitrator and that it would be unwise to
dismiss the Complaint altogether. Instead, a stay pending
completion of the arbitration proceedings one way or the other is
the more prudent option.

Joel Abaya is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Esq. --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M.
FRIEDMAN, P.C.

Total Account Recovery LLC is represented by Erin Sheffield
Sanchez, Esq. -- esanchez@bzlawllp.com -- and Ralph Angelo
Zappala, Esq. -- rzappala@bzlawLLP.com -- BUSBY & ZAPPALA LLP --
and Paul M. Croker, Esq. -- pcroker@armstrongteasdale.com --
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Circuit May Revive Arbitration Clause
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a panel of federal
appeals judges gave clear signs on June 16 that it is ready to
reverse a lower court decision finding the arbitration agreements
that Uber Technologies Inc. circulated to its drivers were
unenforceable.

A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
revive Uber's arbitration clause could have significant
ramifications beyond the case before the court.  It would almost
certainly impact an $84 million class-action settlement that is
already teetering.

Circuit Judge Richard Clifton took issue with the fact that U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California,
who is presiding over both cases, had specifically disregarded a
contrary Ninth Circuit decision in finding the arbitration
agreements unconscionable.

"I've got to say I have enormous respect for the district judge
here," Judge Clifton said.  "But . . . how can we affirm that?

Circuit Judges Sandra Ikuta and Richard Tallman, who rounded out
the panel, were also critical of Chen's ruling.

Uber, represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous
Jr., seemed have the upper hand in arguing that parts of the
agreement seen as illegal could be severed from the contract
without scrapping the entire agreement.  Mr. Boutrous said Judge
Chen was on a "seek and destroy mission" and was hostile to Uber's
arbitration clauses.

According to Uber, Judge Chen's rulings refused to follow the
Ninth Circuit's 2013 en banc decision in Kilgore v. KeyBank, which
held that an arbitration agreement cannot be deemed procedurally
unconscionable if it provides meaningful opportunity to opt out.

Laura Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- of Oakland-based Goldstein,
Borgen, Dardarian & Ho argued for Uber drivers who contend that
the company violated state and federal laws in conducting
background checks, including by not notifying them upon finding
adverse information.  Ms. Ho has reached a settlement with Uber in
that suit, but the proposed settlement value would increase from
$7.5 million to $9 million if she won the appeal.

Ruling last year in Mohamed v. Uber, Judge Chen rejected Uber's
arbitration agreements with its drivers as unfair and one-sided.
Chen's order examined Uber's 2013 arbitration agreement, as well
as a subsequent version introduced in 2014, finding both to be
procedurally and substantively unconscionable.  Among other
concerns, he took issue with provisions that waived a driver's
right to pursue claims under the state's Private Attorney General
Act, or PAGA.

The decision was virtually the same as rulings he handed down in
the course of major California and Massachusetts class actions
that alleged drivers should be treated as employees and reimbursed
for gas and other expenses.

An $84 million settlement in those cases is pending approval and
Chen earlier this month was sharply critical of some of its
elements.  A finding by the Ninth Circuit that the arbitration
agreements are enforceable would give Uber more leverage in any
renegotiation of the settlement, should it be rejected, and would
go a long way to slowing the onslaught of class action litigation
that Uber has faced across the country.

On June 16, the Ninth Circuit panel for the most part focused on
the PAGA waiver.

According to Uber, the provision at issue only bars drivers from
arbitrating such claims, but allows them to be dealt with in
court.  Ms. Ho argued, however, that the restriction could be
interpreted more broadly or is at best unclear, and thus is
illegal under Ninth Circuit case law prohibiting PAGA waivers.

But she had a difficult time getting the judges to buy that.  "How
can it be more clear?" said Judge Tallman.

She also wasn't winning points with arguments that because Uber
sent the arbitration agreement to drivers' electronic devices, and
made them accept before accepting new fares, it didn't give them
an adequate chance to review the details of the contract.

"I'm having trouble with an argument that [being sent] things that
you only read on your tablet or iPhone is procedurally
unconscionable," Judge Ikuta said.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fate of Drivers' WARN Class Actions Uncertain
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Law.com, reports that labor lawyers on
both the employer and employee side of the aisle predict some
heavy lifting for Austin, Texas-based former Uber and Lyft drivers
targeting the ride-hailing companies with twin class-action
lawsuits.

In complaints filed in San Francisco federal court this month, the
former drivers allege the companies failed to provide plant-
closing notices 60 days before shuttering operations in the
central Texas city.

The odds are slim that the drivers will prevail on their claims,
and not only because Uber and Lyft insist that all their drivers
are independent contractors and therefore not covered as employees
under federal law, according to lawyers familiar with this type of
litigation.

Even if they get over the independent-contractor hurdle, the
former drivers also must identify, according to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the federal statue
upon which they based their claims, a specific geographic location
where Lyft or Uber drivers all showed up to report to work, the
labor lawyers said.

"It's not a slam dunk for the plaintiffs, that is for sure," said
Steve Fox, a shareholder in the Dallas office of Polsinelli, who
represents Hamilton Scientific, which recently reached a $400,000
settlement with a class of 261 workers who lost their jobs when
the laboratory furniture-making company closed a plant.

"We'll have to wait and see," said Jack Raisner, a partner in
New York's Outten & Golden, whose firm has represented since 2007
employees in more than 120 similar suits filed after companies
shuttered operations.

Historically, WARN Act, as it is known, was slow to catch on after
Congress passed the federal law in 1988.

The law began as "sleepy toothless tiger," Mr. Raisner recalled.
The reason: Companies shuttering operations also typically filed
for bankruptcy protection, staying other pending claims.  Only
since laid-off workers, many of them targeting financial service
companies following the 2007-2008 economic meltdowns, began
pursuing their WARN claims in bankruptcy courts, have the lawsuits
been "thrust into the limelight," Mr. Raisner said.

If the former Lyft and Uber drivers succeed, Mr. Raisner said, "It
would be a positive development."

But so far, the complaints they have filed are "barren of the
allegations needed to prove a WARN event," Mr. Raisner said.

"You have to pin it to where these people worked," he added.

John Davis, an attorney with Austin's Slack & Davis who represents
the former Lyft and Uber drivers, said he cannot yet calculate
exactly what he or his clients stand to gain from the complaints
filed against the ride-hailing companies.

"I haven't done the math," Davis said.

Under the law, he notes, the companies would be liable for 60 days
back pay for each employee who was not given the required notice
and possibly attorney fees.  Uber and Lyft have previously
provided estimates of having more than 10,000 drivers available in
Austin.  That was before May when, following a city-wide vote to
keep an ordinance requiring ride-hailing drivers to undergo
fingerprint-based background checks, Uber and Lyft followed
through on their promise to leave town.

Uber did not provide a comment for this story.

Chelsea Wilson, a spokeswoman for Lyft, emailed a statement, which
said: "The lawsuit is without merit and we look forward to
resolving it quickly.  It is based on federal law that applies to
employees and not independent contractors like Lyft drivers who
have the flexibility to determine when, where and for how long
they drive."


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Certification in "Brown"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the Court of Federal Claims
denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify as a class action the case
captioned, DOUGLAS G. BROWN et al., For Themselves and As
Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 15-1297C
(Ct. Fed. Cl.).

In the Rails-to-Trails case, plaintiffs own real property in
Cleveland County, North Carolina, adjacent to a railroad right-of-
way. They contend that the United States, by authorizing the
conversion of the railroad right-of-way into a recreational trail
pursuant to the National Trail Systems Act (Trails Act), took
their property without paying just compensation in violation of
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs
bring suit in the court on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated.

Plaintiffs move to certify the case as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
("RCFC"), defining the proposed class as "All persons who on
August 4, 2015, owned an interest in lands constituting part of
the railroad corridor or right-of-way on which a rail line was
formerly operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), from
milepost SB 144.55 to milepost SB 154.50 and from milepost SB
158.10 to milepost (SB) 160.00, in Cleveland County, North
Carolina, and who claim a taking of their rights to possession,
control and enjoyment of such lands due to the operation of the
rail banking provisions of the National Trails System Act (NTSA),
16 U.S.C. Sec. 1247(d). Excluded from this Class are the owners of
land that abut segments of the subject right-of-way that the
railroad acquired fee simple to; railroad companies and their
successors in interest; [and] persons who have elected to pursue
their claims in separate lawsuits against the United States for
compensation for the same interests in land."

Plaintiffs contend that they have satisfied all of the
requirements of RCFC 23, while defendant asserts that plaintiffs
have not satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
superiority requirements.

In her Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/qZSNWe from Leagle.com, Judge Sweeney concluded that
the proposed class fails to completely satisfy any of the rule's
requirements. In particular, they have not satisfied the
numerosity, typicality, and superiority requirements, and they
have failed to satisfy elements of the commonality and adequacy
requirements.

The Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report
containing a proposed schedule for the liability phase not later
than June 10, 2016.

Douglas G. Brown, et al. are represented by John Robert Sears,
Esq. BAKER STERCHI COWDEN AND RICE, LLC

USA is represented by:

Joanna Kathryn Brinkman, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Tel: (202)353-1555


UNITED STATES: Nonprofits to Pursue PACER Fee Claims in Fed. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
score one point for the government in the ongoing battle over how
the federal judiciary charges users to access electronic court
records.

The U.S. Department of Justice successfully knocked out one of
three lawsuits challenging fees charged by the Public Access to
Court Electronic Records, or PACER, system.  Washington state
resident Bryndon Fisher filed two lawsuits this year claiming that
a computer glitch caused PACER to overcharge users.  A federal
district judge in Washington state dismissed one of those cases on
June 15.  The Justice Department filed papers the same day asking
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to dismiss Fisher's other case.

Meanwhile, a group of nonprofits is pursuing claims in Washington,
D.C., federal court that accuse the judiciary of deliberately, and
unlawfully, overcharging PACER users in order to fund other
administrative expenses.  The Justice Department is preparing to
contest certification of a class in that case.
The PACER system charges users 10 cents per page to view court
records online, with a maximum charge of $3 per document.
Mr. Fisher claims that the PACER system overcounts certain
portions of the docket -- the section that lists the case name and
number, and the parties and lawyers involved -- when it runs a
user's search.  The miscalculation, he said, adds at least one
additional 10-cent charge to every docket retrieval.  Mr. Fisher
claimed he'd been overcharged by $37 over the past two years.
Mr. Fisher first filed suit in the federal claims court in late
December, and then filed a second, nearly identical lawsuit the
next day in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma,
Washington, dismissed that case on June 15, writing that
Mr. Fisher ran afoul of the "first-to-file rule" by filing in two
different courts.

Although Mr. Fisher defined slightly different potential classes
of users in the two cases -- excluding PACER users with more than
$10,000 in claims in the Washington state case, and including them
in the first suit -- Settle said that meant the case in federal
claims court could be all-inclusive.

Mr. Fisher's lawyer, Noah Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe
in San Francisco, did not immediately return requests for comment
on June 16.  A spokesman for the federal judiciary declined to
comment.

In a brief filed on June 15 in the nation's capital, Justice
Department lawyers ask Federal Claims Judge Thomas Wheeler to
dismiss Mr. Fisher's suit.  PACER's policy agreement said that
users must submit billing error claims within 90 days of the bill
at issue, but Mr. Fisher and other members of the alleged class
never did so, the government said.

The Justice Department argued that any possible contractual duty
was limited to claims that were properly submitted, so Fisher had
failed to state a viable case.

Mr. Fisher's reply is due July 18.

In the nonprofits' action, which accuses the judiciary of charging
a fee rate that is more than necessary to maintain the PACER
system, the Justice Department is putting together its response to
the plaintiffs' request to certify a class.  In May, the
government told the court it was also exploring whether it would
ask to join that case with Fisher's suit in the federal claims
court.

"Although the theory of overcharging appears to be slightly
different, counsel intends to assess whether the claims here would
or should be part of that action," the Justice Department wrote in
a footnote.

The government's response to the class certification request is
due July 11.  Plaintiffs are represented by Gupta Wessler of
Washington; Motley Rice of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; and the
Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law
Center.


UNITED STATES: High Court to Decide on Immigrant Detention Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for Associated Press, reports that the
Supreme Court will decide whether some immigrants locked up longer
than six months during deportation proceedings should have a
chance to be released.

The justices said on June 20 they will take up an issue that
affects thousands of immigrants detained for months or years
without the benefit of a hearing to determine if their confinement
is justified.

The Obama administration is seeking to overturn a federal appeals
court ruling that said any immigrant detained more than six months
is entitled to a bond hearing.  The government argues that
automatic bond hearings should not extend to immigrants detained
at the border or those who commit certain crimes or engage in
terrorist activity.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled last
year that holding immigrants indefinitely violates their due
process rights.  The three-judge panel also said the government
must prove an immigrant poses a flight risk or danger to the
community to justify denying bond.

The government says the case is critical to its ability to control
the borders and reduce the risk of terrorism.  Requiring a bond
hearing within six months would simply encourage more people to
cross the border illegally and delay legal proceedings, the
Justice Department argued in legal briefs.

Allowing the lower court ruling to stay in place "creates an
incentive for people to make a potentially life-threatening trip
to this country, to abuse our legal process to obtain entry into
the United States, and then to disappear rather than appear at any
removal proceedings," government officials said.

The class action lawsuit involves about a thousand immigrants in
California who have been locked up for longer than six months
without a bond hearing.  They are represented by the American
Civil Liberties Union, which says the average class member has
been incarcerated 404 days.

The Justice Department says about 38,000 immigrants released on
bond between 2010 and 2014 did not return to face removal
proceedings.  But ACLU officials say that number includes many
people released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after their
initial arrest, without having gone through a full court hearing.

The ACLU argues that requiring mandatory bond hearings every six
months does not mean immigrants automatically will be released.

"It merely requires hearings before immigration judges," the ACLU
said in legal briefs.  "Those judges answer to the attorney
general, who has ultimate authority to reverse any release
decisions."

The case is Jennings v. Rodriguez, 15-1204.


UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Must Defend Against "Ung" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard H. Kyle of the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota denied Defendant's motion for the
entry of judgment in the case captioned, Spencer Ung, Plaintiff,
v. Universal Acceptance Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 15-127
(RHK/FLN) (D. Minn.).

In the putative class-action, Plaintiff Spencer Ung alleges that
Universal made unauthorized calls to his cell phone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). His two-count
Complaint alleges that Universal negligently (Count I) and
willfully (Count II) violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone
using an autodialer without his consent. He seeks statutory
damages of up to $1,500 per call and an injunction "requiring
(Universal) to cease all communications in violation of the TCPA."

The parties then engaged in discovery for much of a year. Because
of delays in receiving information regarding the putative class,
Ung requested and was granted an extension to April 1, 2016, to
move for class certification. Shortly before Ung filed such a
motion, however, Universal attempted to moot the case.

Specifically, on March 21, 2016, it "hand-delivered to Ung's
counsel a certified check in the amount of $18,000 made payable to
plaintiff and his counsel, along with a letter providing an offer"
to stipulate to an award of costs under Rule 54 and an injunction
prohibiting future calls to Ung's cell phone. By letter dated
March 25, 2016, Ung rejected the offer and returned the $18,000
check to Universal's counsel. One week later, he moved to certify
a class, arguing that Universal called over 370,000 different cell
phone numbers without consent.

In his motion, Universal moves for the entry of judgment,
asserting that the action is moot arguing that because Universal
had tendered to Ung the maximum amount of damages he could
arguably recover in this case, and because it also had offered a
stipulated injunction and an award of costs, Universal claims it
has afforded Ung complete relief.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 3, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/QBN6MS from Leagle.com, Judge Kyle denied
Universal's attempt to "pay Ung the entire amount of individual
relief he seeks in the Complaint in hopes of mooting his
individual claim and, thus, presumably, incapacitating the class
action."

Spencer Ung is represented by Patrick J. Helwig, Esq. --
phelwig@lawpoint.com  -- and Peter F. Barry, Esq. --
pbarry@lawpoint.com -- BARRY & HELWIG, LLC

Ung is also represented by:

Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD
55 W Monroe St #3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312)726-1092

Universal Acceptance Corporation is represented by David L.
Hartsell, Esq. -- dlh@dewittmcm.com -- and Patrick C. Summers,
Esq. -- pcs@dewittmcm.com -- DEWITT, MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE,
S.C. and Sarah A. Zielinski, Esq. -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com
-- MCGUIREWOODS LLP


US DISTRICT COURTS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Atchison"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to dismiss in
the case captioned, BERNICE C. ATCHISON Plaintiff, v. U.S.
DISTRICT COURTS, et al. Defendants, Case No. 14-2045 (RC)
(D.D.C.).

Plaintiff Bernice C. Atchison, proceeding pro se, seeks damages
from various Defendants associated with the series of lawsuits in
this District that culminated in In re Black Farmers
Discrimination Litigation, 856 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011).

Specifically, Ms. Atchison named as Defendants the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia (Defendant Court);
Stephen C. Carpenter, court-appointed Ombudsman in In re Black
Farmers Discrimination Litigation; the law firm Conlon, Frantz &
Phelan, L.L.P.; James Scott Farrin; Andrew H. Marks; Henry
Sanders; Gregorio Francis; Honza Prchal; and the Claim Facilitator
in In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation.

On April 14, 1999, a court in this District approved a consent
decree that settled a class-action lawsuit brought by African-
American farmers alleging racial discrimination by the USDA in the
application of its credit and benefits programs. Ms. Atchison
alleges that Defendants' actions violated her constitutional
rights, including her right to due process and seeks $331,050 in
compensatory damages and $500,000 in pain and suffering damages.

Multiple Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Complaint in
its entirety on a variety of grounds.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated May 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/kXuOQ3 from Leagle.com, Judge Contreras found that
the Complaint does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions
of another district court and that sovereign immunity bars Ms.
Atchison's claims against the Defendant Court. The Court also
found that Ms. Atchison's attempts to serve process were untimely.
In the situation, the Court would typically grant an extension of
time for Ms. Atchison to attempt to perfect service, but an
extension would be futile here because the Court finds that the
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Therefore, the Court will grant the remaining Defendants' motions
and dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

U.S. District Courts is represented by:

Megan Anne Crowley, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Tel: (202)353-1555

Conlon, Frantz & Pelham LLP is represented by David Joseph Frantz,
Esq. -- jfrantz@sbfamlaw.com -- CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP --
and William H. White, Jr., Esq. -- wwhite@bonnerkiernan.com --
BONNER KIERNAN TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP

Andrew H. Marks is represented by Keith J. Harrison, Esq. --
kharrison@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING, LLP

Stephen C. Carpenter is represented by Jennifer L. Spaziano, Esq.
-- jen.spaziano@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP


US PATENT COMMISSION: Court Sends "Henderson" Suit to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendants' motion
to direct Plaintiff to proceed to arbitration on an individual,
rather than class, basis in the case captioned, YOLANDA HENDERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. PATENT COMMISSION, LTD., THE GRAY LAW GROUP,
LTD., INVENT WORLDWIDE CONSULTING, LLC, ALAN GREEN, RON STERLING,
CARYN ROHDE, ANGELA STEVENS, CANDICE PAGE, ROBERT GRAY, STEVEN
FISHER-STAWINSKI, and XAVIER HAILEY, Defendants (N.D. Ill.).

Yolanda Henderson seeks to develop and sell what she believed to
be her invention of "glitter paint," entered into two contracts
with U.S. Patent Commission, formerly known as Invent Worldwide
Consulting. Pursuant to the first agreement, the "Step 1
Agreement," U.S. Patent Commission would perform a search to
determine the patentability of Henderson's putative invention.
Under the second agreement, the "Step 2 Agreement," U.S. Patent
Commission would "create 2D and 3D drawings of the invention,
provide Henderson with a list of manufacturers, and file a
provisional patent application with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO)." The Step 2 Agreement included an
arbitration clause identical to that in the Step 1 Agreement.
Henderson paid $100.00 for the services specified in the Step 1
Agreement and $2,600.00 for the services specified in the Step 2
Agreement.

Henderson brought the putative class action against U.S. Patent
Commission, Ltd. and several of its employees, The Gray Law Group
and several of its employees, and two defendants who have been
dismissed. She alleges that Defendants conspired to deceive her
from discovering that glitter paint was neither patentable nor
profitable, violating both federal and state law. As noted, the
court compelled arbitration on November 1, 2015. On February 8,
2016, Henderson filed a demand for arbitration before the JAMS
arbitral forum seeking class treatment of her claims.

In the motion, Defendants contend that the Step 1 and Step 2
Agreements do not permit class arbitration.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/76V1xN from Leagle.com, Judge Feinerman held that
the availability of class arbitration is a question of
arbitrability presumptively for the court, not for the arbitrator.
Henderson must proceed with an individual arbitration and may not
pursue class arbitration.

Yolanda Henderson is represented by Amelia Susan Newton, Esq.
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- Jordan
Rudnick, Esq. -- jordan@attorneyzim.com -- Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
-- matt@attorneyzim.com -- Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. --
nick@attorneyzim.com -- and Sharon Harris, Esq. --
sharon@attorneyzim.com -- ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.

The Gray Law Group, Ltd. is represented by Charles E. Harris, II,
Esq. -- charris@mayerbrown.com -- and Joseph Michael Snapper, Esq.
-- jsnapper@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP


VERIZON WIRELESS: $1.2 Million Attorney's Fee Award Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fee Award and Class
Representative's Incentive Award in the case captioned, JOHN
LOFTON, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW)
LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 13-05665
YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC (Verizon) is engaged in the
business of providing wireless telephone and data service.
Plaintiff John Lofton alleges: (a) that Collecto, acting as
Verizon's agent, recorded debt collection calls that were meant
for Verizon customers but that instead reached non-customers,
without prior disclosure of recording, in violation of the IPA;
(b) that the dialing systems that Collecto used to make the calls
use predictive dialers and other automated telephone dialing
systems, in violation of the TCPA; and (c) that the alleged
violations of the IPA and TCPA give rise to a violation of the
UCL.

The Parties have engaged in extensive discovery, including
depositions taken by both Verizon and Lofton, and substantial
production of documents by Verizon and Collecto, and have had a
full and fair opportunity to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of their respective positions.

On September 21, 2015, the Parties participated in a mediation
session with Mediator Antonio Piazza, and ultimately accepted the
mediator's proposal for a class action settlement.

The deal provides for Defendant to establish a $4 million cash
settlement fund.

Additional information on the settlement is available at:

               http://debtcollectionsettlement.com/

In her Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/r5pC7p
from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers granted the request and awards Class
Counsel attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in the total
amount of $1.2 million as fair and reasonable under a common fund
analysis in light of the circumstances of the case. The Court
approved and appointed A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement
Administrator, the law firms of Parisi & Havens LLP and Preston
Law Offices as Class Counsel and Lofton as class representative.

John Lofton is represented by David Christopher Parisi, Esq. --
dparisi@parisihavens.com -- and Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, Esq.
-- shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com -- PARISI & HAVENS LLP -- and
Ethan Mark Preston, Esq. -- ep@eplaw.us -- PRESTON LAW OFFICES

Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC is represented by Ellen Medlin Devereux
Richmond, Esq. -- Ellen.Richmond@mto.com -- and Jonathan Hugh
Blavin, Esq. -- Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com -- MUNGER, TOLLES AND
OLSON


VIACOM INC: Faces "Gilbert" Shareholder Lawsuit in Del. Ch. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC GILBERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUMNER M. REDSTONE, SHARI REDSTONE, VIACOM
INC., NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LLC,
GEORGE S. ABRAMS, PHILIPPE DAUMAN, THOMAS E. DOOLEY, CRISTIANA
FALCONE SORRELL, BLYTHE J. MCGARVIE, DEBORAH
NORVILLE, CHARLES E. PHILLIPS, JR., FREDERIC V. SALERNO, WILLIAM
SCHWARTZ, NICOLE SELIGMAN, KENNETH LERER, THOMAS J. MAY, JUDITH
MCHALE and RONALD NELSON, Defendants, Case No. 12478- (Del. Ch.,
June 17, 2016), was brought by Plaintiff, a holder of shares of
Class B common stock of Viacom Inc., on his own behalf and on
behalf of other similarly situated Viacom Class B stockholders.

Viacom Inc. is a global media brand company that operates through
two segments, Media Networks and Filmed Entertainment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth M. McGeever, Esq.
     Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
     Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
     Elizabeth M. McGeever, Esq.
     Corinne E. Amato, Esq.
     PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
     1310 N. King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 888-6500
     Fax: (302) 658-8111

        - and -

     Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
     Robin Winchester, Esq.
     Kristen L. Ross, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (267) 948-2512


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Gas Car Owners in Korea File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Dong-a Ilbo reports that Korean consumers will file a class
action lawsuit against gasoline cars of Volkswagen, which
prosecutors' recent prove found to have manipulated the engine-
control unit (ECU) to meet the emission standards.

According to the auto industry on June 19, Barun Law, a Korean law
firm, decided to file a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District
Court against Audi Volkswagen Korea and the Volkswagen head office
on behalf of the owners of "Golf 1.4 TSI," which turned out to
have sold vehicles with a defeat device.  A total of 1,567 units
have been sold since March last year.

Prosecutors announced on June 17 that when Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI
failed to pass the emissions test in Korea, the head office in
Germany ordered its Korea office to manipulate the ECU software.

In addition, the law firm has decided to file a criminal lawsuit
against those responsible in Volkswagen for allegedly deceiving
consumers on behalf of consumers.  On top of this, it would file a
petition to the Environment Ministry, urging the government to
suspend the ongoing recall process with Audi Volkswagen Korea and
order a replacement order on the vehicles.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Class Action Over Emissions for $10 Bil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Spector and Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that Volkswagen AG is nearing a $10 billion civil
settlement, the largest in the auto industry's history, to
compensate U.S. owners of vehicles affected by the German car
maker's emissions-cheating scandal, said people familiar with the
matter.

Under the proposed deal, Volkswagen would offer to buy back cars
and provide additional compensation for owners of almost 500,000
diesel-powered vehicles with two-liter engines that contain
software capable of duping government emissions tests, the people
said.

In addition, Volkswagen is expected to pay more than $4 billion
for environmental impacts and to promote so-called zero-emission
vehicles, the people said.  Volkswagen faces other government
penalties in the U.S. and around the globe.

"If VW succeeds in settling the case, it will take a big step
forward but have many more ahead of it," said Erik Gordon, a
professor at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.
"The enormity of VW's world-wide problems are hard to estimate but
already are many times what management originally thought."

Volkswagen is offering to either buy back vehicles at their market
value before the scandal emerged in September or make affected
vehicles compliant with environmental regulations.  The car maker
will also provide additional cash whether owners choose to sell or
keep their cars, the people said.

Consumers could get at least $5,100 and some could receive up to
$10,000, beyond the price of the buyback or repair, one of the
people said.  Cars affected include model year 2009 to 2015
Volkswagen Jettas, 2010 to 2015 Volkswagen Golfs, 2012 to 2015
Volkswagen Passats and Beetles, and 2010 to 2015 Audi A3s, all
with diesel engines.

The settlement isn't the first time a car maker has been forced to
repurchase autos.  Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV last year agreed
in certain instances to repurchase some trucks in a settlement
with U.S. car-safety regulators covering recall lapses involving
millions of vehicles.

"The consumer is finally getting their due, but it took a long
time and lot of money," said Steve Kalafer, a Volkswagen dealer in
New Jersey.  He said an earlier program that offered Volkswagen
diesel-car owners $1,000 and a roadside emergency-service plan
"was deferring reality."



Mr. Kalafer said dealers are waiting for the company to
comprehensively address their woes.  Volkswagen halted sales of
affected vehicles in the fall, leaving dealers with expensive
inventory.

"It has been a nightmare for the retailers," he said.

Stephanie Walkenshaw, who bought a diesel Jetta just over a year
ago, plans to sell back her car and will be watching for any
conditions attached to the payouts.  The 38-year-old Denver
resident has continued to drive the Jetta, which she purchased in
part because she thought it was good for the environment. "I feel
deceived and duped," she said.

A Volkswagen spokeswoman declined to comment on June 23. Bloomberg
and the Associated Press earlier reported some details of the
expected settlement.

The people cautioned that negotiations among Volkswagen,
plaintiffs' lawyers and government officials involved in
widespread litigation consolidated in a San Francisco federal
court were ongoing and terms of the settlement could change. U.S.
Judge Charles Breyer, who is overseeing the litigation, set a June
28 deadline for the auto maker and other parties to reach a
settlement to resolve the emissions lapses.

Elizabeth Cabraser, the lead plaintiffs' lawyer representing U.S.
consumers, said in a statement that the settlement, "will provide
substantial benefits to both consumers and the environment --
providing car owners and lessees fair value for their vehicles,
while also removing environmentally-harmful vehicles from the
road."

The U.S. Justice Department sued Volkswagen in January on behalf
of the Environmental Protection Agency, alleging the German car
giant violated federal clean-air laws by using software known as
defeat devices that allowed vehicles to pollute more on roadways
than during government tests.

The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces U.S. consumer
protection laws, also sued the auto maker in March alleging the
company falsely advertised "clean diesel" vehicles with low
emissions.  Volkswagen also faces claims by consumers alleging
declining resale values and other grievances.

The auto maker also faces litigation and investigations over
similar allegations involving 85,000 diesel-powered autos with
three-liter engines.

Volkswagen has acknowledged installing the problematic software on
some 11 million vehicles world-wide.  In the U.S., officials said
Volkswagen diesel-powered vehicles emitted nitrogen oxides at up
to 40 times the allowable standard.

Costs of the proposed deal raise the stakes for any future cases.
Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors Co. paid $1.2 billion and
$900 million, respectively, to settle criminal charges stemming
from earlier safety lapses.

Toyota was penalized for failing to report unintended acceleration
issues while GM's case arose from millions of older cars with
faulty ignition switches that were tied to 124 deaths in
accidents.  GM overall has reached settlements with the U.S.
Justice Department, shareholders and thousands of consumers
totaling more than $2 billion.  It still faces additional
litigation and trials over a faulty switch that could shut off
power to air bags and power brakes.  Japanese air-bag supplier
Takata Corp. has suffered fines and faces a criminal probe in the
U.S. over defective air bags in tens of millions of vehicles that
can rupture and spray shrapnel.  Takata has said it is cooperating
with government officials.

Volkswagen has set aside more than $18 billion to recall millions
of vehicles and settle legal claims, and additional possible
financial penalties still loom.

Its troubles come as other auto makers have admitted to misstating
fuel economy or been accused of emissions lapses. Mitsubishi
Motors Corp. forecast a $1.38 billion loss for the fiscal year
ending March 2017 after admitting it misstated fuel-economy on
vehicles in Japan.

The proposed U.S. settlement would mark a potential bookend for
Volkswagen on the scandal.  Some Volkswagen shareholders berated
executives at the company's annual shareholders meeting in Germany
over the company's response to the emissions cheating, which U.S.
environmental regulators disclosed in September.  The German auto
maker has repeatedly apologized for the scandal.

The Justice Department is separately conducting a criminal probe
of Volkswagen over the emissions cheating.  The auto maker decided
against releasing initial findings of its own investigation in
part because of concerns it could hurt any credit the company
might receive from U.S. prosecutors for cooperating with the
probe.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bondholders File Suit Over Emissions Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Boston Retirement System, the public pension
fund for Boston municipal employees, filed the first bondholders
proposed class action against Volkswagen related to the company's
diesel emissions scandal, law firm Labaton Sucharow said.

The lawsuit, which also names as defendants Volkswagen Group of
America and Volkswagen Group of America Finance, claims that
"false and misleading statements and omissions" by Volkswagen
caused its bonds to trade at "artificially inflated prices . . .,
only to decline after the emissions scandal went public," the law
firm said in a statement.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, seeks to recover damages for bondholders
who purchased bonds between May 23, 2014, and Sept. 22, 2015, in
sales that raised more than $8 billion for Volkswagen, the law
firm said.

"At the same time that Volkswagen was deceiving U.S. investors and
regulators with its rigged emissions systems, it was raising
billions of dollars from investors in the U.S. capital markets,"
Thomas A. Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- a partner with Labaton
Sucharow, said in the statement.

Volkswagen did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The German automaker misled bondholders by failing to disclose
that it had used a device in some of its diesel cars that allowed
them to temporarily reduce emissions during testing, which
increased sales, the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court
of Northern California, claims.

The company, which faces a slew of litigation in Germany and in
the U.S. by car owners and shareholders, has set aside $18 billion
to cover the cost of vehicle refits and a settlement with U.S.
authorities after admitting in September to cheating U.S. diesel
emissions tests.

In the United States, Volkswagen has until June 28 to reach a
final diesel emissions settlement with government regulators and
owners of nearly 500,000 2.0-liter vehicles.


WHIRLPOOL: Settles Class Action Over Moldy Front Loading Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Kenney, writing for TheIndyChannel, reports that if you own a
Whirlpool, Kenmore or Maytag front-loading washing machine
manufactured between 2001 and 2010, you may be eligible for up to
$500 in cash or a voucher toward a new washer as part of a class
action settlement.

Call 6 Investigates exposed odor, mold and other defects with
front loading washing machines back in 2013.

The court has not yet approved the settlement, but a hearing is
scheduled for September 7 in U.S. District Court in Cleveland,
Ohio.

If you're interested in getting money, you have to submit a claim
by October 11, 2016.

Ruth Ogden, of Gas City, bought a Whirlpool Duet front loader
around 2004 and said after a year, she started noticing an odor in
her clothes.

"My son was as typical teenage slob, and we all thought the odor
from him was getting into our clothes," said Ogden, adding that
she threw out clothes worth hundreds of dollars.

Ogden ended up spending money on product to clean her washer and
to purchase a new washer, but said she might have difficulty
getting any cash from the settlement.

"Who saves receipts for 10 years of products to get the stink out
of the clothes when you didn't even know that was causing it?" Ms.
Ogden said on June 20.

Ms. Ogden contacted Call 6 Investigates in the hopes of getting
some of the settlement.

"It's not just me, what about people who are worse off than I am?"
said Ms. Ogden.  "I've already replaced the washer, and I've kind
of moved on."

Depending on the documentation you can provide as a customer, you
can receive a $50 cash payment, a 5% or 20% rebate toward the
purchase of a new washing machine or dryer, or up to $500 in
reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for repairs or
replacement due to a mold or odor problem.

Attorneys for customers alleged the washers had "serious design
defects" that can cause mold and mildew and Whirlpool failed to
warn consumers.

Whirlpool released the following statement to RTV6 about the case:

In April 2016, Whirlpool Corporation signed an agreement to settle
its pending front-loading washing machine biofilm
class-action cases.  The settlement requires certain steps,
including notification postcards and advertising, to ensure
consumers are aware of the settlement administration process. That
notification process began in early June, 2016.

The company chose to settle to allow us to remove the continued
distraction and expense of litigation.  The washers included in
the settlement were made during the 2000s, and only a small
percentage of consumers -- less than 4 percent -- ever had a
complaint about their washers.

Whirlpool feels strongly that this type of litigation is not good
for consumers and distracts U.S. manufacturers, like Whirlpool,
from providing consumers with innovative, energy-efficient
products.

CASE BACKGROUND

On May 11, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio preliminarily approved a nationwide class-action
settlement agreement between Whirlpool Corporation, Sears Holdings
Corporation and plaintiffs in the front-loading washing machine
class-action cases.  The settlement resolves all claims involving
Whirlpool-manufactured front-loading washers made from 2001 to
2010.  These include Whirlpool, Maytag, and Kenmore branded
products.

Case timeline:

December 31, 2015: Term Sheet signed by Whirlpool Corporation,
Sears Holding Corporation and plaintiffs in the front-loading
washing machine class-action cases

April 18, 2016: Proposed, signed settlement agreement filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

May 11, 2016: Court entered preliminary approval ruling

June 2016: Settlement notice to class members

September 2016: Anticipated final approval hearing

By end-of-year 2016: Anticipated final approval ruling
Companies have made design improvements to their machines, and
experts said the new front-loaders have virtually eliminated mold
with special vents in the back, hold-open doors to get air inside,
and self-cleaning cycles.

Experts say you can cut down on mold by removing damp clothes
immediately, only using HE detergent, running a cleaning cycle and
leaving the door open when not in use.


WYNYARD GROUP: Fund Managers Seek Support for Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Rotherham, writing for NBR, reports that two fund managers
are seeking support for a class action by shareholders of software
company Wynyard Group to recover losses since the share price has
plunged following a disappointing annual result and a heavily
discounted rights issue to raise cash.

The campaign is being driven by Logic Funds principal Greg
Marshall, who successfully waged a campaign that led to a $60
million settlement for Credit Sails investors and Australian-based
Millinium Capital managing director Tom Wallace.  Neither man is a
current Wynyard shareholder and their plan is to receive part of a
20% fixed percentage fee from any successful court order or
settlement if the class action proceeds.

Mr. Marshall said preliminary investigations focused on whether
Wynyard may have misled investors in statements relating to two
key areas: reported revenue for 2015 of $26 million falling well
short of its guidance of $40-to-$45 million, and director comments
on the status of the deeply-discounted $30 million capital raising
in March.

The campaign has been kicked off to coincide with the crime-
fighting and security software developer's annual general meeting
in Auckland this afternoon, where they plan to try to attract
shareholders to join the action, he said.

The Wanaka-based funds manager said initial interest online from
shareholders has been positive but a critical mass of affected
shareholders was needed to pursue a class action.  The period in
question is from August 1, 2015, to February 16, 2016, during
which time Marshall estimates more than 20 million shares changed
hands with losses of potentially $30 million because of the share
price decline.

Wynyard shares are currently trading at 64c, having tumbled from
about $1.50 after the company said its planned share placement at
about $2 per share was no longer viable.  It then reported a net
loss of double the previous year's $22.2 million after contract
revenue didn't materialize on time and the company made a heavy
investment in new staff.  Total operating costs were $57 million.

The company eventually raised $30 million at 85c a share, well
below the minimum $2 shareholders had approved in December because
it needed the extra funds to meet its working capital requirements
by the end of March.  Since then it's had a major boardroom
refresh and a new chief financial officer has been appointed.

Litigation funder Vannin Capital is the frontrunner to take the
case if the action gets sufficient shareholder support.

Mr. Marshall said this campaign is quite different from the three-
year Credit Sails one where the Commerce Commission was involved
in reaching a settlement with the companies involved in marketing
the product -- broker Forsyth Barr and French merchant bank Credit
Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank -- for $60 million to
compensate losses estimated at $70 million.

That case involved action to get redress under the Fair Trading
Act and was more "clear-cut," he said.  He has laid a complaint
with the Financial Markets Authority over Wynyard.

These types of class actions were not common in New Zealand but
"they've nailed down the process a lot in the last year," he said.

In May, Wynyard was queried over a 21% slump in its share price in
a two-week period but said it had nothing to disclose. The company
was spun out from Christchurch software firm Jade and listed on
the NZX in 2013 at an issue price of $1.15 a share. Its shares
peaked above $3 in 2014.

It has forecast 2016 revenue to be between $54 and $65 million.
The shares were trading at 65c on June 20.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Court Trims Cafferty Clobes' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the
First Amended Complaint (FAC)in the case captioned, CAFFERTY
CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XO COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16 C 2331 (N.D. Ill.).

Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP brought the lawsuit
against XO Communications Services, Inc. under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), challenging the
automatic renewal provisions of its Service Order Agreement.
Plaintiff alleges (1) contract-based theories of recovery, (2)
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (the Consumer Fraud Act),
(3) violation of the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act, 815
ILCS 601/1 et seq. (the Automatic Renewal Act) and (4) unjust
enrichment as an alternative to Count I.

XO moved to dismiss that Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. (Rule)
12(b)(6), asserting Plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted and under Rule 21 for a claimed misjoinder
the latter on the ground that the originally named defendant had
converted from a conventional corporation to a limited liability
company in 2011.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 3, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/uSWpST from Leagle.com, Judge Shadur dismissed
without leave to amend Count I's contentions that XO breached the
Agreement (a) because the Automatic Renewal Clause was not clear
and conspicuous or (b) by collecting a $1,000 termination charge
or (c) by seeking to collect a further $9,000 in early termination
charges.  Count II is dismissed without leave to amend as to as to
XO's alleged failures (a) to disclose the Automatic Renewal Clause
clearly and conspicuously and (b) to notify customers in writing
before that automatic renewal and dismissed in their entirety
without leave to amend Counts III and IV.

The Court directed Cafferty Clobes to file a proposed Second
Amended Complaint on or before June 23, 2016.

Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP is represented by
Katrina Carroll, Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com  -- and  Kyle
Alan Shamberg, Esq. -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA
GREENBERG, LLC


* DOE's New Rules Target For-Profit-Schools' Forced Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Chen, writing for The Nation, reports that semester after
semester, new students at Everest University, part of the
Corinthian for-profit college chain, eagerly signed up for their
colorfully marketed degree programs in accounting, health-care
services, or other promising-looking trades, and probably barely
glanced at the legalese.  But buried in the fine print of
Corinthian's byzantine enrollment contract was a Trojan horse: a
clause that effectively traded away students' legal rights and
bought them into an epic fraud scheme.  Following Corinthian's
financial implosion last year, the Department of Education (DOE)
is now finally helping cheated students undo their legal bind.

Corporations often use so-called "forced arbitration" agreements,
as we've reported before, to preempt the rights of workers and
consumers to bring lawsuits in financial or work-related disputes.
Conflicts are instead channeled into out-of-court arbitration
procedures with a private mediator (typically a management-
approved third-party agent).  The agreements may also restrict
consumers from bringing class-action lawsuits as a group, or
impose gag orders on signatories to prevent public exposure of
disputes.

A cascade of fraud scandals in recent years has left thousands of
former for-profit college students with worthless diplomas, but
their enrollment contracts continue to block their access to civil
courts.

The proposed rule, now pending a public comment period before
being finalized, would not ban arbitration agreements outright,
but would broadly prohibit for-profit schools from "us[ing] their
enrollment agreements, or other pre-dispute arbitration agreements
. . . to force students to go it alone by signing away their
right" to wage joint lawsuits or complaints publicly about
misconduct.

Since the rule would cover institutions benefiting from federal
direct loan funds, a crucial funding spigot for for-profit
colleges and trade schools, advocates say it would likely change
contracting practices throughout the industry.

The new rules complement a parallel effort by the DOE to expand an
obscure legal mechanism known as "Defense to Repayment," as a
legal channel to provide loan "forgiveness" to aggrieved former
students.  The DOE promises to expand the process to grant
discharges to groups of victims of scandal-ridden for-profit
schools like Corinthian's, though relief has been halting so far.

While advocates generally support the DOE's initiative, for many,
the measures don't go nearly far enough to address either "rip-off
clauses" or the underlying student-debt crisis.  Meanwhile, many
schools nationwide continue to spiral into financial turmoil, with
for-profit schools making up an estimated half of student loan
default cases nationwide, with about one-fifth of all student
loans in default.

According to Julie Murray of Public Citizen, even under the
proposed reforms, students could still be subjected to a financial
bait-and-switch when presented with a contract that stipulates a
nominally "voluntary" arbitration provision:

The department's proposal would treat that contract as
"voluntarily" entered into by the student and thus permissible,
but we expect schools will abuse this loophole by leading students
to believe through the actions of their enrollment agents that the
arbitration agreements are necessary to enroll, despite what the
fine print says.

Arguably, doing any business with a predatory industry carries
risk of exploitation: "This rule is intended to target schools
that engage in fraud as a business practice," Murray says via
e-mail.  "It is naive to believe those same schools will
accurately explain a so-called voluntary pre-dispute arbitration
agreement."  The truly protective solution would be "to prohibit
pre-dispute arbitration agreements altogether," so students would
decide on arbitration only "once a dispute arises, with their eyes
wide open."

Just as for-profit college scams represent the dregs of a cesspool
of debt pervading the higher education infrastructure, the
scandalized schools' forced arbitration clauses reflect an
underlying pattern of economic predation: coercive arbitration
agreements have curtailed access to civil courts for workers and
consumers in many sectors, through contracts for employment and
various financial services.  Outside of higher education,
Bob Shireman of the Century Foundation says via e-mail, "This
proposed rule does not address the broader problem of forced
arbitration undermining consumers' rights and inviting abuse
across the U.S. economy."

Meanwhile, the grassroots economic-justice campaign Debt
Collective, points out major shortcomings in the reform plans: DOE
officials would have the final word on who is eligible for relief,
exposing claimants to opaque and arbitrary reviews, with no
guarantee of much-needed collective relief for all former students
of major profiteers like Corinthian.  Moreover, since the proposal
is based on the federal Direct Loan program, some claimants under
a parallel loan system, the Federal Family Education Loan Program,
could face additional, potentially prohibitive eligibility
requirements.

The Debt Collective, which continues to campaign for justice for
victims of for-profit college scams through direct-action
campaigns and debt strikes, had long pressured DOE for a more
robust, expansive Defense to Repayment process.  The proposed
rules are a step forward, but the group concludes, "we continue to
believe that the Department is making it far too difficult for
students to get the relief they are entitled to by law," and vows
to keep pressuring authorities to follow through on a plan that,
so far, "amounts to little more than a loose statement of
intention to do right by student debtors after decades of
collaboration with corrupt for-profits."

Meanwhile, the industry may start ballooning again.  As New York
magazine reports, some schools are still gearing up for a
comeback: The University of Phoenix, which has seen share prices
fall by about 80 percent, is reportedly negotiating a new deal
with a private equity firm.  In the 2014-2015 school year, despite
the scandals, for-profit higher-education institutions absorbed
about one-fifth, or $16 billion of $96 billion, of total federal
student-loan dollars.

So despite the flood of scandals, neither the government nor its
client schools seem to have learned the lesson that the whole
enterprise of for-profit higher education is both ethically
bankrupt and financially unsustainable.  But the aspiring
students, veterans and working-class parents saddled with debt-
soaked scam diplomas, learned the hard way.  If there is any real
redemption for this debtor class, it's the movement their outrage
has helped spawn.  While profit-seeking institutions and their
creditors, also known as our government, mete out another round of
potentially toxic loans, a rising cadre of grassroots financial-
justice activists continues mobilizing for a school system where a
higher education is a social right, not a lifelong debt.


* Senators Reach Deal to Require GMO Product Labeling Nationwide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that senators have a bipartisan deal to require labeling of
genetically modified ingredients nationally, a week before a
labeling law in Vermont goes into effect.

The deal announced on June 23 by the top Republican and Democrat
on the Senate Agriculture Committee would require labeling of
genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in packaged foods
nationwide.  But it would be more lenient than Vermont's law,
allowing food companies to use a text label, a symbol or
electronic label accessed by smartphone.  Vermont's law would
require items to be labeled "produced with genetic engineering."

The agreement couldn't become law before Vermont's law kicks in
July 1, since the House is on vacation until July 5.  Legislation
passed by the House would make the labeling voluntary, but that
measure stalled in the Senate last year.

Since then, Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas have worked to find a
compromise, saying a national solution is needed in the face of
several separate state laws.

The food industry has lobbied to block Vermont's law, arguing that
GMOs are safe and the labels could be costly for agriculture, food
companies and consumers.

The industry's main lobbying group, the Grocery Manufacturers
Association, said it is backing the senators' deal.  The group has
opposed mandatory labeling nationwide, but advocated for
electronic labels in negotiations.

"This bipartisan agreement ensures consumers across the nation can
get clear, consistent information about their food and beverage
ingredients and prevents a patchwork of confusing and costly state
labeling laws," said Pamela Bailey, president of that group.

One group that has advocated labeling criticized the deal.

"This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing
companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by
misleading consumers," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Food &
Water Watch.

Genetically modified seeds are engineered in laboratories to have
certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides.  The majority of
the country's corn and soybean crop is now genetically modified,
with much of that going to animal feed.  Corn and soybeans also
are made into popular processed food ingredients such as high-
fructose corn syrup, corn starch and soybean oil. The food
industry says about 75 percent to 80 percent of foods contain
genetically modified ingredients.

The Food and Drug Administration says they are safe, and there is
little scientific concern about those GMOs on the market.  But
advocates for labeling say not enough is known about their risks.
Among supporters of labeling are many organic companies that are
barred by law from using modified ingredients in their foods.

Those advocates have fought state by state to enact the labeling,
with the eventual goal of a national standard.  They have frowned
on digital labels, saying they discriminate against people who
don't have smartphones, computers or the know-how to use them.

One group that has advocated labeling criticized the deal.

"This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing
companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by
misleading consumers," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Food &
Water Watch.





                            *********

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  * * *