CAR_Public/160630.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 30, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 130




                            Headlines


321 CAPITAL: Class Certification Motion Continued
AIRBNB: Homeowners Sue over Right to Rent Out Homes
ALBERTSONS LLC: "Sims" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in N.D. Ala.

APPLE INC: "Lusson" Suit Over Fatal IPhone 6 Error Tossed
AT&T SERVICES: Dito et al. May File Fourth Amended Complaint
BADESCU SKIN: Settlement Notice Properly Published, Court Rules
BARRY A. GOLDMAN: Johnson's Class Certification Bid Withdrawn
BAY AREA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

BI INCORPORATED: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA
BLOUNT COUNTY JAIL: Pro Se Action Tossed, Plaintiff Must Pay $400
BLUE SKY: Settlement Reached with Animators
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct.
BOGALUSA CITY: Roberts Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass

CALIFORNIA, USA: Berndt Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
CARRCO PAINTING: "Sandoval Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Olsen Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY: $282,500 Settlement of Marroquin Suit Okayed
CHIASMA INC: August 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

CHICAGO MERCANTILE: "Walsh" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CIVIL DEMAND: Motion to Dismiss "Lee" Appeal Denied
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
CPI CARD: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Falsified Public Stock Offering
CROATIA: Status Hearing in "Lalich" Holocaust Suit on Aug. 31

DAIRY AMERICA: Bids to Reconsider May 2 Order in "Carlin" Denied
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Buttonwood Suit
DEPENDABLE COMPANIES: "Winters" Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
DICRETE WIRELESS: "Walker" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
DUPONT: Awaits Decision on $4MM Smelter Settlement Surplus

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Stamer Seeks Class Certification
EARTH INC: Class Action Settlement in "Hedges" Suit Approved
EDUCATION CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in "Reyes" Suit
F-19 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
FANNIE MAE: Faces "Bailey" Suit in Wash D.C.

FANNIE MAE: Class Action Plaintiffs' New Briefs Due on July 1
FELT & LUKES: Rumpel Seeks Class Certification
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Gearshift
FIELD ASSET: Trial in "Bowerman" Case to Begin May 2017
FIRST AMERICAN: 2nd Cir. Upholds Judgment and Cost Order

FORD AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Dodgy Cars
FUSION AUTOPLEX: Court Certifies Class in "Allen" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Suits Allege Emissions Test Cheating
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Grants Final Approval of $300-Mil. Accord
GENGHIS GRILL: "Arnold" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

GERAWAN FARMING: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification
GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL: Dawson Seeks Class Certification
GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: Court Won't Decertify Late Meal Break Class
GULF INTERSTATE: Certification of Class Sought in "Sloane" Suit
HANNIBAL, MO: Court Stays Discovery in "Blair" Suit

HENRY INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Must Identify Representative
HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Certification Sought in Humidifier Case
HUBERT ALLEN: Ohno Enterprises Suit Remanded to State Court
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Dismisses Consumer Suit with Prejudice
J. JACOBO: Court Grants Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Harrington Seeks Class Certification
KRAFT HEINZ: "Lee" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
KRAFT HEINZ: "Randolph" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
KRAFT HEINZ: "Sellers" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
LA PICCOLA FONTANA: Certification of "Battistini" Class Granted

LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Certification of Homeless Persons Class Sought
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE: Sept. 8 Case Management Conference Set
LONE STAR: "Anzaldua" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES: Sanon-Lauredant Must Amend Complaint
MACY'S INC: Faces "Carder" Suit in N.D. Cal.

MDL 2067: Painters Fund Appeal Ruling in Suit v. Forest
MDL 2262: Banks' Bid for Leave to Strike Class Allegations Nixed
MDL 2328: Motion to Exclude Johnson Testimony Denied
MDL 2331: Court Remands Michelson's Product Liability Suit
MDL 2437: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Ashton Woods' Claims

MDL 2521: Oct. 26 Oral Argument on End-Payors' Class Cert. Bid
MICHAELS STORES: 9th Cir. Reverses Denial of Motion for Judgment
MICHIGAN, USA: Certification of Class Sought in "Hill" Suit
MO'S FISHERMAN: Court Rules on Conditional Cert. Bid in "Mendoza"
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Rules on Fee Bid in "Geoffrion" Suit

NEW YORK: Wells' Class Certification Motion Denied
NEW YORK: Court Reinstates Pay & Benefits for Bearded Cop
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AK: Convent's Class Cert. Bid Revived
NORTHWEST HOSPITAL: Sued for Allegedly Violating Charity Care Law
OCEAN DETAILING: "Burke" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA

OXY USA: Court Decertifies Class in "Roderick" Suit
PANASONIC CORP: Judge Spots No Reason to Seal Complaints
PEOPLES UNITED: Faces "Casseres-Pinto" Suit in S.D. Fla.
PLAIN GREEN: Appeals to 2nd Cir. From Ruling in "Gingras" Suit
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: July 11 Oral Argument on Motions to Dismiss

PLS DIABETIC: Class Certification Sought in Podiatry Case
POST: Faces Class Suit Over Shredded Wheat 'All Natural' Claim
PREMIER OFFICE: Faces "Peguero" Suit in S.D. Fla.
QUALITY RESOURCES: Faces "Pierluca" Suit in M.D. Fla.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: $2.35MM Settlement in Emmons Has Initial Okay

RAYONIER INC: Must Defend Against Securities Litigation
REDDY ICE: Settlement in "Brown" FLSA Case Approved
REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Complaint
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Faces "Mendlowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY: T.H. Files Suit v. Board of Education

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Aug. 25 Case Management Conference Set
SEQUOIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Chein" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SILVER WHEATON: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
SLD DELI: "Mendez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SONY CORP: Settles Class Suit Over PlayStation 3 for $7MM

SOTERIA LOSS: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Vacates Atty Fees Award in Voucher Suit
SP AUSNET: Maurice Blackburn Quizzed Over Bushfire Settlement
STARBUCKS CORP: Must Defend Against Underfilled-Latte Claims
STERLING JEWELERS: Settlement in "Tapia" Granted Final Approval

STRIPE A ZONE: "Nugent" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SUNOCO INC: Appeals to 3rd Cir. From Ruling in "White" Class Suit
SUNRUN INC: Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel Due July 26
SUPREME PRODUCTION: Bid for Class Cert. Filed in "Kubala" Suit
SWF OPERATIONS: Wins Final OK of "Kohler" Suit Class Settlement

TARGET CORPORATION: Sued Over Parmesan Cheese False Ad
TIME WARNER: Wisconsin Judge Dismisses Privacy Class Action
TRANSENTERIX INC: Sued in N. Car. Over Inflated Stock Price
TRILLIUM HEALTH: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Sought in "La Crosse"

TRUSTONE FINANCIAL: Bulger Seeks Class Certification
UDREN LAW: Pa. Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in "Glover" Suit
UNITED FEDERAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Gunter Complaint Denied
UNITED SERVICE: Policyholders File Class Action Against Lawyers
UNITED STATES: Court Strikes Amended Complaints in "Johnson" Suit

UPLAND, CA: Faces "Hilliard" Suit in C.D. Cal.
USA WHEEL: Abrego Seeks Collective Action Certification
UTAH: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Legal Representation
VIACOM: Shareholders Sue Redstone, Daughter
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Investor Class Action Over Emissions Scandal

WAL-MART STORES: "Cruz" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
WELLS FARGO BANK: Court Certifies Classes in "McLaughlin"
WESTFORD REGENCY: "Aucoin" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Act
WHOLE FOODS: Sued Over False Dietary Supplement's Vit. A Content

XTO ENERGY: 2nd Bid for Class Certification in "Roderick" Denied
YUCAIPA AMERICAN: Centonze Seeks to Block SBEEG Holdings Merger
ZIMMERMAN REED: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Amended Complaint

* South African Gold Mining Companies to Appeal Silicosis Ruling


                            *********


321 CAPITAL: Class Certification Motion Continued
-------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit styled ABC
Business Forms, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. 321 Capital Partners, LLC,
et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06256 (N.D. Ill.) , is
entered and continued generally, according to a Notification of
Docket Entry, a copy of which is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bDxpnXI1

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 20, 2016, ABC
Business Forms, Inc., asks the Court to enter an order determining
that its lawsuit may proceed as a class action.  The Plaintiff
defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b)
     who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of
     this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC,
     promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did
     not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C.
     Section 227.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons in Illinois
     (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing
     of this action (815 ILCS 505/10a), (c) were sent faxes by or
     on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting
     its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain
     an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
     alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date five years prior
     to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on
     behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting its
     goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an
     opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

ABC further asks that it be appointed class representative and
that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel
for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vc6PFH71

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


AIRBNB: Homeowners Sue over Right to Rent Out Homes
---------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
homeowners across the nation are fighting back against cities'
attempts to stop them from renting out their homes for short
stays, through websites such as Airbnb and HomeAway.

Los Angeles has sued the owners of three rent-controlled apartment
buildings, claiming they illegally evicted tenants to try to make
more money through short-term rentals.  Even as Los Angeles City
Attorney Mike Feuer filed his cases June 17, homeowners in Austin,
Texas sued the city on constitutional claims, challenging a law
that makes it more difficult for them to rent their houses. The
Austin homeowners say the new city ordinance is "carpet bombing"
their constitutional rights.  And on June 20, in Los Angeles, a
federal class action made similar arguments against the City of
Santa Monica.

Los Angeles' lawsuits differ from the ones involving Austin and
Santa Monica, as Feuer is going after landlords of multi-unit
housing, not private homeowners, but all the cases stem from the
rapid growth of Internet ad sites for short-term rentals.

The Santa Monica class action, from lead plaintiff Arlene
Rosenblatt, cites both websites as ways for homeowners to make
money, and claims a city ordinance that attempts to ban short term
rentals is an unconstitutional restraint of interstate commerce,
an unconstitutional taking, and de facto condemnation.

The City Council approved the ordinance on May 12, 2015 and it
took effect on June 15 that year. (Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 6.20.010 et seq.)

Rosenblatt says Santa Monica enacted the ordinance to pad city
coffers: specifically, to protect the 14 percent transient
occupancy tax it collects on hotel and motel rooms.  She claims
that Santa Monica's 3,483 rooms in its 34 hotels are inadequate
for the city's tourism industry and the shortage drives up prices
at Santa Monica's already overpriced hotels, many of which start
at $500 a night.

In June 2015, when the city enacted the ordinance, the occupancy
rate at Santa Monica hotels was 86.2 percent, compared to a
nationwide occupancy rate of 65.6 percent, according to the
complaint.  To top it off, she says, the median rent for a one-
bedroom apartment in Santa Monica in January was $3,490, making
homeownership a valuable asset for anyone with a room to spare.

"The ordinance not only prohibits engaging in transactions for
short-term rentals, but also prohibits utilizing the Internet, the
interstate marketplace for short-term rentals, or any other forum
to list, facilitate, or advertise short-term rentals," Rosenblatt
says in the complaint, though she does not specifically allege a
First Amendment claim.

She seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, an injunction
and punitive damages.

She is represented by Jordan Esensten, of Los Angeles.

Meanwhile in Austin, Ahmad Zaatari et al. sued the city and its
Mayor Steve Adler in Travis County Court. All seven plaintiffs
rent their homes for short terms. Six of them have a Type 2 city
license, one has a Type 1 license.

Type 1 and 1A licenses are for are owner-occupied residential
rentals. Type 2 licenses are for residential rentals in which the
owners do not claim the property as their homestead. Type 3
rentals are for a multifamily complex.

Zaatari says that 55 percent of Austin residents rent their homes,
with the high cost of homeownership a major reason for this.
Austin home values have increased by more than 78 percent in the
past 15 years, and property taxes have risen accordingly.
"Many Austin property owners -- including plaintiffs -- rent out
their homes on a short-term basis to afford the increasing cost of
living in Austin due to the economics that short-term rentals
generate more revenue than long-term rental use of the same
property," the complaint states.

Zaatari's lawsuit takes aim at the ordinance governing Type 2
rentals, as amended on Feb. 23 this year. He claims it violates
the Texas Constitution's guarantees of privacy, assembly, due
process and equal protection, and authorizes unconstitutional
searches and seizures.

"The STR [short-term rental] Ordinance prohibits short-term
rentals in previously permitted residential areas, phases out
existing, lawfully operating short-term rental properties,
restricts the number of people allowed to step foot on any short-
term rental property, dictates the movement and association of
'assemblies' in short-term rentals, and sets a bedtime for
tenants. The City cannot carpet bomb the constitutional rights of
short-term rental owners and lessees under the auspices of zoning
or code enforcement," the complaint states.

Among other things, the ordinance prohibits more than 10 related
adults, or six unrelated adults, from using a short-term rental at
one time -- regardless of the square footage or capacity. It also
prohibits more than two adults per bedroom plus two additional
adults present in a short-term rental between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.,
according to the complaint. "These arbitrary caps are in addition
to any caps in place for fire and safety purposes and have no
rational connection to the public health, safety, or welfare," the
homeowners say.

The ordinance also requires short-term rental owners and tenants
to allow officers to "enter, examine, and survey, at all
reasonable times, all buildings, dwelling units, guest rooms, and
premises" for the purpose of inspection.

"Such home inspections do not require a warrant, exigent
circumstances, pre-compliance review, or probable cause," the
complaint states, though the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck
down a similar Los Angeles ordinance, authorizing warrantless "on
demand" hotel searches.

Austin can levy fines of up to $2,000 per day for violations of
the ordinance and can suspend a license for two or more
substantiated violations. Property owners share responsibility for
their tenants' violations.

The complaint says there have been few complaints about short-term
rentals in Austin.

"Since the initiation of short-term rental licensing regulations
in October 2012, the City has issued 0 citations issued for noise,
occupancy, trash or other violations of the Austin Municipal Code
that are documented to have stemmed from a licensed short-term
rental . . .

"Of the complaints against licensed STR units, owner-occupied,
Type 1 rental units triggered the greatest number of reports --
both in absolute and percentage terms . . .

"Furthermore, this small number of complaints has not led to even
one occupancy, noise, or 'presence' restriction prosecution," the
plaintiffs say.

They seek declaratory judgment that the ordinance violates their
constitutional rights, and an injunction preventing Austin from
enforcing it.

Their lead attorney is Robert Henneke, with the Texas Public
Policy Foundation.

Some critics claim short-term rentals can destabilize
neighborhoods. Henneke denied it.

"There is no evidence to support the claim that short-term rentals
diminish the availability of affordable housing," he said. "This
ordinance . . .  violates the fundamental constitutional rights of
owners and renters who use short-term rentals.

"Policy made to address hypothetical situations is bad policy. A
subjective desire to know the personal details of one's neighbors
does not justify the city's arbitrary restrictions on property
rights, setting a bedtime for adults, or doing away with the
privacy protections enshrined in the Constitution. This really is
an example of the City using a nuclear bomb to address concerns
that could be handled with a fly swatter."

A spokesman for Austin said: "The Austin City Council spent many
hours working through the significant issues related to short-term
rentals in the city, in order to best serve all citizens. The
city's lawyers are prepared to defend the ordinance in court."


ALBERTSONS LLC: "Sims" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
-----------------------------------------------------
Derrick Sims, individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Albertsons, LLC and Supervalu, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10553, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago).
The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06169 to the
proceeding.

Albertsons is one of the largest food and drug retailers in the
United States.

The "Sims" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742 9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742 9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
          LEONARD LAW OFFICE, PC
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 329 1295
          E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicholas W. Allen, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          265 Franklin Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 449 6505
          E-mail: nallen@mccarter.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne Receivables
Management, Inc. The case is captioned Hindy Kalmenson, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03133 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2016).

AllianceOne provides debt collection services and contact center
solutions.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in N.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against American Chemicals Equipment Inc.
The case is captioned Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated. the Plaintiff v.
American Chemicals Equipment Inc. d/b/a Americanosment d/b/a
Stockup.com, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00978-JHE (N.D. Ala.,
June 15, 2016). The Assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. John H
England, III.

American Chemical is in the business of manufacturing ventilation
& aluminum coating process equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry A Ragsdale, Esq.
          SIROTE & PERMUTT PC
          2311 Highland Avenue South
          P O Box 55727
          Birmingham, AL 35255-5727
          Telephone: (205) 930 5100
          Facsimile: (205) 212 2932
          E-mail: bragsdale@sirote.com


APPLE INC: "Lusson" Suit Over Fatal IPhone 6 Error Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse news Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, on June 20 dismissed with
leave to amend a class action claiming Apple hid a fatal iPhone 6
error from customers.

Lead plaintiff Nicholas Lusson sued Apple in February, claiming it
concealed a glitch called "Error 53" that renders the iPhone 6
useless when a user updates a phone or restores it from backup.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found Lusson's second amended
complaint lacked specificity to justify claims of negligent
misrepresentation, false advertising and unjust enrichment.

"The complaint recites a few alleged affirmative
misrepresentations, but the complaint doesn't explain how those
statements are actually misleading, and doesn't give any detail
about how or when the plaintiffs actually relied on them,"
Chhabria wrote in his June 20 ruling.

The judge also found the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege
that customers lost data, rather than access to their data. Some
form of real property loss or physical injury is necessary to seek
damages for negligent misrepresentation, Chhabria wrote.

Class attorney Darrell Cochran said he was "not surprised" by the
ruling, and that "it will be a long process to hold Apple
accountable."

He said the complaint will be amended.

Cochran is with Pfau Cochran Vertetis & Amala in Tacoma, Wash.

Apple attorney Matthew Powers, with O'Melveny & Myers, did not
return a phone call seeking comment.

In April, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed another class
action against Apple, claiming an iPhone app automatically
switched phones from wireless to cellular data, causing some users
to exceed data limits and pay higher phone bills.


AT&T SERVICES: Dito et al. May File Fourth Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARILYN DITO and WENDELL WALTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03653-VC (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Vince Chhabria allows plaintiffs to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs are training professionals employed by defendant,
classified as exempt from the overtime requirements.  Plaintiffs
bring this class action against defendant for the unpaid overtime
wages in contrary to the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to
maintain accurate records of hours worked by plaintiffs as
required under Labor Code Sec. 1174(d), failure to afford proper
meal periods as obligated under Labor Code Sec. 226.7 and Wage
Order No. 4-2001, Sec. 11(b), and unlawful and unfair business
practices.

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all questions of fact raised
by the Fourth Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint.

A copy of Judge Chhabria's June 9, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/v9GSwPfrom Leagle.com.

AT&T Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Thomas
Campbell -- mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter Hampton LLP, Paul Berkowitz --
pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton
LLP & Thomas Roy Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.


BADESCU SKIN: Settlement Notice Properly Published, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the settlement of a class-action lawsuit regarding unlabeled
steroids in face cream only needed to have its notice published
once, a California appeals court ruled.

Wankyu Choi and Jae Lee sued Mario Badescu Skin Care Inc., along
with Badescu himself, over the labeling and marketing of their
Healing Cream.  The Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety had
recalled the cream in 2012 after tests revealed the presence of
two steroids: hydrocortisone and triamcinolone acetonide in the
product.  According to the ministry, long-term use of steroids
could lead to enlarged capillaries and skin atrophy.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted claims of fraudulent
concealment, breach of warranty and false advertising.

Badescu and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the nationwide class-
action lawsuit. More than 30,000 customers received a settlement
notice, which was also published nationwide in Parade magazine.
The trial court approved the class and certified the settlement in
2014.

However, nine class members objected to the settlement. Some of
them claimed that the Consumer Legal Remedies Act required four
publications of the settlement notice, not just one.

Justice Richard Aldrich of the Los Angeles-based California Court
of Appeals disagreed, stating that the law requires notice of a
settlement to be given "'as the court directs,' thus granting the
trial court discretion to fashion notice of a settlement class."
He added that it was "infeasible" for the notice to be published,
as the law states, in "a newspaper of general circulation in the
county in which the transaction occurred."

"Determining in which counties around the United States sales of
the creams occurred in this case would be impossible," he wrote.
"Civil Code section 1781 does not appear to govern nationwide
consumer class actions."

The case captioned, WANKYU CHOI et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents; MARY RESTAINO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
MARIO BADESCU SKIN CARE, INC., et al., Defendants and
Respondents., B257480 (Cal. App.).


BARRY A. GOLDMAN: Johnson's Class Certification Bid Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Joyce A Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Barry A.
Goldman, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04412 (N.D.Ill.),
Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn.  A status
hearing was held before the Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman on June
17, 2016.  The Judge ruled that Defendant's oral request to strike
document is granted resulting from motion having been filed in
error.  Another status hearing is set for Aug. 15, 2016, and if
the case has not settled, a joint status report is due by the next
date. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Finnegan for
discovery supervision as well as settlement discussions.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hY7iqDGA


BAY AREA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a transit district is allegedly to have not adequately paid
its employees overtime wages.

Jodi Brunker filed a complaint on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals on June 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Bay Area Rapid Transit District
alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked
for more than 40 hours for the defendant but was not paid any
overtime wages.  The plaintiff holds Bay Area Rapid Transit
District responsible because the defendant allegedly required its
employees to work overtime but failed to pay them any overtime
compensation at the legal rate as defined by the FLSA.

The plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation plus
liquidated damages in an equal amount, all legal fees and any
other relief as the court deems just.  She is represented by David
E. Mastagni, Isaac S. Stevens and Ace T. Tate of Mastagni Holstedt
APC in Sacramento.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-03399-EDL


BI INCORPORATED: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
KAREL ALVAREZ and JUAN TELLADO, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BI INCORPORATED, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02705-MSG (E.D. Penn., June 2, 2016),
seeks to recover all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act(FLSA), and the Pennsylvania law.

Mr. Alvarez works for Defendant as an Intensive Supervision
Appearance Program (ISAP) Case Specialist in New Jersey. BI paid
Plaintiffs and Class Members for half an hour of their regular
rate each day that they were on call, or $17.14 per day or $120.00
per week (7-day week beginning Monday and ending on Sunday),
regardless of the hours actually worked. However, Plaintiffs and
Class Members who were required to carry a pager were required to
respond but were not compensated for the hours they actually
worked.

BI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO
Group). The GEO Group is a global leader in the delivery of
correctional, detention, and residential treatment services to
federal, state, and local government agencies. BI offers offender
monitoring products and services that help federal, state, and
local agencies monitor parolees, probationers, pretrial
defendants, and illegal aliens involved in the U.S. immigration
court process as they live in the community

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 LOCUST ST
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4674
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net

               - and -

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          Bruce Ludwig, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656 3600
          Facsimile: (215) 567 2310
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
                  bludwig@wwdlaw.com


BLOUNT COUNTY JAIL: Pro Se Action Tossed, Plaintiff Must Pay $400
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, INMATES OF BLOUNT COUNTY JAIL and RUDOLPH
M. BROOKS, Plaintiffs, v. BLOUNT COUNTY, JAMES BERRONG, and C/O
DALMEN, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-01171-JSW (LB) (E.D. Tenn.),
District Judge Pamela L. Reeves of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint and directed him to pay the full filing fee.

Plaintiff Rudolph M. Brooks filed a pro se civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis Section 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
of 1996 (PLRA). Before he filed his complaint in the case,
Plaintiff had filed, while incarcerated, at least five civil
actions which were dismissed for failure to state a claim.

In her Memorandum and Order dated June 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/KN19lV from Leagle.com, Judge Reeves concluded that
Plaintiff's complaint does not allege that he is any imminent
danger of physical injury. Plaintiff is directed to prepay the
entire $400 filing fee in order to file the action.


BLUE SKY: Settlement Reached with Animators
-------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose, June 23 appeared inclined to approve
class settlements between Sony Pictures and another studio and
their animation and visual effects workers.

Sony Pictures and Blue Sky Studios agreed to settle with the
employees who claimed that seven major studios conspired to
suppress their wages.  Sony and Blue Sky have agreed to settle the
cases for $13 million and $5.9 million respectively.

Other studios, including Pixar, Dreamworks, Lucasfilm, Disney and
ImageMovers Digital, continue to fight the case.

Lead plaintiffs Robert Nitsch, Georgia Cano and David Wentworth
stand to receive $10,000 as a part of the settlement with Blue
Sky; their entitlement relative to Sony was not stipulated.
Of the approximately 10,000 class members in line for a payday,
2,038 have worked at Sony and 578 have worked at Blue Sky,
according to their attorney Brent Johnson.

The recovery for each of the class members averages $1,026.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh had a few technicalities she wanted
corrected, including putting the burden on the plaintiffs'
attorneys to inform their clients of the process and any major
changes to the settlement schedule.  The settlement as constructed
urges people with questions to visit the court clerk's office.

Koh didn't see the point.

"What can they expect to get when they come to the court?" Koh
asked. "I don't see how the intake folks working in the clerk's
office are going to be able to assist class members."

The plaintiffs agreed to strike that language and provide their
phone number in its stead. Aside from a few other details it
appeared everything was in order for Koh to issue the approval in
coming weeks.

Nitsch's September 2014 lawsuit claims major animation studios
colluded to fix wages and restrict career opportunities for
artists.  Nitsch, who was a senior character effects artist for
DreamWorks and a clothes and hair technical director at Sony
Pictures Imageworks, says animation and special effects studios
-- including Walt Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and Lucasfilm,
Sony Pictures, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers
-- conspired to stifle wages and restrict career opportunities for
animators, digital artists, software engineers and other technical
workers.

The lawsuit mirrors a class action filed against Apple, Google and
others in 2010, which claimed their CEOs made "gentleman's
agreements" to restrict competition, and companion wage-setting
mechanisms, by not poaching each other's employees.

Pixar and Lucasfilm settled for $9 million collectively last year,
but Koh has rejected a $325 million agreement proposed by Apple,
Google, Intel and Adobe in that case.

Nitsch claims the animation studios acted in much the same way as
the tech companies, conspiring to deprive artists of "millions of
dollars which defendants instead put to their bottom lines."  His
lawsuit continues: "It did so at the same time the films produced
by these workers achieved world renown and generated billions in
the United States and abroad."

Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when Apple founder Steve Jobs
bought Lucasfilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in
1986 and created Pixar.  Nitsch says Jobs, Lucas and Pixar
president Ed Catmull agreed not to cold-call each other's
employees.

Neither Lucas, Catmull nor Apple are defendants in Nitsch's
complaint.

He claims Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to notify each other when
making an offer to an employee, and agreed not to offer higher pay
if the employer made a counteroffer. He says Jobs and Catmull
spread this kind of anti-competitive agreement throughout the
animation industry.  Whenever a studio threatened to disturb the
conspiracy's goals of suppressing wages and salaries by recruiting
employees and offering better compensation, the leaders of the
conspiracy took steps to stop them," the complaint states.  The
artists say the studios' cooperation was so thorough they emailed
each other salary and budget information.

Nitsch quotes Lucas as saying that "the rule we always had [was]
we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we
don't have the margins for that sort of thing."  The other studios
used similar practices and pay structures, Nitsch says.
Blue Sky is a computer animation film studio based in Connecticut.
It is famous for making the films "Ice Age," "Rio" and "The
Peanuts Movie."

Sony Pictures Animation has a few high-profile films under its
belt, including "Open Season," "Cloudy with a Chance of
Meatballs," "The Smurfs" and "Hotel Transylvania.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits have been filed against Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
International GmbH, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford
Judicial District.

The lawsuits seek 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 violations of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.

According to the complaints, 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 four cases are:

-- LOIS SOKOL, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          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 -

          Roopal P. Luhana, Esq.
          CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
          600 Third Ave., 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 347-269-4472
          Facsimile: 888-499-1123
          E-mail: luhana@chaffinluhana.com

-- PATRICIA AVERY, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069085-S (June 15, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          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

-- FRANK CASEY, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          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

-- JEANNE NEGRON, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069084-S (June 15, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          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


BOGALUSA CITY: Roberts Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT,
LATASHA COOK and ROBERT LEVI, the Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT J. BLACK,
and BOGALUSA CITY COURT, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-11024-
ILRL-MBN (E.D. La), asks the Court to certify the following Class
and Subclass, respectively:

     The Structural Bias Equitable Class: All individuals who will
appear in the Bogalusa City Court for criminal cases or who have
unpaid fines and costs assessed by and owed to the City Court; and

     The Pay Date Equitable Subclass: All individuals who were or
will be adjudicated guilty in the Bogalusa City Court, who have
been or will be given a future date by which to return to City
Court, and who have not paid the assessed fines and costs in full
prior to returning to City Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RpGsiuZ5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ivy Wang, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 228 7279
          Facsimile: (504) 486 8947
          E-mail: ivy.wang@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Micah West, Esq.
          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          Emily Early, Esq.
          Sara Zampierin, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone:(334) 956 8200
          Facsimile:(334) 956 8481
          E-mail: micah.west@splcenter.org
                  samuel.brooke@splcenter.org
                  emily.early@splcenter.org
                  sara.zampierin@splcenter.org


CALIFORNIA, USA: Berndt Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Martha Berndt filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Martha Berndt, et al. v. CDC, et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-03174-NJV, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Martha Berndt, et al. v. CDC,
et al., Case No. 16-16079, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Martha Berndt, and Plaintiffs The Estate of
Judy Kay Longo, Marta Hastings, Sophia Curry, Shelly Adcock,
Patricia Moreira, Karen Currie, Lisa R. Boyd, Kimberley Morin and
Raissa Jeffries are represented by:

          John L. Burris, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
          7677 Oakport Street
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 839-5200
          Facsimile: (510) 839-3882
          E-mail: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com

               - and -

          Pamela Y. Price, Esq.
          PRICE & ASSOCIATES
          1611 Telegraph Ave.
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 452-0292
          Facsimile: (510) 452-5625
          E-mail: pamela.price@pypesq.com

               - and -

          Charles Stephen Ralston, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1143
          Mi Wuk Village, CA 95346-1143
          Telephone: (209) 586-2370
          Facsimile: (209) 729-5800
          E-mail: csralston@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees California Department of Corrections, D.
Skerik, Teresa Schwartz, Joseph McGrath and Dwight W. Winslow are
represented by:

          Lyn Harlan, Esq.
          Christopher Michael Young, Esq.
          AGCA - OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1515 Clay Street
          Oakland, CA 94612-0550
          Telephone: (510) 622-2208
          Facsimile: (510) 622-2270
          E-mail: Lyn.Harlan@doj.ca.gov
                  chris.young@doj.ca.gov


CARRCO PAINTING: "Sandoval Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR SANDOVAL, and Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CARRCO PAINTING CONTRACTORS, the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-
00159-RAJ (W.D. Tex., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Sandoval is an employee of Carrco and
his primary duties include painting. Carrco assigned Sandoval to
work long hours, often more than 65 hours in a single week.
Although Carrco knew Sandoval worked far in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, it failed to pay him overtime as required by federal
law. Carrco allegedly attempts to deceive their employees and/or
circumvent the law by drafting two different paychecks for a
single work week.

Carrco is a professional painting service with more than 20 years
of experience. It focuses on providing qualified painting services
to educational, commercial, retail and corporate sector of
construction. Carrco routinely uses computers, copiers,
telephones, paint, painting equipment, and construction equipment
that was produced for and moved in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeralynn Manor, Esq.
          THE MANOR LAW FIRM PC
          1730 Jefferson Ste. 218
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 225 2667
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8112
          E-mail: jmanor@manorlaw.net


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Olsen Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER
OLSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 8:15-cv-2520-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), asks the court to certify
the following class and subclass, respectively:

     Consumer Debtor Class: all Florida consumers to whom
Defendant sent the Form Letters, or a letter in similar form,
substance, or improper purpose as the Form Letters, in an attempt
to "settle" a consumer debt without advising of the time-barred
nature of the debt, in violation of the FDCPA within a one-year
period of time prior to the filing of the original Complaint on
October 23, 2015, up through and including the present date.

     Consumer Debtor Sub-Class: all consumer debtors who were part
of the class and who incurred out-of-pocket expenses, including
but not limited to, full or partial payments to Defendant in
response to the amount allegedly owed to Defendant, as well as
attorneys' fees or costs in responding to Defendant's Form Letters
during the Class Period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0EI5KzRK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian R. Leavengood, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
          Gregory H. Lercher, Esq.
          LEAVENLAW
          3900 First Street North, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327 3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327 3305
          E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  aswift@leavenlaw.com
                  glercher@leavenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher P. Hahn, Esq.
          Don Maurice, Esq.
          Maurice Wutscher, LLP
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: chahn@MauriceWutscher.com
                  dmaruice@MauriceWutscher.com
                  litigation@MauriceWutscher.com


CHAMPLAIN VALLEY: $282,500 Settlement of Marroquin Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order in the class action
lawsuit captioned JUAN RAMON MARROQUIN ALAS; MARINA BALTAZAR;
CLARA ESTELA FUENTES LUX; VICTOR MARROQUIN; MIGUEL PEREZ ORTIZ, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CHAMPLAIN VALLEY SPECIALTY OF NEW YORK, INC.;
JEREMY DYGERT; RUTHANNE DYGERT; CHRISTOPHER COTY; and RACHEL
DYGERT COTY, the Defendants, Case 5:15-cv-00441-MAD-TWD
(N.D.N.Y.), granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final
approval of class action settlement, certification of settlement
class, approval of the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, and
award of attorney fees and costs.

The Certified Class consists of:

     All persons who were/are employed by Champlain Valley
Specialty of New York, Inc., as hourly food processing employees
at its apple-slice processing facility in Oswego, New York, and/or
in similar positions for the period of April 18, 2009, to the date
of this Order.

Defendants have agreed to pay up to $282,500 to resolve and
satisfy any claim for attorneys fees and costs approved by the
Court, any and all amounts to be paid to class members, any court-
approved enhancement payment to Plaintiffs, all claims
administration costs to the claims administrator and the
employer's share of payroll taxes including the employer's share
of the FICA tax and any federal and state unemployment tax due.

The Court further orders that:

     Dahl Administration, LLC, the Class Administrator provided
adequate notice and Class Members had adequate opportunity to opt-
out.

     Class Members who have not opted out by the date of this
order are bound by the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release
entered into by the parties to this action.

     Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees in the amount of
$90,000 and costs in the amount of $6,504 is granted.

     The claims administration expenses are to be paid to Dahl
Administrators in the amount of $8,720.

     Payment to Class Members who have submitted claims forms are
to be paid in the amounts determined by the Claims Administrator
in accordance with the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release
entered into by the parties to this action.

     Payment of $1500, as a Plaintiffs' enhancement, is to be paid
to each of the named Plaintiffs and Class Representatives to this
action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tgNCXv4J

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Teague P. Paterson, Esq.
          Dalisai S. Nisperos, Esq.
          BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC
          217 South Salina Street, Suite 600
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          E-mail: tpaterson@beesontayer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen Louis Sheinfeld, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
          New York Office
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          E-mail: ssheinfeld@winston.com


CHIASMA INC: August 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on June 21 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Chiasma, Inc. ("Chiasma" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: CHMA). Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between July 15, 2015 and April 17,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact
the Firm prior to the August 8, 2016, lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

If you purchased shares of Chiasma during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com

There has been no class certification in this case.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the complaint, the Company made materially false
and/or misleading statements about the Company's business during
the Class Period.  The Company failed to disclose that the Phase 3
clinical trial for its oral octreotide, Mycapssa, which was
conducted before the July 15, 2015 IPO, was insufficient to prove
efficacy and secure FDA approval.  Also Chiasma's supervision of
its suppliers was not sufficient enough to prevent deficiencies
that delayed FDA approval of Mycapssa.  On April 18, 2016 the
Company announced that the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter
in response to the Company's New Drug Application for Mycapssa
stating that the FDA did not believe the application provided
sufficient evidence of efficacy to warrant approval and another
clinical trial would be necessary, and that deficiencies with the
Company's suppliers would need to be resolved.  When Chiasma
announced this news on April 18, 2016 the share price fell 63.13%
on that day.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com


CHICAGO MERCANTILE: "Walsh" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WALSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE INC., and
CME GROUP INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06224 (N.D. Ill.,
June 15, 2016), seeks to recover earned shift differential pay and
full amount of overtime wages and other contractually mandated
wages against the Defendants, under the Fair Labor Standards Acts
(FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).

The Defendants allegedly did not compensate Plaintiff at a rate of
one and one half times his "regular hourly rate of pay" for times
he worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks. The
unpaid overtime wages due to the Defendants' failure to include
the Plaintiff's shift differential pay in his regular hourly rate
exceeded $1,200 in 2011; $800 in 2012; $800 in 2013; $900 in 2014;
$1,200 in 2015 and $600 in 2016.

The Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendants as follow:

     A. A judgment in the amount of all back wages due as provided
by the IWPCA;

     B. Prejudgment interest on the unlawful deductions and
punitive damages;

     C. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; and

     D. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
appropriate.

Chicago Mercantile is a Delaware corporation and it operates a
stock exchange in Chicago, which provides futures contracts and
options on futures for its financial products such as interest
rates, stock indexes, foreign exchange, and commodities and it
also provides electronic trading floor and an electronic trading
platform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Shim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL SHIM
          3501 Algonquin Road, Suite 600
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 427 0033
          E-mail: sshim.law@gmail.com,
                  rosabaekim.esq@gmail.com


CIVIL DEMAND: Motion to Dismiss "Lee" Appeal Denied
---------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice David A. Thompson of the California Court of
Appeals reversed a judgment granting special motion to strike and
then denied a motion to dismiss the appeal in the case captioned,
CODY LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CIVIL DEMAND ASSOCIATES,
INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. G051868 (Cal.
App.).

In early February 2013, plaintiff was terminated from his cashier
job at Knott's Berry Farm for giving sodas to a coworker, eating
parts of a churro, and taking about $15 in loose change.  Neal C.
Tenen, who is a lawyer, had a contract with Knott's Berry Farm to
send demand letters "in an attempt to settle potential civil
claims" against former employees terminated for theft. Tenen owns
part of CDA, which acted as Tenen's agent in connection with the
collection efforts.

Plaintiff filed the action against Tenen and CDA for extortion,
defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage, fraud, and negligence. Plaintiff sought, among other
things, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and a declaration
that no court had found he had violated Penal Code section 490.5.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, removing all causes of
action except the extortion claim. In substance, the extortion
cause of action was the same as the one in the original complaint,
although plaintiff removed some of the original allegations.
Defendants then each filed a second anti-SLAPP motion. This time
they attached copies of the two letters to Tenen's declaration.

The court granted these motions. It ruled the two letters did not
contain any implied threat and were not extortionist. The court
further ruled that a demand letter is activity protected under
section 425.16 and thus defendants had satisfied their burden.

On appeal, plaintiff argues the statements at issue were not
protected under the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, Sec. 47,
subd. (b) section 47(b)) and were extortionist and thus not
protected activity under section 425.16. He also argues defendants
did not have the right to bring a second anti-SLAPP motion because
the first amended complaint did not make a new substantive change.
Further, he asserts the putative class action is exempt from an
anti-SLAPP motion.

In his Opinion dated May 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/T08sXW from Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that
there is no evidence defendants even threatened to pursue legal
remedies and that there is no evidence defendants even threatened
to pursue legal remedies.

Cody Lee is represented by Stephen J. Simoni, Esq. --
StephenSimoniLAW@Gmail.com -- SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW
OFFICES

Civil Demand Associates, Inc. is represented by Todd W. Goodman,
Esq. -- law@toddgoodman.com -- TODD W. GOODMAN, APC


CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANETH JIMENEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 653161/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 15, 2016),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class the minimum wage rate
established by law, appropriate overtime compensation, and the
spread of hours pay to which Plaintiffs and the other Class
members were entitled. The Defendant was enriched at the expense
of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

The case defined the Class as: All individuals employed by
Defendant as Personal Assistants at any time since March 1, 2012
in New York City and at any time since March 1, 2013 in
Westchester, Nassau, and/or Suffolk counties.

The Plaintiff is a home care aid (Personal Assistant) employed by
Defendant, a not-for-profit enterprise that employs thousands of
Personal Assistants to administer care to elderly and disabled
individuals in the State of New York (Consumers) through the
Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP).

CDPAP is a statewide Medicaid program that provides an alternative
to more traditional home health care service models in which the
consumers have little or no control

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq.
          Robert Abrams, Esq.
          Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: smith@whafh.com
                  abrams@whafh.com
                  kamin@whafh.com


CPI CARD: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Falsified Public Stock Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY VANCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CPI CARD GROUP INC., STEVEN MONTROSS,
DAVID BRUSH, JERRY DREILING, BRADLEY SEAMAN, NICHOLAS PETERS,
ROBERT PEARCE, DAVID ROWNTREE, TRICOR PACIFIC CAPITAL PARTNERS
(FUND IV), LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TRICOR PACIFIC CAPITAL PARTNERS
(FUND IV) US, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TRICOR PACIFIC CAPITAL, INC.,
BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., CIBC WORLD
MARKETS INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR &
COMPANY, L.L.C., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SCOTIA CAPITAL
(USA) INC. and GRIFFITHS MCBURNEY CORP., the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04531 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), in connection
with CPI's October 8, 2015 initial public stock offering (IPO).

On or about May 14, 2015, CPI filed with the SEC its registration
statement on Form S-1, which, following several amendments made in
response to comments received from the SEC and being declared
effective by the SEC on October 8, 2015, would later be utilized
for the IPO (Registration Statement). On or about October 8, 2015,
one week after EMV Liability Shift went into effect in the U.S.,
CPI and the Underwriter Defendants priced the IPO at $10 per
share. On October 9, 2015, they filed with the SEC the final
prospectus for the common stock IPO (Prospectus), which forms part
of the Registration Statement, and sold 17.25 million shares of
CPI common stock to the investing public, 15 million of which CPI
issued and sold and another 2.25 million which were sold by
certain "Selling Stockholders", including Defendants Montross,
Pearce and the Tricor Funds.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to
make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation.

CPI, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the design,
production, data personalization, packaging, and fulfillment of
financial payment cards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com
                  scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


CROATIA: Status Hearing in "Lalich" Holocaust Suit on Aug. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 27, 2016, in the case
entitled Lizabeth Lalich, et al. v. Republic of Croatia, Case No.
1:16-cv-05712 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiffs' placeholder motion
for class certification is entered and continued generally.
Initial status hearing is set for August 31, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

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

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 13, 2016, the
Plaintiffs filed a placeholder motion for certification of this
class:

     All survivors, heirs, and next of kin, of persons of Jewish,
     Serbian, or Roma descent who were the victims of the
     Croatian Holocaust, and who (a) reside in the United States,
     or (b) are U.S. citizens residing abroad.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as the Class
representatives, and their counsel as Class counsel.  They further
ask the Court to award the Plaintiff Class the sum of $3.5 billion
minus a contingency fee of 20% for the Class's attorneys for
conceiving, initiating, pleading, and arguing this case on behalf
of the Class.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony D'Amato, Esq.
          5807 Lake Shore Drive
          Holland, MI 49424
          Telephone: (616)-399-6344
          E-mail: a-damato@northwestern.edu

               - and -

          Aaron Ross Walner, Esq.
          THE WALNER LAW FIRM
          555 Skokie BLVD. suite 250
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (312) 201-1616
          E-mail: awalner@walnerlawfirm.com


DAIRY AMERICA: Bids to Reconsider May 2 Order in "Carlin" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI
AND BRIAN WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRY AMERICA, INC. and
CAIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, No. 1:09-cv-0430 AWI GSA
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied the motions filed by
both defendant parties, DairyAmerica, Inc. and California Dairies,
Inc. for reconsideration of the court's order of May 2, 2016,
granting in part and denying in part motions by both parties to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint of the plaintiffs, Gerald
Carlin, et al.

A full-text copy of Judge Ishii's June 22, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/0h6cNB from Leagle.com.

Gerald Carlin, John Rahm, Paul Rozwadowski, Diana Wolfe,
Plaintiffs, represented by Aidan Chowning Poppler --
cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Anthony David
Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle Brown --
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Brent W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg --
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Christopher Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,George F.
Farah -- gfarah@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris --
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif
-- jsaif@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice &
Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice.

DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, E. John Steren --
ejsteren@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice, Joseph Michael
Marchini -- jmarchini@bakermanock.com -- Baker, Manock & Jensen,
Wendy M. Yoviene -- wyovienne@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac
vice, Allison Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia -- sanjaynangia@dwt.com --
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence
Michael Cirelli -- lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett,
Shannon Marie Nessier -- snessier@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson
Bridgett LLP & Megan Oliver Thompson --
moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP.

James Rehberg, Ronald Hayek, Michael K. Schugg, ThirdParty
Plaintiffs, represented by J. Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm,
pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Timothy L. Rawlings, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J.
Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark A. Griffin --
mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice &
Raymond J. Farrow -- rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, pro hac vice.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Buttonwood Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, affirmed an order dismissing an amended class action.
The appellate case is captioned, BUTTONWOOD TREE VALUE PARTNERS,
L.P.; JOHN SORRELLS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JACK A. SWEENEY;
STEVEN J. SWEENEY; MARILYN J. SWEENEY; GARY M. HORGAN; H. ANTHONY
GARTSHORE; ELIZABETH THOMPSON; FRED M. EDWARDS; THOMAS E.
MCCULLOGH; RICHARD SCHRIEBER; LAWRENCE J. SHERMAN, Defendants, and
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-56267 (9th Cir.)

Plaintiffs' third amended class action alleges Deloitte & Touche's
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. However, the
Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err by
dismissing the case for plaintiffs' failure to plead scienter. In
pleading securities fraud against an outside auditor, the Ninth
Circuit says a plaintiff is required to allege that the accounting
practices were so deficient that the audit amounted to no audit at
all, or an egregious refusal to see the obvious.

A copy of the decision dated June 22, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/MVrgsgfrom Leagle.com.


DEPENDABLE COMPANIES: "Winters" Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Ray Winters, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Dependable Companies a business
entity form unknown; Dependable Distribution Centers, a business
entity form unknown; Dependable Highway Express, Inc., California
corporation; Citistaff Solutions, a California corporation, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC623839 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wages, premium wages for missed meal periods, penalties, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the California
Labor Code and California Code of Regulations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees have not been paid, during the relevant
liability periods, wages for all time worked, including overtime
wages, as a result of, including but not limited to, improperly
rounding time worked by their employees. The Defendants allegedly
have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees or former employees within the
State of California a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days
on which the employees worked more than five 8-hours in a workday
and a second 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which
the employees worked in excess often 10 hours in a work day, and
failing to provide compensation for such un-provided meal periods.

Dependable Companies, a business entity form unknown, is a full
service logistics provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DICRETE WIRELESS: "Walker" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua J. Walker, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Discrete Wireless, Inc.,
doing business as: NEXTRAQ; Fleetcor Technologies Operating
Company, LLC, doing business as: NEXTRAQ; and Fleetcor
Technologies, Inc., doing business as: NEXTRAQ, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02003-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 15, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime compensation in amounts to be determined at
trial, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees,
costs, injunctive relief, and other compensation, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully misclassified
the class of inside sales representatives as exempt from the
overtime wages provision of the FLSA. The Plaintiff, and the class
of similarly situated employees, were all paid a base salary and
commission and bonus structure. However, these employees fail the
administrative exemption as their primary job duty does not
involve the use of discretion and independent judgment related to
the management of the company. After Fleetcor Technologies, Inc.,
purchased Nextraq, the Defendants instituted a policy switching
all inside sales reps to hourly nonexempt employees and told them
not to clock in more than 40 hours per week after recognizing the
lack of exemption under FLSA for the position. However, the
Defendants allegedly refused to address or pay the employees the
overtime wages owed for the preceeding 2-3 year period of time.

NexTraq is a fleet tracking company based in Atlanta, Georgia,
United States. Acquired by Francisco Partners in 2009, NexTraq is
a provider of Global Positioning System vehicle management and
fleet tracking solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman
          FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1201 Peachtree Street, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (813) 639 9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639 9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


DUPONT: Awaits Decision on $4MM Smelter Settlement Surplus
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for The Exponent Telegram, reports that a
hearing on what to do with about $4 million not used in the DuPont
Spelter/smelter lawsuit home and land cleanup was set for 8:30
a.m. on June 22 before Harrison Chief Judge Thomas A. Bedell.

Judge Bedell was set to hear from some of the 1,000 families that
were part of the property cleanup area, including some from the
750 families that actually participated by having homes and land
cleaned of toxic chemicals.

Multiple options are on the table, but both Claims Administrator
Ed Gentle and his local counsel, Morgantown civil litigation
attorney Michael Jacks of Jacks Legal Group, favor distributing
the money among the families.

The judge isn't bound by that.

In some class actions, as Mr. Gentle and others have pointed out
in scholarly articles, judges opted to distribute surplus money
among local charities.  But in those cases, it would have cost
almost as much or more to mail the claim check than what it was
worth.

Additionally, as Mr. Gentle indicates in an Alabama Law Review
article about class action surplus distribution in general, the
courts must step carefully in this area of law due to the
potential of undermining the class action process.

The money comes from the class action in which DuPont eventually
agreed to pay about $35 million for property and home cleanup near
its old Spelter smelter.

The cleanup effort focused on elements such as cadmium and lead
that were produced through the zinc smelting process and have been
linked to cancer.

DuPont funded medical monitoring for residents in the smelter
area, but that's separate from the property cleanup.

Mr. Gentle attributes part of the property cleanup surplus on a
detailed bidding process and a disciplined effort to keep costs in
check.  Additionally, the 250 families that opted against having
the cleanup done played a part in creating a surplus.

The court will review the results of a survey that was mailed to
property cleanup participants in addition to possibly hearing from
as many as 40 or 50 individuals, according to Gentle.

The judge has multiple options on the table.  To name a few: He
could divide the $4 million evenly among all 1,000, for a check of
about $1,000 each; he could divide it among the 750 families that
chose to participate, for a check of about $5,330 each; or he
could award those in the zone closest to the plant, where the most
pollution was said to have occurred, a higher percentage and then
distribute what's left equally.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Stamer Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit entitled DAVID STAMER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-05578 (N.D. Ill.), asks Court to certify a Class with
respect to his Complaint, filed on May 2, 2016, which seeks relief
from Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Accordingly the Class consists of: (1) all persons within the
United States (2) who, on or after July 1, 2011 (3) received a
non-emergency telephone call from Defendant to a cellular
telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice and (4) where Defendant's
records do not show that the person provided the number to the
defendant or the original creditor (for example, where the number
was obtained through skip tracing or captured by the defendant's
equipment from an inbound call). Plaintiff further requests that
he be named as class representative and his lawyers be appointed
counsel for the class.

Mr. Stamer brought this class action complaint against the
Defendant to stop their practice of making unauthorized automated
telephone calls to cellular telephones.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nV3JT0l6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Meier, Esq.
          MEIER LLC
          53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 304
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 242 1849
          Facsimile: (312) 242-1841
          E-mail: richard@meierllc.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Geier, Esq.
          GEIER LAW LLC
          910 W. Van Buren St., Suite 2S
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 837 3006
          Facsimile: (312) 829 3729
          E-mail: sgeier@geierlawfirm.com


EARTH INC: Class Action Settlement in "Hedges" Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber entered an order in the action
lawsuit captioned Leslie Hedges, the Plaintiff, v. Earth, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case: 1:14-cv-09858 (N.D. Ill.), granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
and granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Award.

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


EDUCATION CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in "Reyes" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted in part
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, AJ
REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-00628-BAS-JMA (S.D. Cal.).

On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff AJ Reyes commenced the putative class
action against Defendant Educational Credit Management
Corporation, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, and the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code Sec. 630 et seq.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently and willfully
violated the TCPA when it placed an unsolicited call to
Plaintiff's cell phone via an "automatic telephone dialing system"
(ATDS) on February 5, 2015, without Plaintiff's prior express
consent. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the
CIPA when it recorded two private telephone conversations between
Plaintiff and Defendant's representatives on February 5, 2015,
without Plaintiff's consent.

In the motion, Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds
that (1) Plaintiff expressly consented to Defendant calling his
cell phone using an ATDS before Defendant called Plaintiff on
February 5, 2015; and (2) Defendant adequately advised Plaintiff
of its intent to record his calls by using an automated recording
advisement at the beginning of each call.

In response, Plaintiff argues that (1) he refused consent to
receive calls to his cell phone during a May 10, 2013 phone
conversation with Defendant's representative; and (2) he did not
hear a recording advisement immediately prior to his recorded
conversations with Defendant's representatives on February 5,
2015.

In her Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/eU7QFT
from Leagle.com, Judge Bashant granted summary Defendant's summary
judgment as to Plaintiff's TCPA claim finding that there is no
genuine dispute that ECMC had prior express consent before placing
the February 5, 2015 call, and denied as to CIPA claims finding
that Plaintiff consented to the recordings is a genuine issue for
trial.

A J Reyes is represented by Alexis M. Wood, Esq. --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. --
kas@consumersadvocates.com -- and -- Ronald Marron, Esq. --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON -- and -
- Daniel G. Shay, Esq. -- DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com
-- LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY

Educational Credit Management Corporation is represented by David
J. Kaminski, Esq. -- KaminskiD@cmtlaw.com -- and Martin Schannong,
Esq. -- schannom@cmtlaw.com -- CARLSON & MESSER LLP


F-19 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted
defendants F-19 Holdings, LLC's and Fitness 19 KY 185, LLC's
motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, ANWAR K.
MALIK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. F-19 HOLDINGS, LLC, FITNESS 19 KY 185, LLC, and
CALLFIRE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:15-130-KKC (E.D. Ky.).

Plaintiff Anwar K. Malik asserts that the defendants sent
unsolicited, non-emergency text messages to his cell phone using
an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. He
files this action as a class action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals across the United States.

Malik alleges that the Fitness 19 defendants embarked on a
marketing campaign that involved sending unsolicited text messages
to individuals urging them to purchase Fitness 19 goods and
services. He alleges that they hired the third defendant in this
action -- CallFire, Inc. -- to assist them. Malik alleges that
CallFire provided the Fitness 19 defendants with software enabling
them to "blast text messages to thousands of telephone numbers
simultaneously." Malik alleges that the defendants failed to
obtain the recipients' express consent in violation of the TCPA,
47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1).

In the motion, the Fitness 19 defendants argue that Malik agreed
to arbitrate the matter and, thus, under the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4, the Court must compel Malik to
arbitrate the claims against them.

In her Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/4bVqWd from Leagle.com, Judge Caldwell held that
upon review of the agreement, it is determined that the TCPA
claims fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration clause.

Anwar K. Malik is represented by Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq.
Jonathan K. Kurtz, Esq. -- jonathan.kurtz.law.@gmail.com -- and
Kelly P. Spencer, Esq. -- kelly.spencer.law@gmail.com -- SPENCER
LAW GROUP

F-19 Holdings, LLC and Fitness 19 KY 185, LLC are represented by
Alex Rodger, Esq. -- arodger@bgdlegal.com -- Daniel J. Donnellon,
Esq. -- DDonnellon@bgdlegal.com -- and Andrea Lauren Russow
Nichols, Esq. -- lnichols@bgdlegal.com -- BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL
LLP


FANNIE MAE: Faces "Bailey" Suit in Wash D.C.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the Federal National Mortgage
Association.  The case is captioned GRANT D. BAILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION/FANNIE MAE DBA FANNIE MAE
CONSUMER RESOURCE CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. #: 1:16-cv-01155
(D.C. (Wash), June 15, 2016).

Fannie Mae, the leading source of liquidity for housing in
America, helps ensure creditworthy borrowers can access mortgage
credit in all market conditions.


FANNIE MAE: Class Action Plaintiffs' New Briefs Due on July 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Carney, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
federal appeals panel has more questions for some of the
plaintiffs in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac litigation.

At the very least, this suggests that a decision in the case is
not imminent.

The United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia
Circuit on June 21 ordered the class action plaintiffs to submit
supplemental briefs addressing a series of questions about the
role of sovereign immunity in the case.

The class action plaintiffs are investors in the common and junior
preferred shares of Fannie and Freddie.  They are represented by
Boies, Shiller & Flexner, LLP, the law firm that last year won a
high-profile lawsuit contesting the terms of the bailout of
American International Group.

In the order, the court instructed the class action plaintiffs to
answer the following questions:

   1. Regarding the class plaintiffs' claim against Treasury for
breach of fiduciary duty, is there a grant of subject matter
jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity that is not the
Federal Tort Claims Act?

   2. Regarding all the class plaintiffs' other claims:

      a. Is each defendant subject to suit absent a waiver of
sovereign immunity and, if not, is there such a waiver? The answer
to this question should include a discussion of whether the FHFA's
challenged actions were taken solely in the agency's capacity as
conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or whether they were
taken in whole or in part in a regulatory capacity.

      b. What is the source of subject matter jurisdiction over
the claims?

Under U.S. law, the federal government cannot be sued for money
damages unless a law waives its sovereign immunity.  The Federal
Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity in certain cases where a
private individual could be held liable in similar circumstances.

Fannie and Freddie were placed into conservatorship under the
supervision of the Federal Housing Finance Authority in 2008.  The
U.S. Treasury provided $187.5 billion in rescue funding and agreed
to provide hundreds of billions more in exchange for senior
preferred shares in both companies as well as warrants for just
under 80% of their common equity.

The senior preferred shares originally paid a fixed 10% dividend.
This was changed 2012 to a variable dividend, effectively meaning
they are required to pay all profits to Treasury but owe no
dividends when they suffer a loss.  Investors have sued in both
state and federal court over the change, arguing that they have
been unfairly cut off from the profits of the companies.

The D.C. Circuit panel is considering the appeal of a trial
court's dismissal of some of those suits, including those filed by
the class action plaintiffs as well as individual suits filed by
Perry Capital, LLC, Fairholme Funds, Inc. and Arrowood Indemnity
Company.  Those cases were dismissed in 2014 when a judge
interpreted the 2008 law governing Fannie and Freddie's
conservatorships as denying federal courts from exercising
jurisdiction over the challenges.

While the questions from the court do not necessarily indicate
which way it is leaning in the case, there are hints.  Most
notably, the questions are directed at the class action plaintiffs
and not the individual plaintiffs.  This could mean that the court
is not inclined to accept the demands for injunctive relief --
namely, the reversal of the 2012 change to the bailout terms --
that were emphasized in their briefs.

The questions may also suggest that the court has not found any of
the previous claims for jurisdiction persuasive.  That is to say,
the court may be leaning toward agreeing with the trial court that
the 2008 law does operate to deny jurisdiction.

That hardly guarantees a government win.  After all, the court is
allowing the class action a chance to argue that other laws may
give courts jurisdiction.  One possibility is that the court is
more open to the idea that the government could be liable for
monetary damages while enjoying immunity to injunctive relief.

New briefs are due from the class action plaintiffs on July 1. The
government has until July 8 to respond.  A final reply briefs from
the plaintiffs is due July 15.


FELT & LUKES: Rumpel Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in in the class action lawsuit styled DENNIS RUMPEL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. FELT & LUKES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-751
(E.D. Wisc.), moves the court to certify the class described in
the complaint, and further requests that this Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the motion.

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=at5MO6kC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & 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


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Gearshift
--------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Jeep Grand Cherokee owners sued Fiat Chrysler in a class
action in Sacramento, June 23, over the defective gearshift
believed to have caused the death of "Star Trek" actor Anton
Yelchin.

Lead plaintiff Deryl Wall claims that FCA -- Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles -- knew about but failed to fix the defectively
designed gearshift that has been linked to hundreds of driverless
rollaway incidents.  The gist of the lawsuit is that the gearshift
can cause drivers to believe the car is in park, though it is not.

Despite its claim to put "safety first," Fiat Chrysler "put style
and profits first, and as a result there have been hundreds of
accidents, dozens of injuries, and likely the death of a young,
talented actor," the complaint states.

The affected vehicles include 2012-14 Dodge Chargers and Chryslers
300s, and 2014-15 Jeep Grand Cherokees.  Chrysler recalled more
than 1.1 million of the vehicles in April after it found that the
gearshift could cause accidents.

Whereas most vehicles have a gearshift that causes a stationary
car to remain stationary unless a driver wants the car to move,
these vehicles use an electronic mechanism that never actually
shifts into any gear, but stays in a central location after being
engaged, the lawsuit says.  The confusing gear selector leads
drivers to believe that the vehicle is in park when it is not,
which can result in a vehicle rolling away and injuring or killing
someone, as is believed to have happened to Yelchin, the
plaintiffs say.

Steve Berman, whose firm filed the lawsuit, said the gearshift is
dangerous because "it does not have a safety override that
automatically puts the car in 'park' if the driver's door is
opened and pressure taken off the foot brake."

"In making these vehicles, Fiat Chrysler failed at adequately and
responsibly designing one of the most basic safety features -- the
gear shifter," Berman said.

In its recall, Chrysler said the problem stemmed from driver
error: drivers leaving their cars without selecting "park,"
despite warning chimes and alert messages if the driver-side door
is opened while the engine is running and "park" is not engaged.
An "investigation suggested that these measures may be
insufficient to deter some drivers from exiting their vehicles
without selecting 'PARK,' so FCA will enhance the warnings and
transmission-shift strategy on these vehicles," the automaker said
at the time of the recall.

The problem made national headlines when 27-year-old Yelchin, best
known for playing Chekhov in "Star Trek," was crushed by his Jeep
outside his Los Angeles home on June 19. Police said the actor's
Jeep rolled down his driveway and pinned him against a mailbox
pillar in front of his home.  Yelchin's vehicle was among those
subject to the recall.

More than 300 other accidents connected to the defective gearshift
have been reported, the lawsuit states.  Despite Fiat Chrysler's
initiation of the voluntary recall, it only sent a warning letter
to owners describing the design defect and has yet to actually fix
the problem, according to the complaint.

"FCA's unreasonable delay in fixing the defect and its warning
letter was obviously too little, too late for Mr. Yelchin, and
nearly a million defective shifter vehicles remain in unsuspecting
owners' driveways and garages," the complaint states.

Fiat Chrysler said June 22, that it has a fix and it will begin
notifying owners about scheduling software upgrades. The automaker
originally estimated that a remedy for the shifters would be
available in July or August.

The automaker's Maserati brand has recalled 13,000 vehicles for
similar issues. The recall affects certain 2014 model Maserati
Quattroporte and Bhibli vehicles.  The company said in documents
filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that
it had not received any complaints from Maserati drivers, nor any
reports of rollaways in the affected models.

A Fiat Chrysler spokesman told Courthouse News the company cannot
comment because it has not yet been served with the complaint.


FIELD ASSET: Trial in "Bowerman" Case to Begin May 2017
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California overruled
Plaintiffs' general objections to the Vendor Questionnaire process
in the case captioned, FRED BOWERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIELD
ASSET SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-00057-WHO
(N.D. Cal.).

On May 16, 2016, the parties filed the fifth in a series of
discovery letter briefs regarding their continuing dispute over
the scope of discovery in the case, particularly from absent class
members. The letter focuses on the content of the Vendor
Questionnaire (VQ) to be mailed to some subset of the vendors to
whom the class notice was sent.

Plaintiffs' concern that the VQ process will transform the Rule
23(b)(3) class action into an "opt-in class action". The Court
found it unpersuasive given that FAS previously agreed in the
parties' draft stipulation does not give FAS the right to
challenge any class notice recipient's inclusion in the class. FAS
has not argued that Discovery Vendors who fail to participate in
the VQ process should be precluded from joining the class, and
plaintiffs have not identified any reason why it occurs.

In his Order dated May 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/iAzmlj
from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick agreed with the proposed management
deadlines with modifications:

     10 days from date of this Order Deadline to mail VQ

     45 days from the date of VQ mailing Deadline for responses
     to VQ

     November 4, 2016 Fact discovery cutoff (except as to
     damages)

     January 11, 2017 Dispositive motions heard

     March 3, 2017 Fact discovery cutoff (as to damages)

     April 24, 2017 Pretrial Conference

     May 22, 2017 Trial

Fred Bowerman and  Julia Bowerman are represented by Thomas E.
Duckworth, Esq. -- tom@dpolaw.com -- and -- Monique Olivier, Esq.
-- monique@dplolaw.com -- DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP

Field Asset Services, Inc. and Field Asset Services LLC are
represented by Robert G. Hulteng, Esq. - rhulteng@littler.com --
Alison Jacquelyn Cubre, Esq. -- acubre@littler.com -- Aurelio Jose
Perez, Esq. - aperez@littler.com -- Danton Wai-Ky Liang, Esq. -
dliang@littler.com -- and -- Kevin R. Vozzo, Esq. -
kvozzo@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


FIRST AMERICAN: 2nd Cir. Upholds Judgment and Cost Order
--------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Paul Turner of the Court of Appeals, Second
District affirmed the district court's judgment and cost order in
the case captioned, PATRICK KIRK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B257508 (2nd Cir.).

On February 25, 2004, plaintiff sold real property in Los Angeles,
California to Jeffrey Sjobring. Plaintiff and Mr. Sjobring
retained an independent escrow company named Prestige Escrow,
Inc., to close the transaction. Defendant provided sub-escrow
services related to the transaction. Defendant invoiced Prestige
Escrow for the following services: $100 for sub-escrow fees; $25
for two wire transfers; $15 for overnight delivery; and $20 for
messenger delivery. Plaintiff paid these charges.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 15, 2007. Plaintiff filed
his second amended complaint on November 17, 2008. Plaintiff
asserts claims for: fraud and constructive fraud; contract breach;
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
(implied covenant breach); negligence; negligent
misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act; and unfair competition in violation of
Business and Professions Code section 17200 (Unfair Competition
Law). Plaintiff alleges defendant charged the class members more
than the filed rate for the sub-escrow and disbursement services.

The trial court awarded costs to plaintiff under the
discretionary, rather than the mandatory, language of Code of
Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4). The trial court
apportioned costs for plaintiff at 25% of the allowed costs.

In plaintiff's appeal from the cost order, he asserts the class
was not subject to the Code of Civil Procedure section 1032,
subdivision (a)(4) discretionary language. Defendant also appeals
from the cost order. Defendant asserts the trial court abused its
discretion by awarding any costs to plaintiff.

In his Order dated June 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/aUsuJ5
from Leagle.com, Judge Turner held that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion and its decision does not exceed the bounds
of reason.

Patrick Kirk is represented by Steven J. Bernheim, Esq. --
B@thebernheimlawfirm.com -- and Nazo S. Semerjian, Esq. --
N.Semerdjian@TheBernheimLawFirm.com -- THE BERNHEIM LAW FIRM

Kirk is also represented by:

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      James Strenio, Esq.
      Thomas Segal Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM
      201 Wilshire Blvd
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310)395-2988

First American Title Company is represented by John Nadolenco,
Esq. -- jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Andrew Z. Edelstein, Esq. --
aedelstein@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. --
aparashami@mayerbrown.com -- and Craig W. Canetti --
ccanetti@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN


FORD AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Dodgy Cars
--------------------------------------------------
John Rolfe, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that Ford
Australia faces a potential billion-dollar liability in a new
class action seeking refunds on 70,000 allegedly dodgy cars.

Ford is accused of misleading or deceptive conduct in selling 22
different models of Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport vehicles between
2011 and this year because it promised a breakthrough PowerShift
transmission would deliver "acceleration much smoother than a
conventional automatic" only for it to cause sudden power loss,
"shuddering, jerking, bucking or kicking".

News Corp Australia can reveal details of the action for the first
time, with documents obtained from the Federal Court showing the
case is built on the experience of a Victorian woman Billie Capic
who was "frightened for her life" after a power loss while driving
her 2012 Focus Sport in February this year.

The $29,000 car had already lost power a number of times in 2015.
In October, she was unable to change gears or use reverse without
difficulty.  A fortnight later, she was unable to drive the
vehicle faster than 80km/h.  The vehicle was shaking.  Then an
error message showed on the dash: "Transmission overheating".

Miss Capic also experienced uncontrolled movement of the car,
sudden gear changes and gear-skipping.

She first raised the car's jerking and shuddering with a Ford
dealer in April 2013, then again in August that year, April 2014
and September 2014.

Court documents filed on Ms. Capic's behalf say: "On each occasion
prior to September 2014, mechanics at the Ford dealers denied
(there) were defects in the affected vehicles and/or PowerShift
transmission."

The class action alleges the cars are not of acceptable quality,
as defined under Australian Consumer Law and that Ford knew of the
problems.  The vehicles have never been recalled.

The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchase
price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated
damages.

The cost of refunding 70,000 cars at an average price of $25,000
would be $1.75 billion.

A spokesman for the firm running the action, Bannister Law, said
"thousands had registered" to be part of the case.  Anyone who
bought and still owned one of the 22 models was automatically
included in the action, the spokesman said.

A Ford spokeswoman said: "While we can't comment specifically
about the ongoing litigation, Ford is committed to providing our
customers with top-quality vehicles.

"We are equally committed to addressing potential issues and
responding quickly for our customers.  We encourage customers to
work with their local dealers on their individual circumstances."

A case management conference is scheduled for June 29 in the
Federal Court in Sydney.

Earlier this month, the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission said it would conduct a market study into the new car
retailing industry to investigate concerns including compliance
with consumer guarantees.  Last year, the ACCC took action against
Fiat Chrysler over consumer guarantee complaints.

Road to nowhere

"NEXT time it happens it could kill somebody."

Last year Taylor Morgan's Ford Focus wilted while she was on a
busy and wet Southern Cross Drive near Sydney Airport.  She
managed to get the car off the road.

When NRMA Roadside Assistance arrived, the car was in a coma.  It
wasn't even giving off error messages.

The NRMA man got it going and she was able to drive it to the
nearest petrol station, where he took a further look.

When everything looked okay, he sent her on her way.  No sooner
had she pulled out on to the 70km/h road than the engine
malfunctioned again.  The NRMA man, who had yet to leave the
petrol station, saw this.  He came after her and pushed the car
out of harm's way.

It had to be towed to a Ford dealership.

"It's a major failure," Ms. Taylor said.

Under consumer law, a major failure triggers rights to a refund or
replacement.

But Ms. Taylor hasn't been able to get a refund or replacement.
So she has joined the Ford class action.  Her vehicle also has the
clutch shudder that the action argues makes it "not of acceptable
quality".


FUSION AUTOPLEX: Court Certifies Class in "Allen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sim Lake entered an order in the lawsuit titled RODNEY
ALLEN, CEDRICK CALLEGARI, KERMECIA FAULKNER, and BERNADETTE GREEN,
the Plaintiff(s), v. Fusion Autoplex, LLC, the Defendant, Case
4:16-cv-00833 (S.D. Tex.), granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and Expedited Discovery.

Accordingly, the Court further ordered the following:

     Plaintiffs are appointed as class representative.

     The Foley Law Firm is appointed as class counsel.

     Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff information for all
individuals employed by Defendant as "Porters", "Car Washers", and
"Manual Labors" engaged in the maintenance of vehicles sold by
Defendant for three years immediately preceding the entry of this
order through the present.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Suits Allege Emissions Test Cheating
----------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that General Motors is the latest automaker to be accused of lying
about emissions from diesel-powered cars, as Volkswagen prepares
to finalize a settlement in its emissions-cheating scandal.

A federal class action in Los Angeles filed June 22, that could
cover thousands of owners claims the automaker's Chevrolet Cruze
Clean Turbo Diesel models regularly spew out far more pollutants
than federal standards allow -- up to 21 times more.  Yet GM
allegedly charged buyers a premium of $2,000 to $2,400 for the
cars it advertised as "clean," in what the lawsuit calls "a gross
deception" of buyers.

On June 22, lawsuit comes a day after another class action was
filed in Manhattan Federal Court, accusing GM of overstating the
miles-per-gallon ratings for several of its SUVs. That complaint
accuses the automaker of fraud and breach of implied warranties
for allegedly misrepresenting vehicle fuel efficiency.

The June 22 complaint comes from Seattle-based class-action
specialists Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Attorneys from the
firm co-led the litigation over unintended acceleration by Toyotas
and are heavily involved in the Volkswagen diesel emissions case.
Earlier this year, the firm also sued Mercedes-Benz, alleging
cheating on diesel emissions.

"GM manufactures, designs, markets, sells, and leases the Cruze
'Clean Diesel' vehicle as if it were a 'reduced emissions' car
that complies with all applicable regulatory standards, when in
fact, this GM vehicle is not 'clean diesel' and emits more
pollutants than allowed by federal and state laws -- and far more
than their gasoline fueled counterparts and far more than what a
reasonable consumer would expect from a 'Clean Diesel,'" the
firm's 308-page lawsuit declares.

"GM never disclosed to consumers that its Cruze diesel engines may
be 'clean' diesels in very limited circumstances, but are 'dirty'
diesels under most driving conditions," the complaint states.

General Motors disputed the lawsuit's accusations.  "These claims
are baseless and we will vigorously defend ourselves," the
automaker said in a statement. "GM believes the Chevrolet Cruze
turbo diesel complies with all U.S. EPA and [California Air
Resources Board] emissions regulations."

According to the June 22 complaint, the U.S. versions of the
diesel Cruze sold from 2014 until early 2016 appear to be based on
diesel vehicles sold in Europe under GM's Opel brand. In May, GM
announced it would recall those Opels in Germany because the
government there had found the cars emit more pollutants,
specifically nitrogen oxides, in real-world testing than in
laboratory testing.

GM stopped producing diesel Chevy Cruzes in the U.S. in January,
just a few months after the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal
broke, the lawsuit notes. The company is now making a new version
of the Cruze but not in a diesel model.

Experts for the class action plaintiffs' side conducted their own
real-world testing of some U.S. Cruze diesels and found startling
results, according to the complaint.  For instance, while EPA
standards limit the emissions of nitrogen oxides to 50 milligrams
per mile in stop-and-go driving, the Cruze diesels tested put out
as much as 1,051 milligrams per mile and averaged 287 milligrams
per mile, the lawsuit states.  At highway speeds, the diesel cars
allegedly emitted from 1.8 times to 8 times the amount set by
federal standards.  The test results indicate that the cars must
use a "defeat device" to block pollution controls and boost power
when on the road, according to the lawsuit.

"Diesel emissions fraud didn't stop with Volkswagen or Mercedes,"
lead class counsel Steve Berman said in a statement. "GM has
proven that it too placed greed and profits ahead of thousands of
owners who paid premium prices for what they thought were clean
diesel cars."

The class action names six lead plaintiffs from as many states:
Oscar Zamora of California, Brandon Stone of Arizona, Jason
Silveus of Florida, Jason Counts of Michigan, Thomas Hayduk of New
York, and Joshua Hurst of Ohio.  They seek court orders requiring
GM to buy back class members' cars or refund the diesel premiums
they paid, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The Associated Press reported June 23 that Volkswagen will pay
about $10.2 billion to settle its own emissions-cheating scandal.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Grants Final Approval of $300-Mil. Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Linda V. Parker of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan granted New York State
Teachers' Retirement System's (NYSTRS) Motion for Final Approval
of Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation and NYSTRS'
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses in the case captioned, NEW YORK STATE
TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS
COMPANY, DANIEL F. AKERSON, NICHOLAS S. CYPRUS, CHRISTOPHER P.
LIDDELL, DANIEL AMMANN, CHARLES K. STEVENS, III, MARY T. BARRA,
THOMAS S. TIMKO, and GAY P. KENT, Defendants, Case No. 14-11191
(E.D. Mich.).

GM agrees to pay $300 million into an escrow account for the
benefit of the Settlement Class.

The class action lawsuit brought under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) alleges misrepresentations
and omissions stemming from the failure of General Motors Company
(GM) and certain GM executives to timely recall numerous GM
vehicle models due to a defective ignition switch and to properly
account for the liabilities that were the product of the defect.
New York State Teachers' Retirement System (NYSTRS), suing on
behalf of itself and all other persons similarly situated, claims
that Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions related to the
ignition switch defect resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of GM Common stock and, when the truth was revealed through
a series of disclosures, the decline in the value of the stock.

For purposes of effectuating settlement, the Court approved a
Class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired GM common stock from November 17, 2010 through
July 24, 2014, inclusive (the Settlement Class Period), and who
were damaged thereby (hereafter Class or Settlement Class). NYSTRS
and Defendants in fact reached a settlement, which the Court
preliminarily approved on November 20, 2015 in an Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice.

NYSTRS moved for Final Approval of Settlement and Approval of Plan
of Allocation. Lead Counsel has separately moved for an award of
attorneys' fees in the amount of 7% of the Settlement Fund, or $21
million, plus interest and reimbursement of litigation expenses
incurred by counsel and NYSTRS.

In her Opinion and Order dated May 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/OrYMga from Leagle.com, Judge Parker concluded that
the Settlement and Plan of Allocation are fair, reasonable, and
adequate and entitled to final approval. The Court also found that
Lead Counsel and NYSTRS are entitled to awards reimbursing them
for the attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in
litigating the action on behalf of the Class and that the awards
sought are reasonable.

New York State Teachers' Retirement System is represented by Adam
Wierzbowski, Esq. -- adam@blbglaw.com -- James Abram Harrod, Esq.
-- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Rebecca Ellen Boon, Esq. --
Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- and Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMAN
LLP Marc L. Newman, Esq. -- mln@millerlawpc.com -- E. Powell
Miller, Esq. -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- and Sharon S. Almonrode,
Esq. -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.

General Motors Company is represented by Raymond W. Henney, Esq.
-- rhenney@honigman.com -- HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP,
Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. -- robert.kopecky@kirkland.com -- and
Timothy A. Duffy, Esq. -- tim.duffy@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND &
ELLIS

Garden City Group, LLC will to supervise and administer the notice
procedure in connection with the settlement and to process claims.


GENGHIS GRILL: "Arnold" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
COURTNIE ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENGHIS GRILL, GENGHIS GRILL
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, GENGHIS GRILL FRANCHISE CONCEPTS, LP, CHALAK
MITRAS GROUP, LLC, CMG GENERAL PARTNERS, LLC, CHALAK-M&M OK1, LLC,
CHALAK-M&M OK2, LLC, CHALAK-M&M OK3, LLC, CHALAK-M&M OK4, LLC,
AKASH BHAKTA, CHETAN BHAKTA, RONAK PARIKH, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-
10, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00328-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla.,
June 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a bartender and
hourly manager at the Genghis Grill restaurant located at 10438
South 82nd East Avenue, Bixby, Oklahoma. The Defendants allegedly
did not pay Arnold the proper minimum wages for all of the time
that she was suffered or permitted to work each workweek.

The Defendants own, operate, manage, and/or control Genghis Grill
restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Daniel Woska, Esq.
          WoskaLawFirm, PLLC
          722 N. Broadway, Mezzanine
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 657 2271
          Facsimile: (405) 285 7626
          E-mail: awoska@woskalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          THE WISE FIRM LLC
          P.O. Box 701
          Carlinville, IL 62626
          Telephone: (217) 710 1403
          E-mail: brandon.wise@thewisefirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF
          ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4610
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 523 2434
          Facsimile: (504) 523 2464
          E-mail: jpeiffer@prwlegal.com


GERAWAN FARMING: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case captioned, RAFAEL MARQUEZ
AMARO, JESUS ALARCON URZUA, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GERAWAN FARMING, INC., a
California corporation; GERAWAN FARMING PARTNERS, INC., a
California Corporation; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:14-CV-00147-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

On February 3, 2014, Rafael Marquez Amaro and Jesus Alarcon Urzua
(plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Gerawan Farming, Inc. and
Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. (defendants) alleging violations of
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
(AWPA), codified at 29 U.S.C. Sections 1801 et seq., as well as
various California labor laws. Plaintiffs are former employees of
defendants.

Defendants implemented a substantial wage policy change in October
2013 and began to compensate piece-rate employees for rest periods
separate from those employees' piece-rate earnings. Beginning in
2013, piece-rate employees were paid for earned ten minute rest
periods at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Defendants increased this
amount to $11.00 per hour in 2014 and to each employee's average
hourly piece-rate in 2015. Plaintiffs allege defendants' practices
resulted in multiple violations of federal and state law.

In the motion, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 of "All persons who
are employed or have been employed by GERAWAN, and who have worked
one or more shifts as a non-exempt hourly field worker and paid by
piece rate in the State of California since four (4) years prior
to the filing of this action."

Plaintiffs also seek to certify these subclasses:

     (1) Piece-Rate Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by Defendant Gerawan as a
non-exempt, hourly field worker or similar titles, who were paid a
piece-rate from February 3, 2010 up to the present.

     (2) Minimum Wage Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by Defendant Gerawan as a
non-exempt, hourly field worker or similar titles, from February
3, 2010 to the present, whose compensation for any shift totaled
less than the minimum wage.

     (3) Former Employee Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by Defendant Gerawan as a
non-exempt, hourly field worker or similar titles, from February
3, 2010 to the present, who were laid off at the end of a season.

In the Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xYjyQJ
from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd found that the plaintiffs met the
requisites of class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

The Court appointed Kingsley & Kingsley and Mart¡nez, Aguilasocho
& Lynch, APLC as co-class counsel.

Rafael Marquez Amaro and Jesus Alarcon Urzua are represented by
Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq. -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- and --
Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. -- liane@kingsleykingsley.com --
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC -- and Mario Martinez, Esq. --
mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC

Gerawan Farming, Inc. and Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. are
represented by David Abba Schwarz, Esq. -- dschwarz@irell.com --
IRELL & MANELLA

Gerawan is also represented by:

Patrick Moody, Esq.
Ronald H. Barsamian, Esq.
BARSAMIAN & MOODY
1141 W Shaw Ave # 104,
Fresno, CA 93711
Tel: (559)248-2360


GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL: Dawson Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MEREDITH D. DAWSON, the Plaintiff,
v. GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC., GREAT LAKES HIGHER
EDUCATION CORPORATION, JILL LEITL, DAVID LENTZ, and MICHAEL
WALKER, the Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-00475-bbc (W.D. Wisc.),
moves to certify the following Class:

     All persons who, between January 1, 2006 and the present:

        (i) were borrowers of a student loan issued under the
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL or FFELP), or of a
student loan issued under the Federal Direct Loan Program
(Direct);

       (ii) had their FFELP and/or Direct student loan(s) serviced
by Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. or Great Lakes
Higher Education Corporation (Great Lakes); and

      (iii) had Great Lakes place their FFELP and/or Direct
student loan(s) in an administrative forbearance status for up to
60 days, concurrent with the processing of their application for a
deferment, forbearance, consolidation loan, or a change in
repayment plan.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their respective
officers, affiliates and directors at all relevant times, members
of their immediate families and their legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns.

In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint her as
Class Representative her counsel, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, as
Class Counsel.

Filed concurrently in support of the Motion are the following
documents:

     (1) the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's
         Motion for Class Certification;

     (2) the Declaration of Meredith D. Dawson in Support of
         Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;

     (3) the Declaration of David J. Harris, Jr. in Support
         of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and

     (4) the Declaration of Jeffrey R. Krinsk in Support
         of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8fzxa5X9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          William R. Restis, Esq.
          David J. Harris, Jr., Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  wrr@classactionlaw.com
                  djh@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com


GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: Court Won't Decertify Late Meal Break Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied
Defendant's motion to decertify a class in the case captioned,
RAFAEL MUNOZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GIUMARRA VINEYARDS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:09-CV-00703-AWI-JLT (E.D.
Cal.).

On November 9, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel initiated an action
against table grape growers based in Kern County, including
Giumarra Vineyards Corporation. Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint against Giumarra Vineyards on September 22, 2009.
Plaintiffs alleged Defendant was liable for: violations of the
Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1801, failure
to pay wages, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to
reimburse required expenses, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees,
knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee
wage statement provisions and record keeping requirements, breach
of contract, and violation of unfair competition law.

Plaintiffs brought the action "on behalf of Plaintiffs and members
of the Plaintiff Class comprising all non-exempt agricultural,
packing shed, and storage cooler employees employed, or formerly
employed, by each of the Defendants within the State of
California." The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in part, certifying only the "Late Meal Class" and
"Tools Class."

Defendant seeks decertification of the Late Meal Break Class,
asserting it is "unsustainable" because individual issues
predominate and a trial would be unmanageable. Plaintiffs oppose
decertification, arguing common issues predominate over the
individual questions.

In her Findings and Recommendations dated May 12, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/EoHsom from Leagle.com, Thurston found that the
Defendant fails to demonstrate the Late Meal Class no longer
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, or that individualized
inquiries will predominate.

Plaintiffs are represented by Darren Michael Cohen, Esq. --
dcohenlaw@sbcglobal.net -- and Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq. --
eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC, Erica
Deutsch, Esq. -- edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- and Ira L. Gottlieb,
Esq. -- igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- BUSH GOTTLIEB Hector
Rodriguez Martinez, Esq. -- hector@themmlawfirm.com -- Joseph
Donald Sutton, Esq. -- jsutton@themmlawfirm.com -- Marco A. Palau,
Esq. -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- and Stanley S. Mallison, Esq. -
- stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- MALLISON & MARTINEZ, Mario Martinez,
Esq. -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- and Thomas Patrick Lynch,
Esq. -- tlynch@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ, AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH,
APLC, Douglas D. Winter, Esq. -- ddw@mcnicholaslaw.com -- and
Matthew Sawaya, Esq. -- ms@mcnicholaslaw.com -- MCNICHOLAS AND
MCNICHOLAS, LLP --  and Nicole Marie Duckett, Esq. --
ndfricke@clippers.com -- MILBERG WEISS LLP

Giumarra Vineyards Corporation is represented by Joseph C.
Markowitz, Esq. -- jcmarkowitz@jcmarkowitz.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
JOSEPH C. MARKOWITZ


GULF INTERSTATE: Certification of Class Sought in "Sloane" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled THOMAS SLOANE, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. GULF INTERSTATE
FIELD SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01208-NBF (W.D. Pa.), moves
the Court to certify his Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Unjust
Enrichment claims as a class action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net

               - and -

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


HANNIBAL, MO: Court Stays Discovery in "Blair" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB BLAIR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HANNIBAL,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15CV00061 ERW (E.D. Mo.), Senior
District Judge, E. Richard Webber grants defendants' request for
Temporary Stay of Discovery pending resolution of its Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings currently before the court.

When determining whether to grant a stay, district courts consider
the merits of the pending dispositive motion, and the breadth of
pending discovery, and balance the harm of delaying discovery
against the possibility the entire matter will be resolved by the
motion. The Court has considered the burden of discovery to
Hannibal and the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs in granting a
stay.

A copy of the court's June 8, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/8jJEoLfrom Leagle.com.

Hannibal, Missouri, City of, Defendant, represented by Edward V.
Crites -- ecrites@bmplaw.com -- Behr, McCarter & Potter, P.C.,
Timothy J. Reichardt -- treichardt@bmplaw.com -- BEHR AND
MCCARTER, P.C. & W. Dudley McCarter, III -- dmccarter@bmplaw.com -
- BEHR, MCCARTER, & POTTER.

Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by JoAnn
Tracy Sandifer -- joann.sandifer@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH
BLACKWELL, LLP & Omri E. Praiss -- omri.praiss@huschblackwell.com
-- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.


HENRY INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Must Identify Representative
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JAMES HOSE, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HENRY INDUSTRIES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-2490-JTM-GEB (D. Kan.), Magistrate
Judge Gwynne E. Birzer of the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas denied Defendant's Motion to Extend the
Parties' ADR Deadline and granted in part its Motion to Require
Remaining Opt-In Plaintiffs to Identify a Representative.
Plaintiffs must designate one or more representative plaintiffs by
filing an Amended Complaint on or before September 5, 2016.

Plaintiff James Hose filed a Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201 et seq (FLSA) on behalf of delivery drivers engaged by
defendant Henry Industries, Inc., a company which arranges
deliveries for various pharmaceutical companies. Hose filed the
action claiming:

     1) the drivers are employees, not independent contractors
        as classified by Defendant; and

     2) the drivers were not paid overtime wages as required
        under the FLSA.

The case was conditionally certified as a collective action on
September 24, 2014.

On January 22, 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order
granting Plaintiff's request to dismiss without prejudice the opt-
in plaintiffs making deliveries in the state of Missouri, allowing
those plaintiffs to join an ongoing Missouri state action and
automatically dismissing them without prejudice from the case.

Defendant contends the opt-in Plaintiffs misinterpret the January
22 Order to conclude the case may proceed without the
identification of a representative plaintiff. Defendant further
argues the absence of a named plaintiff representing the
conditionally-certified class creates a multitude of unnecessary
logistical, procedural, and legal issues for the parties and the
Court, and asks the Court to require Plaintiffs to designate a
representative.

On May 11, 2016, the Court convened a telephone conference to
discuss both motions. The conditionally-certified class of
plaintiffs appeared through counsel, Kevin J. Dolley. Defendant
Henry Industries, Inc. appeared through counsel, Alisa Nickel
Ehrlich.

In her Memorandum and Order dated May 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/1JZNy6 from Leagle.com, Judge Birzer held that
Plaintiffs' counsel's sincere belief that a lack of representative
will not hinder settlement discussions and in light of the
considerable planning and expense the parties have already
incurred. Plaintiffs are required to designate a representative
plaintiff and Plaintiffs are given an opportunity to complete
additional discovery prior to designation.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jason Finkes, Esq. --
jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com -- and Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. --
Kevin@dolleylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC

They are also represented by:

Cyrus Dashtaki, Esq.
DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC
5205 Hampton Ave
St. Louis, MO 63139
Tel: (314)932-7671

Henry Industries, Inc. is represented by Alisa Nickel Ehrlich,
Esq. -- alisa.ehrlich@stinson.com -- Molly E. Walsh, Esq. --
molly.walsh@stinson.com -- and Stephanie N. Scheck, Esq. --
stephanie.scheck@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP


HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Certification Sought in Humidifier Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled SCOTT JOHNSEN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No: 4:14-cv-00594-RLW (E.D. Mo.),
asks the Court to:

     1. grant his Motion for Class Certification.

     2. certify a Missouri Rule 23(b)(3) Class defined as: All
individuals and entities within the State of Missouri that have
owned, own, or acquired homes or residential buildings or
structures physically located within the State of Missouri in
which an HM506, HM509, or HM512 Honeywell TrueSTEAM Humidifier is
or has been installed and that have failed.

     3. certify a Missouri Rule 23(b)(2) Class defined as: All
individuals and entities within the State of Missouri that have
owned, own, or acquired homes or residential buildings or
structures physically located within the State of Missouri in
which HM506, HM509, HM512 Honeywell TrueSTEAM Humidifier is or has
been installed and that have not failed

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k4HuNXyg

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63011
          Telephone: (314) 226 1015
          Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Brendan Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  brendant@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568 2555
          Facsimile: (415) 576 1776
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com


HUBERT ALLEN: Ohno Enterprises Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned OHNO ENTERPRISES, A NEVADA FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, v. HUBERT ALLEN, Defendant, No. 15-CV-6675
(KAM) (RER)  (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto granted the
plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Kings County.

On June 26, 2015, Ohno Enterprises, a Nevada family limited
partnership, brought an action against Hubert Allen in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Kings County, seeking, inter alia,
to dissolve a partnership entered into by the two parties and sell
their partnership's real property.  Almost four months after he
was served with the summons and complaint in July 2015, Allen
filed an unsigned notice of removal in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 23, 2015.
Ohno subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state
court, arguing that the removal was untimely.

Judge Matsumoto found that Allen's tardy removal was not excusable
because Allen indisputably knew facts that enabled him to assess
removability at the time he was served with the complaint, and the
removal occurred well outside the 30-day window prescribed by 28
U.S.C. section 1446(b)(1).

A full-text copy of Judge Matsumoto's June 22, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/VcyVB5 from Leagle.com.

Ohno Enterprises, Plaintiff, represented by Amos Weinberg, Law
Office of Amos Weinberg & Ali F. Weinberg, Amos Weinberg Law
Office.

Hubert Allen, Defendant, represented by Roger V. Archibald.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Dismisses Consumer Suit with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert B. Kugler of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendant's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claims with prejudice in the case captioned,
Deedra L. BOWEN, individually and for all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, et al., Defendants,
Civil No. 15-6942 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J.).

Defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of automobiles and
automotive parts. On October 22, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 2013
Hyundai Sonata. Defendant issued the Blue Link Subscription
Agreement to Plaintiff when she purchased the vehicle.

Plaintiff commenced a putative class action against Defendant,
alleging violations of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA). She filed her Complaint in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County on
July 31, 2015.  Defendant timely removed the matter to the
District Court on September 18, 2015.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred because
the Blue Link Agreement contains a one-year limitations provision,
and Plaintiff did not bring her claims within one year of accrual.

Plaintiff argues that her claims did not accrue when she received
the Blue Link Agreement, or alternatively that the contractual
limitations provision is unenforceable.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/BQyRsf from Leagle.com, Judge Kugler found that the
limitations provision contained in the Blue Link Agreement is
reasonable and enforceable. Because Plaintiff failed to file her
TCCWNA claims by October 22, 2014, her claims are time-barred.

The Court held that amendment would be futile in the case because
Plaintiff's claims are time-barred as a matter of law.

Deedra L. Bowen is represented by Lewis G. Adler, Esq. --
lewisadler@verizon.net -- LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
Hyundai Motor America is represented by Christopher J. Dalton,
Esq. -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- and -- Jacqueline M.
Weyand, Esq. -- jacqueline.weyand@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL &
ROONEY PC


J. JACOBO: Court Grants Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff's
motion to strike Bedrosian Farms' affirmative defenses in the case
captioned, MARISOL GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J. JACOBO FARM LABOR
CONTRACTOR, INC., and BEDROSIAN FARMS, LLC; and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-1489-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Marisol Gomez alleges that she is (or was) employed by
Defendants, as joint employers, to perform agricultural work "at
various times during the Class Period reaching back four years
prior to the filing of the action through approximately 2015." On
September 15, 2015, she filed a putative wage and hour class
action on behalf of herself and other past and present non-exempt,
agricultural and packing shed employees employed by Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in "a pattern of
employer misconduct," centering on their "piece rate system of
compensation, their meal and rest break practices, and their
record-keeping procedures."

Plaintiff's complaint alleged nine causes of action: (1) violation
of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et
seq.; (2) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California
Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197; (3) failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections
510, 1194, and 1194.2; (4) failure to provide timely and complete
meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7
and 512; (5) failure to provide timely and complete rest periods
in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (6)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; (7)
failure to provide correct wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 226(b), 1174, and 1175; (8)
violation of Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., premised on violation of
the statutes underlying the first seven causes of action; and (9)
an claim pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA),
California Labor Code Sections 2689 et seq., seeking civil
penalties and unpaid wages, also premised on violation of the
statutes underlying the first seven causes of action.

Plaintiff filed separate motions, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f), to strike select affirmative defenses alleged by
Bedrosian and Jacobo. The thrust of Plaintiff's argument is that
many of the affirmative defenses alleged are (1) insufficiently
detailed such that they are not in compliance with Rule 8 or (2)
inapplicable to the case, as a matter of law.

In his Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ZFHoZP
from Leagle.com, Judge Ishii held that Plaintiff's motion to
strike will be granted as to Jacobo's fifth amended affirmative
defense and all of Bedrosian's affirmative defenses except its
fourteenth because each is devoid of factual allegations.

Marisol Gomez is represented by Eric Sebastian Trabucco, Esq.
Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Esq. -- hector@themmlawfirm.com --
Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq. -- josephs@themmlawfirm.com -- Marco A.
Palau, Esq. -- marcop@themmlawfirm.com -- and -- Stanley S.
Mallison, Esq. -- stanleym@themmlawfirm.com -- MALLISON &
MARTINEZ, Mario Martinez, Esq. -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com --
MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC

J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. is represented by Gerardo
Hernandez, Jr., Esq. -- gvh@raimondoassociates.com -- RAIMONDO &
ASSOCIATES

Bedrosian Farms LLC is represented by Kevin V. Koligian, Esq. --
kkoligian@littler.com -- Allison K. Pierce, Esq. --
apierce@littler.com -- and Andrew Hoon Woo, Esq. --
awoo@caed.uscourts.gov -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC


KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Harrington Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled GARY HARRINGTON on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00625-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla.), alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and seeks to
certify this class of similarly-situated persons:

     Proposed Improper Disclosure and Authorization Class: All
Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC's employees and job
applicants in the United States who were the subject of a consumer
report that was procured by ISS Facility Services, Inc. within
five years of the filing of this complaint through the date of
final judgment in this action as required by the FCRA.

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint him as class representative,
and to appoint the law firm Morgan & Morgan, P.A. as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Andrew Frisch, Esq.
          MARC R. EDELMAN PA
          1925 E.2nd Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33605
          Telephone: (813) 982 4326
          E-mail: marc@edelmanfirm.com
                  RMorgan@forthepeople.com
                  AFrisch@forthepeople.com


KRAFT HEINZ: "Lee" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
------------------------------------------------
Debra Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00536, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for Northern District of Ohio, to U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago).
The Illinois Northern District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06176 to
the proceeding.

Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names.

The "Lee" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 East National Road
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435 7500
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

               - and -

          Philip Sholtz, Esq.
          John J Driscoll, Esq.
          THE DRISCOLL FIRM
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 4050
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 932 3232
          Facsimile: (314) 932 3233
          E-mail: phil@thedriscollfirm.com
                  john@thedriscollfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip Roland Bautista, Esq.
          Michael J. Zbiegien Jr., Esq.
          Amelia J. Workman-Farago, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 3500
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 706 3957
          E-mail: pbautista@taftlaw.com
                  mzbiegien@taftlaw.com
                  afarago@taftlaw.com


KRAFT HEINZ: "Randolph" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
-----------------------------------------------------
Melissa Leigh Randolph, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company,
the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80511, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois -
Chicago). The Northern District assigned Case No.: 1:16-cv-06168
to the proceeding.

Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names.

The "Randolph" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re:
100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All
actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated
parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They
request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion
concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along
actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-
Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found
that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations
that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products
containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common
factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing,
consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged
impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier
for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated
parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary
Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-
05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grey Tesh, Esq.
          515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P300
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 600 4166
          Facsimile: (561) 697 8317
          E-mail: gt@greytesh.com

               - and -

          William Charles Wright
          WILLIAM C. WRIGHT LAW OFFICES
          319 Clematis St.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 514 0904
          Facsimile: (561) 514 0905
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashley Elizabeth Bruce Trehan, Esq.
          FOWLER WHITE BOGGS BANKER
          501 E Kennedy Boulevard
          Suite 1700 PO Box 1438
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 228 7411
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8313
          E-mail: ashley.trehan@bipc.com


KRAFT HEINZ: "Sellers" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
----------------------------------------------------
Chrissy Sellers and Kristie Perkins, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods
Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-
cv-60624, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06165 to the proceeding.

Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names.

The "Sellers" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298 4455
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Angelika Hunnefeld, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579 0500
          Facsimile: (305) 579 0717
          E-mail: hunnefelda@gtlaw.com


LA PICCOLA FONTANA: Certification of "Battistini" Class Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification under Section 216 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act in the lawsuit captioned FRANCISCO A. GRILLASCA
BATTISTINI, et al., v. LA PICCOLA FONTANA, INC., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-02167-JAG (D.P.R.).

The conditional class certification is granted as to all non-
managerial employees in tipped positions dating back three years
before the filing of the complaint in the Case.

The Defendants are ordered to provide, within 30 days of the
Opinion and Order, the names and contact information of the
potential class members.  The Court also orders the Plaintiffs to
prepare a proposed notice in Spanish to be submitted to the Court
within 30 days from the service and filing of the Opinion and
Order, after which the Plaintiffs may post the proposed notice of
the lawsuit in Spanish and English in the Defendants' restaurant.

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


LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Certification of Homeless Persons Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Sestini, Michael Newman and Richard Owens, three of the
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Kenneth Glover, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH; THE LAGUNA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, a
California charter city, Case No. 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), ask the Court to certify this class:

     All homeless persons who reside or will reside in the
     geographic area of Laguna Beach who have a mental and/or
     physical disability as defined under section 504 of the
     Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act and
     who have been, or are likely to be, cited for violations of
     California Penal Code section 647(e), Laguna Beach Municipal
     Code section 8.30.030 and/or Laguna Beach Municipal Code
     section 18.05.020.

The Plaintiffs also seek an order appointing them as Class
Representatives, and appointing their counsel, the ACLU Foundation
of Southern California and Paul Hastings LLP, as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 3, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3zh1fS2v

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq.
          Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE
          1851 E. First Street, Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (714) 450-3962
          Facsimile: (714) 543-5240
          E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org
                  bescobosahelzer@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          David M. Hernand, Esq.
          Andrew B. Grossman, Esq.
          Katherine F. Murray, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
          E-mail: davidhernand@paulhastings.com
                  andrewgrossman@paulhastings.com
                  katherinemurray@paulhastings.com


LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE: 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, CAROL LOWDEN,
Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, Defendant,
Case No. 16-cv-02853-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

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.

A copy of the order issued on June 9, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/E12MoVfrom Leagle.com.

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


LONE STAR: "Anzaldua" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE ANZALDUA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LONE STAR LABS INC. AND
VAN C. QUAN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01552 (S.D. Tex.,
June 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

Lone Star violated the FLSA by employing Anzaldua and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees for a workweek longer than
forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment
in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which they are or were employed.

Anzaldua, hence, seeks judgment awarding her and the other
administrative assistants and lab technicians all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys" fees and costs.
The Class is defined as: All administrative assistants and lab
technicians employed by Lone Star Labs Inc. during the last three
years.

Lone Star Labs is a DNA sequencing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Rochelle Owens, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center 440
          Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES: Sanon-Lauredant Must Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LLOYDIE SANON-LAUREDANT, Plaintiff, v. LTD
FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civ. No.
15-6529 (KM)   (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty granted the defendant
LTD Financial Services, L.P.'s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, without prejudice to the filing of an amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge McNulty's June 22, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/tpHv1Z from Leagle.com.

The putative class action was brought pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  Lloydie Sanon-Lauredant alleged
that LTD attempted to collect payment from her on a time-barred
debt in a manner that violated the FDCPA. The FDCPA prohibits a
debt collector from making a "false, deceptive, or misleading
representation" or using "unfair and unconscionable means" in the
course of collecting a debt.

LLOYDIE SANON-LAUREDANT, Plaintiff, represented by GLEN H.
CHULSKY, JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & BENJAMIN
JARRET WOLF, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendant, represented by RICHARD J.
PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC
& MONICA M. LITTMAN -- mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN,
KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC.


MACY'S INC: Faces "Carder" Suit in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Macy's Inc. The case is captioned
Job Carder and Erica Vinci, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Macy's Inc., Macy's
West Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale's, Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-03341-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 15, 2016). The Assigned
Magistrate Judge is Hon. Kandis A. Westmore.

Macy's, originally Federated Department Stores, Inc. is an
American holding company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Cruz Martinez, Esq.
          MARTINEZ CHARLES LLP
          600 S. Lake Ave., Suite 504
          Pasadena, CA 91006
          Telephone: (626) 844 7710
          Facsimile: (626) 844 7740
          E-mail: mmartinez@martinezcharles.com


MDL 2067: Painters Fund Appeal Ruling in Suit v. Forest
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health
Care Fund filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit titled Painters and Allied Trades v. Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., which is part of the multidistrict
litigation entitled In Re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales
Practices, MDL No. 1:09-md-02067-NMG.

The Plaintiffs allege that Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., engaged in false and misleading promotion
of Celexa and Lexapro for pediatric or adolescent use and sought
to induce physicians and others to prescribe Celexa or Lexapro by
providing them with various forms of illegal remuneration.  The
Plaintiffs further allege that this conduct caused them economic
harm.

The appellate case is captioned as Painters and Allied Trades v.
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-8024, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Plaintiff-Petitioner Painters and Allied Trades District Council
82 Heath Care Fund is represented by:

          Sam Griffin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. SAMUEL GRIFFIN
          PO Box 77373
          Atlanta, GA 30357
          Telephone: (404) 989-0665

Plaintiff-Petitioner Painters and Allied Trades District Council
82 Heath Care Fund and Plaintiffs Martha Palumbo and Peter Palumbo
are represented by:

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          24110 Eden St.
          PO Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com

Plaintiffs Martha Palumbo and Peter Palumbo are represented by:

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          E-mail: MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          24110 Eden St.
          PO Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
          POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD LLC
          161 Washington St., Suite 1520
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com

Plaintiffs Jayne Ehrlich and Anna Murret are represented by:

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          24110 Eden St.
          PO Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
          POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD LLC
          161 Washington St., Suite 1520
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com

Plaintiff Anna Murret is represented by:

          Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          24110 Eden St.
          PO Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com

Plaintiff Universal Care, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          Roger D. Drake, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          E-mail: MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com
                  RDrake@DrakeandDrake.com

               - and -

          Douglas R. Sprong, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 N 7th St., Suite 3600
          St. Loius, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (800) 678-9529
          E-mail: dsprong@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
          E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com

Plaintiffs Angela Jaeckel and Melvin M. Fullmer are represented
by:

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          E-mail: MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          24110 Eden St.
          PO Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Douglas R. Sprong, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 N 7th St., Suite 3600
          St. Loius, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (800) 678-9529
          E-mail: dsprong@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
          E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com

Plaintiff New Mexico UFCW Union's and Employer's Health and
Welfare Trust Fund is represented by:

          Justin Bloom, Esq.
          PO 1028
          Sarasota, FL 34230
          Telephone: (917) 991-7593

               - and -

          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water St.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          David Baylis Franco, Esq.
          Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq.
          DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC
          365 Canal St., Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Toll Free: (866) 328-7670
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Shane Youtz, Esq.
          YOUTZ AND VALDEZ, P.C.
          900 Gold Ave, SW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244-1200
          Facsimile: (505) 244-9700
          E-mail: shane@youtzvaldez.com

Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund is represented by:

          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water St.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          David Baylis Franco, Esq.
          Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq.
          DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC
          365 Canal St., Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Toll Free: (866) 328-7670
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180

               - and -

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

Plaintiff Municipal Reinsurance Health Insurance Fund is
represented by:

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142-0000
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com

Plaintiff Ruth Dunham is represented by:

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

Plaintiff Tanya Shippy is represented by:

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com

Plaintiffs Tara Johndrow and Brian Anson are represented by:

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          DRISCOLL FIRM
          211 N Broadway, Suite 2440
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 932-3232

Plaintiff Scott A. Wilcox is represented by:

          Sharon Arkin, Esq.
          THE ARKIN LAW FIRM
          101 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 112
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (541) 469-2892
          Facsimile: (866) 571-5676
          E-mail: sarkin@arkinlawfirm.com

               - and -

          George M. Fleming, Esq.
          Rand Patrick Nolen, Esq.
          FLEMING NOLEN & JEZ LLP
          2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4000
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 621-7944

               - and -

          Laura Ann Gianni, Esq.
          GIANNI PETOYAN
          17383 Sunset Blvd., Suite A 200
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (310) 230-6767
          Facsimile: (310) 230-6051
          E-mail: lag@giannipetoyan.com

               - and -

          Keith Morgan, Esq.
          Keith Morgan PLLC
          160 Chapel Ln
          Madison, MS 39110

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142-0000
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com

Plaintiffs Randy Marcus and Bonnie Marcus are represented by:

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          E-mail: MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com

Plaintiff Jill Powell is represented by:

          Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
          E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com

Defendants-Respondents Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are represented by:

          Johan Robert Abraham, Esq.
          Andrew J. Ceresney, Esq.
          Nicole E. Jacoby, Esq.
          Bryan P. Kessler, Esq.
          Kristin D. Kiehn, Esq.
          Noelle E. Lyle, Esq.
          Steven S. Michaels, Esq.
          Edwin Glenn Schallert, Esq.
          Danielle E. Thorne, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 3rd Ave.
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 909-6018
          E-mail: ajceresney@debevoise.com
                  jrabraham@debevoise.com
                  kdkiehn@debevoise.com
                  nelyle@debevoise.com
                  egschall@debevoise.com
                  dethorne@debevoise.com

               - and -

          William Fitts Benson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2 Seaport Ln, Suite 300
          Boston, MA 02210-1800
          Telephone: (617) 946-4993
          E-mail: wbenson@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Andrew Kanter, Esq.
          Natasha C. Lisman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Nadreau, Esq.
          John G. O'Neill, Esq.
          SUGARMAN ROGERS BARSHAK & COHEN PC
          101 Merrimac St.
          Boston, MA 02114-0000
          Telephone: (617) 227-3030
          E-mail: lisman@srbc.com
                  nadreau@srbc.com
                  oneill@srbc.com

               - and -

          Cicely I. Lubben, Esq.
          Sandra J. Wunderlich, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 259-4521
          E-mail: cicely.lubben@stinson.com
                  sandra.wunderlich@stinson.com

Defendant-Respondent Forest Laboratories, Inc., is represented by:

          Bethany A. Davis Noll, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 3rd Ave.
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: badavisn@debevoise.com

Defendant-Respondent Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is represented
by:

          Peter Simpson Ross, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 3rd Ave.
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000

Defendants Warner-Lambert Co. and Pfizer, Inc., are represented
by:

          Andrew J. Ceresney, Esq.
          Nicole E. Jacoby, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 3rd Ave.
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 909-6018
          E-mail: ajceresney@debevoise.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010-0000
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Barbara Wrubel, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-2314
          Facsimile: (917) 777-2314
          E-mail: barbara.wrubel@skadden.com

Interested Party Natalie Luster is represented by:

          Douglas P. Dowd, Esq.
          William T. Dowd, Esq.
          Alex Lumaghi, Esq.
          DOWD & DOWD PC
          211 N Broadway, Suite 4050
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-2500
          E-mail: doug@dowdlaw.net
                  bill@dowdlaw.net
                  alex@dowdlaw.net

               - and -

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          Christopher Joseph Quinn, Esq.
          DRISCOLL FIRM
          211 N Broadway, Suite 2440
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 932-3232

               - and -

          Ryan Patrick McManus, Esq.
          HEMENWAY & BARNES LLP
          60 State St
          Boston, MA 02109-0000
          Telephone: (617) 227-7940
          E-mail: rmcmanus@hembar.com


MDL 2262: Banks' Bid for Leave to Strike Class Allegations Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation. This Document Applies to: CASES LISTED IN
APPENDIX, Case No. 11 MDL 2262 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied defendants' request for leave
to file motions to strike class allegations in the Exchange-Based,
Mortgagor, and Over-the-Counter (OTC) complaints.

Plaintiff Carlito J. Rivera brings claims of fraud by omission and
of violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Rivera
originally sought to represent a class consisting of "all
residents of the United States of America who obtained a LIBOR-
indexed Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan from Defendant Bank of
America, N.A. during the Manipulation Period (March 2007 through
March 2011)."

Defendant Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. (f/k/a Cooperatieve Centrale
Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A.) (Rabobank) seeks leave to file a
motion to strike the trader-based class allegations in the
Exchange-Based Plaintiffs' complaint arguing that individual
issues will predominate over common ones due to the day-by-day
nature of plaintiffs' trader-based claims.

Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) requests leave
to strike the class allegations in the putative Mortgagor Class'
First Amended Complaint arguing that the Court should strike the
class allegations because (1) variations in state laws preclude
class certification; (2) individual issues of actual and
justifiable reliance predominate over common issues; and (3)
individual issues of mitigation predominate over common issues.

Defendants Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG, and Royal
Bank of Canada seek leave to strike class allegations in the OTC
complaint as to claims brought by plaintiff SEIU Pension Plans
Master Trust (SEIU).

In her Memorandum and Order dated May 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/I11pCv from Leagle.com, Judge Buchwald concluded
that there is no reason at the stage, as plaintiffs point out, to
presume that defendants will not advance identical arguments
against the class as a whole, and therefore these defenses may not
be unique to SEIU.  Defendants' requests to file motions to strike
class allegations from the Mortgagor, OTC, and Exchange-Based
complaints are denied, except that the Court strike the nationwide
class allegations in the Mortgagor complaint.

FTC Capital GMBH and Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia are
represented by Christopher Lovell, Esq. -- LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN
JACOBSON LLP, Daniel Hume, Esq. -- dhume@kmllp.com -- David E.
Kovel, Esq. -- dkovel@kmllp.com -- Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq. --
lpederson@kmllp.com -- and Surya Palaniappan, Esq. --
spalaniappan@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

Bank of America Corporation is represented by Paul Steel Mishkin,
Esq. -- paul.mishkin@davispolk.com -- Arthur J. Burke, Esq. --
arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- Julie Saranow Epley, Esq. --
julie.epley@davispolk.com -- Neal Alan Potischman, Esq. -
neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- and Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq.
-- robert.wise@davispolk.com -- DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP

Barclays Bank Plc,, Defendant, represented by David R. Boyd, Esq.
-- dboyd@bsfllp.com -- and Jonathan David Schiller, Esq. -- BOIES
SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, David Harold Braff, Esq. --
braffd@sullcrom.com -- Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. --
scottj@sullcrom.com -- and Yvonne Susan Quinn, Esq. --
quinny@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP


MDL 2328: Motion to Exclude Johnson Testimony Denied
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Plaintiffs' motion to
exclude portions of two reports and related testimony of Dr. John
H. Johnson, IV  in the case captioned, IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS
DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION SECTION: R(2). THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES, MDL No. 2328 (E.D. La.).

The antitrust case was filed by direct-purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs)
and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) against Pool Corp. and
the manufacturer defendants, namely Hayward Industries, Inc.,
Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc., and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc.
Pool is the country's largest distributor of products used for the
construction and maintenance of swimming pools.

IPPs filed three amended complaints, the most recent on July 16,
2013. Following the Court's order on defendants' motion to dismiss
IPPs' state-law claims, IPPs were left with the following claims:
California Unfair Competition Law and rule of reason Cartwright
Act claims involving three vertical conspiracies; Arizona
Antitrust Act claims involving three vertical conspiracies and a
claim of attempted monopolization against Pool; Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims involving three vertical
conspiracies and a claim of attempted monopolization against Pool;
and Missouri Merchandising Practice Acts claims based on
defendants' alleged anticompetitive agreements to exclude Pool's
rivals and Pool's attempted monopolization.

On April 29, 2016, the Court granted Pool's motions for summary
judgment on IPPs' vertical conspiracy claims.

In the motion, Plaintiffs challenge four aspects of Dr. Johnson's
opinion, all of which pertain to his conclusion that Dr. Gordon C.
Rausser's Common Factors regression and Overcharge regression are
fundamentally flawed.

In her Order and Reasons dated May 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/bB6xiy from Leagle.com, Judge Vance found that Dr.
Johnson's analysis is sufficiently grounded in economic theory and
methods, as well as the facts of this case, to satisfy reliability
standards.

Richard C. Stanley is represented by Richard C. Stanley, Esq. --
rcs@stanleyreuter.com -- STANLEY, REUTER, ROSS, THORNTON & ALFORD,
LLC

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is represented by:

Russ M. Herman, Esq.
HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP
820 O Keefe Ave
New Orleans, LA70113
Phone: (504) 581-4892

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is represented by:

Thomas J. H. Brill, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. BRILL
8012 State Line Rd, Ste 102
Mission Hills, KS 66208-3712
Tel: (913) 677-2004

Defendants' Liaison Counsel is represented by William Bernard
Gaudet, Esq. -- william.gaudet@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP

Defendants' Lead Counsel is represented by David H. Bamberger,
Esq. -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com -- and Katherine M. Ruffing,
Esq. -- katherine.ruffing@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, LLP

Manufacturer Defendants' Liaison Counsel is represented by Wayne
J. Lee, Esq. -- wlee@stonepigman.com -- STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER,
WITTMANN, LLC


MDL 2331: Court Remands Michelson's Product Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE PROPECIA (FINASTERIDE) PRODUCT
LIABILITY LITIGATION. KYLE MICHELSON, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD
RASSMAN, M.D., JAE P. PAK,: M.D., MERCK CORPORATION, MERCK & CO.,
INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., NEW HAIR INSTITUTE MEDICAL GROUP,
and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants, No. 12-MD-2331 (BMC)(PK),
Individual Case No. 14 Civ. 5919 (BMC)(PK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian
M. Cogan granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

Kyle Michelson, a California domiciliary, commenced the action in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the defendants Dr.
Richard Rassman, Dr. Jae Pak, and New Hair Medical Institute (the
"California defendants") committed medical malpractice by treating
his male pattern baldness with the drug Propecia without properly
warning him of the consequences, and that the defendants Merck
Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
("Merck"), which are non-California corporations, are liable in
strict liability and related claims for manufacturing and
distributing Propecia.  The very general, boilerplate complaint
has three causes of action.  The first alleges negligence against
(a) the California defendants in their treatment of his condition
(apparently, male pattern baldness, although the complaint only
says "condition"), including failure to advise him of the risks of
the treatment they gave him; and (b) Merck for defective design
and inadequate warning about the drug Propecia.  The second cause
of action is exclusively against Merck for strict liability,
failure to test, and failure to warn about Propecia.  The third
cause of action is against Merck for breach of express and implied
warranties in administering Propecia to him without disclosing
that it was not safe.  As a result of this, Michelson alleged that
he has a "high risk for both transient and irreversible ED"
(erectile dysfunction).

Merck removed the case to the Central District of California based
on diversity jurisdiction, alleging in its notice of removal that
the citizenship of the California defendants should be disregarded
because they were "improperly joined," in that the claims against
them "involve entirely separate factual and legal theories of
liability."  Merck therefore contended that the California
defendants could be severed and remanded to state court under the
doctrine of "procedural misjoinder."

Judge Cogan, however, concluded that unless a plaintiff's claim
against a non-diverse party fails as a matter of law, or must be
severed as a matter of state law, making the joinder of that claim
with the claim against the diverse party improper, the case is not
removable.  Judge Cogan found that neither of those situations
obtains in this case.

A full-text copy of Judge Cogan's June 22, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/yS6fq3 from Leagle.com.

Kyle Michelson, Plaintiff, represented by Ian I. Herzog, Herzog
Yuhas Ehrlich and Ardell APC & Evan Marshall, HERZOG YUHAS EHRLICH
& ARDELL.

Richard Rassman, New Hair Institute Medical Group, Defendants,
represented by Vincent P. D'Angelo --
vincent.dangelo@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman
& Dicker, Joanna Marie Ronning Topping --
joanna.topping@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP & Juliann Safko O'Meara --
juliann.omeara@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Jae P. Pak, Defendant, represented by Joanna Marie Ronning
Topping, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Merck Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles F. Morrow --
chip.morrow@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, pro hac vice.

Merck & Co, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ben D. Whitwell --
bwhitwell@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Charles F. Morrow, Butler
Snow LLP, pro hac vice & Celeste M. Brecht -- cmbrecht@venable.com
-- Venable LLP.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Defendant, represented by Ben D.
Whitwell, Venable LLP.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., .Defendant, represented by Celeste M.
Brecht, Venable LLP.


MDL 2437: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Ashton Woods' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Ashton Woods Holdings LLC,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. USG Corp., et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 15-cv-1712, MDL No. 13-2437 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M.
Baylson granted the defendants' motions to dismiss as to all of
the plaintiffs' claims to the extent those claims require proof of
an agreement to raise prices in 2014 and 2015.  The plaintiffs
remain free to pursue all of their claims based on conduct
occurring before this period.  Judge Baylson, however, dismissed
Continental Building Products from the litigation because all of
the plaintiffs' claims against Continental Building Products are
based on activity that occurred after the 2013 price increase.
The judge also granted in part and denied, in part, Certain Teed
Gypsum, Inc.'s Individual Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Baylson's June 22, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/m8bGML from Leagle.com.

The suit is part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving
allegations that domestic drywall manufacturers entered agreements
to fix prices and eliminate job quotes, a form of price
competition.  There are currently two separate groups of cases
proceeding simultaneously within the MDL.  The first group is
comprised of plaintiffs who filed class actions as direct or
indirect purchasers of drywall.  The second group is a single case
brought by twelve plaintiffs, who are homebuilders.  The first
group is substantially farther along in the litigation process
than the second.  Notably, the homebuilder plaintiffs have access
to all of the discovery taken in the class actions.

On April 22, 2016, the defendants in the homebuilder case filed
Rule 12(b)(6) motions asking the court to dismiss many of
homebuilder plaintiffs' claims.

Ashton Woods Holdings L.L.C., Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., D.R.
Horton Los Angeles Holding Company, Inc., Hovnanian Enterprises,
Inc., Kb Home, Meritage Homes Corporation, M/I Homes, Inc., Pulte
Home Corporation, The Drees Company, Toll Brothers, Inc., Tri
Pointe Homes, Inc., CalAtlantic Group, Inc., Plaintiffs,
represented by Brian Russell Strange --
bstrange@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Butler, Cindy Zone
Reichline -- creichline@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Butler,
John Theodore Ceglia -- jceglia@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange &
Butler, Keith Lawrence Butler -- kbutler@strangeandbutler.com --
Strange & Butler & Morvareed Z. Salehpour --
msalehpour@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Butler.

USG Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven E. Bizar --
steven.bizar@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Lester C. Houtz, Kirkland
& Ellis, Philip S. Beck -- philip.beck@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit
Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Rebecca W. Bacon --
rweinstein.bacon@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
& Scott LLP, Sharon Desh -- sharon.desh@bartlit-beck.com --
Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP & Sundeep Kumar Addy --
rob.addy@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
LLP.

New NGC, Inc., American Gypsum Company LLC, Defendants,
represented by Steven E. Bizar, Dechert LLP & J. Mark Gidley --
mgidley@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP.

LaFarge North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark W.
Nelson -- mnelson@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP, Steven E. Bizar, Dechert LLP & J. Mark Gidley.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by J. Mark Gidley,
White & Case LLP & Steven E. Bizar, Dechert LLP.

Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Bradley C. Weber -- bweber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Steven
E. Bizar, Dechert LLP & Susan E. Adams -- suadams@lockelord.com --
Locke Lord LLP.

Certainteed Gypsum, Inc., Saint-Gobain Corporation, Defendants,
represented by J. Mark Gidley.

L&W Supply Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, Defendants,
represented by Rebecca W. Bacon, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
Scott LLP.

Pabco Building Products LLC, Defendant, represented by Bradley C.
Weber, Locke Lord LLP & J. Mark Gidley.


MDL 2521: Oct. 26 Oral Argument on End-Payors' Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order in the case, In re:
LIDODERM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2521, Master File No.
14-md-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.), scheduling oral argument for:

     Date: October 26, 2016
     Time: 3 p.m.
     Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor

relating to the End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion For Class
Certification.

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


MICHAELS STORES: 9th Cir. Reverses Denial of Motion for Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon and Senior
District Judge George C. Steeh of the Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, reversed a district court's order denying Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, L.
ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAELS STORES INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14-56726 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Michaels Stores,
Inc. for failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 510(a)
and 1194, failure to provide accurate wage statements, Cal. Lab.
Code Sec. 226(e), failure to pay all wages due, Cal. Lab. Code
Sec. 203, and engagement in unfair competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec. 17200 et seq.

The district court denied Michaels's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

On appeal, Michaels contends that the claims of Plaintiffs-
Appellants Lisa Anderson and 24 other claimants are barred by the
statutes of limitation.

In the Memorandum dated May 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/gQCUZ5 from Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit held that
it was not "unforeseeable" that Anderson's section 17200 claims
would not be certified in the second class action, and tolling
these claims would not protect the class action device or
effectuate the purposes of the statute of limitations.


MICHIGAN, USA: Certification of Class Sought in "Hill" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled HENRY HILL, et al. v. RICK
SNYDER, et al., Case No. 5:10-cv-14568-JCO-RSW (E.D. Mich.), filed
with the Court their renewed motion for certification of a class
consisting of all individuals, who are in Michigan Department of
Corrections custody, who were convicted for first degree murder
for offenses committed when they were below 18 years of age.

Rick Snyder is the Governor of the state of Michigan.

The Plaintiffs' complaint, filed on November 17, 2010, sought
declaratory and injunctive relief to end the Defendants' alleged
violation of their Eighth Amendment rights to a meaningful and
realistic opportunity for release upon demonstration of their
maturity and rehabilitation.  The Plaintiffs, who were children
when they committed offenses for which they were convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment, challenged the constitutionality,
as applied to all children, of Section 791.234(6) of the Michigan
Compiled Laws, the statute that deprives the Michigan Parole Board
of jurisdiction over individuals serving life sentences for first-
degree homicide offenses.

Absent class certification, the Defendants will continue to apply
the unconstitutional parole statute to deny any meaningful
opportunities for parole to children similarly situated to them,
the Plaintiffs contend.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs argue, class
certification is both necessary and appropriate to ensure that
others similarly situated to them benefit from the Court's orders
in this matter.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah LaBelle, Esq.
          221 N. Main St., Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 996-5620
          E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Reosti, Esq.
          23880 Woodward Ave.
          Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133
          Telephone: (248) 691-4200
          E-mail: ron.reosti@gmail.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
          Kary L. Moss, Esq.
          Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUNDOF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-6814
          E-mail: msteinberg@aclumich.org
                  dkorobkin@aclumich.org
                  kmoss@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Steven M. Watt, Esq.
          Ezekiel Edwards, Esq.
          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM
          CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 519-7870
          E-mail: swatt@aclu.org
                  eedwards@aclu.org
                  bbuskey@aclu.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Margaret A. Nelson, Esq.
          Ann M. Sherman, Esq.
          Christina M. Grossi, Esq.
          Joseph T. Froehlich, Esq.
          MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, ELECTIONS & TORT DIVISION
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-6434


MO'S FISHERMAN: Court Rules on Conditional Cert. Bid in "Mendoza"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MELVIN MENDOZA, et al., On behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MO'S
FISHERMAN EXCHANGE, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-
15-1427 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander granted in part and
denied, in part, the plaintiffs' "Motion for Conditional
Certification and to Facilitate Notice under the Fair Labor
Standards Act."

Specifically, Judge Hollander granted the portion of the Motion
seeking certification of the collective case, dating from three
years prior to the present, as to all hourly employees of the
defendants' six restaurants.  The judge, however, ordered that the
notice must be revised, and a proposed notice for use on Facebook
must be created and submitted to the court for approval.  Finally,
Judge Hollander required the defendants to produce the names,
dates of employment, e-mail addresses, and last known mailing
addresses of the potential collective members, as requested by the
plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of Judge Hollander's June 22, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/igyt3p from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs, Melvin Mendoza, Erick Rivera, and Armando
Portillo, filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
against Mo's Fisherman Exchange, Inc. and Mohammed S. Manocheh,
doing business as Mo's Seafood Restaurant; Mo's Fisherman's Wharf;
Mo's; Mo's Seafood Factory; Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory; and Mo's
Neighborhood Bar and Grill.  The plaintiffs alleged "willful
failure" by the defendants "to pay Plaintiffs their wages,
including minimum and overtime wages."  They characterize the suit
as both a collective action under the FLSA and "as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)."

Four additional plaintiffs have since joined the suit, pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b).  They are Douglas Edgardo Rivera; Wiliam
Rivera; Samuel Gutierrez Guevara; and Edwin Amilcar Sosa Garcia.

Melvin Mendoza, Erick Rivera, Armando Portillo, Douglas Edgardo
Rivera, Wiliam Rivera, Samuel Gutierrez Guevara, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew David Freeman -- adf@browngold.com -- Brown
Goldstein and Levy LLP, Brooke E. Lierman --
blierman@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein Levy,Jessica Paulie
Weber -- jweber@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP,
Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center & Sally Jean Dworak
Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc.

Edwin Amilcar Sosa Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke E.
Lierman, Brown Goldstein Levy.

Mo's Fisherman Exchange, Inc., Mohammed S. Manocheh, Defendants,
represented by Andrew Marc Dansicker, Dansicker Law Firm.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Rules on Fee Bid in "Geoffrion" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas denied in part Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees, and Non-Taxable Expenses in
the case captioned, DANIELLE GEOFFRION and DARREN KASMIR, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 4:14-CV-350 (E.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs allege to have sent Defendant Qualified Written
Requests (QWRs) for information regarding their account and an
accounting of all payments made on their mortgage account.
Plaintiffs further allege Defendant violated the Real Estate
Settlement and Procedures Act 12 U.S.C. 2605(a) (RESPA) because
Defendant failed to provide information required by federal law.
Plaintiffs also sued in equity to receive an accounting from
Defendant.

On September 10, 2015, the jury rendered a verdict finding that
Plaintiffs submitted QWRs to Defendant on December 16, 2013, and
on January 3, 2014. The jury found that Defendant failed to
respond or provided an inadequate response to the QWR that
Plaintiffs sent on January 3, 2014. The jury also found that
Plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages caused by Defendant's
failure to respond to Plaintiffs' QWR.

In the motion, Plaintiffs assert that "the case was a leanly-
staffed in which every minute of work reflected on the timesheets
of Plaintiffs' counsel was necessary and well-spent." Defendant
argues that "because Plaintiffs dropped their breach of contract
claim, they cannot recover attorneys' fees incurred to further it"
and the calculation of hours reasonably spent on the RESPA claim
must be significantly reduced. Defendant also argues that
Plaintiffs' counsel failed to demonstrate billing judgment.

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 12, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/rIAGpg from Leagle.com, Judge Mazzant found that
Plaintiffs' counsel has not produced sufficient evidence to
support an award is a reasonable and necessary, and awarded
attorney's fees in the amount of $106,254 and as for taxable costs
the court found that the Plaintiffs' receipts provide sufficient
documentation of the taxable expenses incurred and awarded the
amount of $2,143.97 for taxable costs.

Danielle Geoffron and Darren Kasmir are represented by Jarrett Lee
Ellzey, Jr., Esq. -- jarrett@hughesellzy.com -- William Craft
Hughes, Esq. -- craft@heghesellzy.com -- and Brian B. Kilpatrick,
Esq. -- brian@hughesellzy.com -- HUGHES ELLZEY LLP

Nationstar Mortgage LLC is represented by Walter Lewis Edmond
McInnis, Esq. -- walter.mcinnis@ackerman.com -- Andrew Duncan
Thomas, Esq. -- andrew.thomas@ackerman.com -- and Christopher
Charles Townsend, Esq. -- christopher.townsend@ackerman.com --
AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP, Anne M. Johnson, Esq. --
anne.johnson@haynesboone.com -- and Nina Cortell, Esq. --
nina.cortell@haynesboone.com -- HAYNES & BOONE, LLP -- and David
Stewart Clancy, Esq. -- sclancy@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS
LLP


NEW YORK: Wells' Class Certification Motion Denied
--------------------------------------------------
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby entered an order in the lawsuit styled PETER
WELLS, NATHANIEL JAY PATRICK JEANTY, DERRICK FULTON, ERIC MCCOY,
WAYNE WASHINGTON, DERRICK CLARK, and GLENN T. SUDDABY, the
Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al., Defendants, Case 9:16-cv-
00405-GTS-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), granting Wells's In Forma Pauperis (IFP)
Application.

Wells is an inmate at the Auburn Correctional Facility in New
York.

The Clerk shall provide the Superintendent of the facility that
Wells has designated as his current location with a copy of
Wells's inmate authorization form and notify that official that
Wells has filed this action and is required to pay to the Northern
District of New York the entire statutory filing fee of $350.00.

Wells's motion for appointment of counsel is denied without
prejudice, and the Wells's motion for class certification is also
denied.

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

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


NEW YORK: Court Reinstates Pay & Benefits for Bearded Cop
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Manhattan reinstated pay and benefits June 22,
to the New York City police officer whose suspension this Ramadan
inspired him to fight the department's beard policy.

Masood Syed says he has sported a trim beard, in keeping with his
Sunni Islamic faith, for his entire decade on the force.  In 2011,
the NYPD granted him a religious accommodation to keep his beard
at 1-millimeter, but Syed says that an unwritten rule has always
allowed him and other officers to grow theirs more than an inch.
Syed requested formal permission for him and 37 other officers to
keep their beards that length on Dec. 12, 2015.  The department
never replied to that request until it ordered Syed to shave or
face suspension on June 20.  Ramadan, a month of fasting for
Muslims, began on June 6.

After refusing the order on June 21, Syed was forced to surrender
his badge and weapon, and ushered him out of NYPD headquarters at
1 Police Plaza in Manhattan. Syed told reporters today that a
police escort paraded him out the door in front of him comrades,
the day before his birthday and during the holiest month of the
Islamic calendar.

"It was extremely humiliating," Syed said this afternoon. "I felt
insulted, frankly."

The Pakistani-American filed a class action on behalf of hundreds
of other Muslim officers.  At the time of the press conference,
Syed had emerged victorious from an emergency hearing seeking an
injunction against the NYPD.

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel, who himself sported a salt-and-
pepper beard and moustache, said he was "troubled" by how little
information a city lawyer had about the NYPD's facial hair policy.
The city's lawyer Michael Fleming endured extensive grilling about
the department's policy during the roughly hourlong hearing.

Fleming did not know, for example, whether an officer with a face
rash would get a dispensation to let his beard grow longer than a
millimeter with a doctor's note.

"Under those circumstances, Your Honor, I don't," he acknowledged.

Nor did Fleming know whether a Jewish officer in mourning would be
able to observe the ritual of shloshim, which includes a month-
long prohibition against shaving.

Visibly frustrated, Judge Castel told the city lawyer: "Your
client should furnish you with information about that."

Syed's lawyer Joshua Moskovitz, from the firm Beldock Levine &
Hoffman, had plenty of facts at his disposal. He told the court
that he had an approximately 2-mm beard, calling it the average
facial-hair length of a man who does not shave for a day.  His
adversary counsel Fleming quibbled that it probably varies upon
the man.

"My beard grow a little differently than Mr. Moskovitz's does," he
said.

The NYPD has been in Manhattan Federal Court before for failing to
accommodate a religious beard.  In 2013, the late U.S. District
Judge Harold Baer found that the city violated the constitutional
rights of an Orthodox Jewish officer named Fishel Litzman, who
also refused to shave on First Amendment grounds.  After Syed's
attorney cited Litzman's case, city lawyer Fleming said: "It is my
understanding that [Litzman] has different religious beliefs from
the plaintiff."  The distinction did not persuade Castel, who
ordered the city to reinstate Syed's pay and benefits.

Noting that Syed's beard was "at least this morning, neatly
trimmed," the judge stopped short of sending the well-groomed
officer back to his post, where he works as a law clerk for six
administrative judges within the NYPD.

A different federal judge, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe, will
make that decision after a preliminary injunction hearing
scheduled for July 8.  Before that time, Castel said, the NYPD
must turn over information about the department's policy to Syed's
legal team on an expedited basis. Syed will collect all of his
salary and benefits until that time, and the department cannot
take any adverse action against him.

Syed, 32, looked happy and relaxed following the hearing.  "I am
very relieved, very happy, with the judge's decision," he said.

Birthday celebrations will be spartan because of Syed's religious
obligations.  Syed told reporters that he will spend the day
fasting.

The NYPD justifies its facial hair restrictions on the fact that
officers with beards sometimes have difficulty putting on the
department's gas masks -- known as the MSA Millennium model
respirator. But that would not appear to be a typical feature of
Syed's legal work for the department.

Syed spends his days advising the NYPD on how to lawfully enforce
its policies.  "I think the word is irony," his attorney Moskovitz
said.  Eager to get back to work, Syed said of being a police
officer: "I love this job."


NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AK: Convent's Class Cert. Bid Revived
--------------------------------------------------------
Associate Judge Josephine Linker Hart of the Arkansas Supreme
Court reversed a circuit court's denial of Convent Corporation's
motion for class certification and remanded the case in the case
captioned, CONVENT CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF NORTH LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; JOE SMITH, MAYOR,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
DEBI ROSS, BETH WHITE, LINDA ROBINSON, MAURICE TAYLOR, STEVE
BAXTER, BRUCE FOUTCH, MURRY WITCHER, AND CHARLIE HIGHT, EACH
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TOM WADLEY,
DIRECTOR, CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND FELICIA McHENRY, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, APPELLEES, Case No. CV-
15-912 (Ark.).

The North Little Rock City Council (Council) passed a resolution
on February 25, 2013, condemning as a public nuisance a structure
owned by Convent located at 6615 Highway 70 in North Little Rock.
On March 27, 2013, Convent filed in the circuit court a notice of
appeal from the resolution. On that same day, Convent filed a
complaint for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and
damages. Convent also sought a declaratory judgment that the City
of North Little Rock's (City) ordinance relating to condemnation
proceedings was unconstitutional. Further, Convent sought to
enjoin the City not only from destroying Convent's property but
also from destroying other properties that had been condemned by
the City and enjoin the City from condemning any additional
properties or taking any action to file or collect liens for the
demolition of properties.

Following the removal of the case to federal court and its
subsequent return, Convent filed on May 17, 2014, a motion for a
judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, a motion for
summary judgment. On September 1, 2014, Convent filed its motion
for class certification seeking to certify as a class all
individuals who own property within North Little Rock and whose
property had been condemned by the Council from March 27, 2009. In
an order filed July 9, 2015, the circuit court denied Convent's
motion for class certification.

On appeal, Convent argues that the circuit court erred in denying
its motion for class certification. Convent argues that the
circuit court should have considered the exhibits attached to the
motion for class certification as well as exhibits attached to
other pleadings, including its motion for judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment.

In her Opinion dated May 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/TYMErw from Leagle.com, Judge Hart found that the
circuit court abused its discretion in denying Convent's motion
solely on Convent's failure to present evidence at the hearing.
Further, because the circuit court has not yet considered the
elements of Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure
relating to the certification of class actions, we must reverse
and remand the case to the circuit court for consideration of the
issue.

Convent Corporation is represented by:

Mickey Stevens, Esq.
720 W 6th Ave
Pine Bluff, AR 71601-4079
Tel: (870) 850-6000

City of North Little Rock, et al. are represented by C. Jason
Carter, Esq. -- carter@bmelaw.com -- and Daniel L. McFadden, Esq.
-- Dmcfadden@foleyhoag.com


NORTHWEST HOSPITAL: Sued for Allegedly Violating Charity Care Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Essex Porter, writing for KIRO7, reports that Seattle's Northwest
Hospital has been hit with a class-action lawsuit claiming it
turns patients over to collection agencies too quickly.

The suit says those patients should be screened to determine
whether they qualify for charity care.

The lawyers at Columbia Legal Services say this lawsuit has
implications statewide, because 30 percent of the state's
population may qualify for charity care.

Taxi driver Kamal Amireh told us he suffered from severe vertigo
three years ago, so he went to the emergency room at Northwest
Hospital.

His lawsuit alleges the hospital sent his $3,500 bill to a
collection agency before screening him to see if he qualified for
a charity care discount.

"They have been very tough for me, like, not cooperative, you
know. They are not cooperative," Mr. Amireh said.

"The collection agency proceeded to garnish his bank account and
take wages that he really needed to provide for the basic
necessities of life for his family," said lawyer Adam Berger.

The class-action lawsuit seeks to cover every potential charity
care patient in the Northwest Hospital service area.

According to the complaint, that's roughly 134,000 people.

In a statement, Northwest Hospital told KIRO 7 it didn't know
about the allegations until the lawsuit was announced on June 21
and that it is investigating.

The statement says the hospital provided more than $7.3 million in
charity care in its last fiscal year.


OCEAN DETAILING: "Burke" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocean Detailing USA Management, Inc.,
Russell Grande, individually, and Ira Hall, individually,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00958-JA-GJK (M.D. Fla., June 2, 2016), seeks
damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorney's fees and costs,
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of 80
hours per week. Despite working more than 40 hours per week,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, overtime compensation at a rate
of no less than time and one-half regular rate of pay for the
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Ocean Detailing is a sublet auto detailing company, providing a
full array of detailing services to auto dealers, throughout
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425 3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stuart Arthur Goldsteinm Esq.
          STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P.A.
          7300 N Kendall Dr Ste 380
          Miami, FL 33156-7839
          Telephone: (305) 670-1222 Ext 1393
          Facsimile: (305) 670 7065
          E-mail: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net


OXY USA: Court Decertifies Class in "Roderick" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WALLACE B. RODERICK REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST,
Wallace B. Roderick, Trustee, on behalf of itself and JOHN W.
FITZGERALD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OXY USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 12-
1215-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), Judge Eric F. Melgren granted the
defendant OXY USA, Inc.'s motion to decertify the plaintiff class
of royalty owners that was previously certified by the District
Court of Kearny County, Kansas.

A full-text copy of Judge Melgren's June 22, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/ucFHTs from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs, Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust and
John W. Fitzgerald, owned royalty interests in wells from which
OXY produced and marketed gas and its constituent products.  The
plaintiffs claimed they were underpaid in royalty fees by OXY.
Before the case was removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas, the District Court of Kearny County,
Kansas certified a plaintiff class of royalty owners that
comprises approximately 1600 wells and 2200 leases.  OXY now moved
to decertify the class, asserting specifically that the plaintiffs
do not satisfy the commonality and adequacy requirements of Rule
23(a) or the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b).

Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, John W. Fitzgerald,
Amanda Roderick, Plaintiffs, represented by Barbara C. Frankland
-- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Rex A. Sharp -
- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA.

OXY USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa T. Silvestri --
lsilvestri@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals, pro hac vice, Marcia
A. Wood -- mawood@martinpringle.com -- Martin, Pringle, Oliver,
Wallace & Bauer, LLP, Oliver S. Howard -- ohoward@gablelaw.com --
Gable & Gotwals, pro hac vice, Stanford J. Smith, Jr. --
sjsmith@martinpringle.com -- Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace &
Bauer, LLP & William Rick Griffin -- wrgriffin@martinpringle.com
-- Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP.


PANASONIC CORP: Judge Spots No Reason to Seal Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE RESISTORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 5:15-
cv-03820-RMW (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Ronald M. Whyte rejects
the administrative motions to seal the Direct and Indirect
Purchasers' consolidated class action complaints. A copy of the
decision dated June 22, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/jeQSfL
from Leagle.com

Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), parties moving to seal documents
must attach a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal
only the sealable material which lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed, and an
unredacted version of the document that indicates by highlighting
or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been
omitted from the redacted version.

The court directed plaintiffs to refile unredacted copies of their
consolidated class action complaints, which will be publicly
accessible, within seven days of the date of the Court's order.

                           *     *     *

On June 24, 2016, two days after the Court entered its Order, the
Plaintiffs filed copies of their Amended Complaints:

     1. Amended Complaint against HDK America, Inc., Hokuriku
Electric Industry Co., KOA Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics,
Inc., Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd., Kamaya Inc., Panasonic
Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic
Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, ROHM Co. Ltd., Rohm
Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC. Filed by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs.

     2. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint against HDK America, Inc., HDK Micro Devices Co.,
Ltd., Hokuriku Electric Industry Co., KOA Corporation, KOA Speer
Electronics, Inc., Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd., Kamaya Inc.,
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Panasonic Electronic Devices Co Ltd, ROHM Co. Ltd., Rohm
Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd, Sanyo North
America Corporation. Filed by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.

     3. Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against KOA
Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Panasonic Corporation,
Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Electronic
Devices Co Ltd, ROHM Co. Ltd., Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC,
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd, Sanyo North America Corporation, Hokuriku
Electric Industry Co., HDK Micro Devices Co., Ltd., HDK America,
Inc., Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd., Kamaya Inc.. Filed by Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs.

Panasonic Corporation, et al., Defendant, represented by Ian L.
Papendick -- ipapendick@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Brandon W. Duke -- bduke@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Erica Carolyn Smilevski --
esmilevski@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice &
Eva W. Cole -- ewcole@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac
vice.

KOA Corporation, et al., Defendant, represented by Jason C. Murray
-- jmurray@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP.

KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel L.
Zelenko -- dzelenko@crowell.com -- U.S. Dept. of Justice, pro hac
vice, Emily Tomoko Kuwahara -- ekuwahara@crowell.com -- Crowell
and Moring LLP, Jordan Lee Ludwig -- jludwig@crowell.com --
Crowell and Moring LLP, Katie Michelle Yablonka --
kyablonka@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP & Robert Brian
McNary -- rmcnary@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP.

ROHM Co. Ltd., et al., Defendant, represented by Michael Frederick
Tubach -- mtubach@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Kenneth Ryan
O'Rourke -- korourke@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara T.
Sicalides -- sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro
hac vice, Daniel Joseph Boland -- bolandd@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F. Fitzpatrick --
fitzpatt@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Yageo America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jason
Sheffield Angell -- jangell@fawlaw.com -- Freitas Angell &
Weinberg LLP, Jessica Nicole Leal -- jleal@fawlaw.com -- Freitas
Angell & Weinberg LLP & Robert E. Freitas -- rfreitas@fawlaw.com -
- Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP.

AVX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce Douglas Sokler --
BDSokler@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo,
pro hac vice.

TDK-EPC Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Clayton
Everett -- clay.everett@morganlewis.com -- Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Park Chiu --
michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Scott A. Stempel -- scott.stempel@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.


PEOPLES UNITED: Faces "Casseres-Pinto" Suit in S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Peoples United Financial, Inc.
The case is captioned Jose Casseres-Pinto, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ariel Quiros,
William Stenger, Peoples United Financial, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Peoples United Bank, a Delaware corporation, Raymond
James Financial, Inc., doing business as Raymond James, Raymond
James & Associates, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Joel
Burstein, the Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-22209-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
June 15, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Darrin P. Gayles.

People's United is a savings and loan holding company incorporated
under the state laws of Delaware that owns People's United Bank, a
federally chartered stock savings bank in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Marie Zeman, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          3711 Sheridan Ave.
          Miami Beach, FL 33140
          Telephone: (510) 350 9721
          Facsimile: (510) 350 9701
          E-mail: amyzeman@classlawgroup.com


PLAIN GREEN: Appeals to 2nd Cir. From Ruling in "Gingras" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Joel Rosette, in his official capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of Plain Green LLC; Ted Whitford, official
capacity as a member of Plain Green's Board of Directors; and Tim
McInerney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Gingras, et al. v. Rosette, et al., Case No. 15-cv-101, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont (Rutland).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24, 2015, the
Plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit that Plain Green LLC is
exploiting and extorting its borrowers through predatory lending
in violation of federal trade and consumer laws.

Plain Green charges annual interest rates of up to 379 percent for
its loans, which are typically used by low-income borrowers in
need of emergency cash, the complaint said.  The Company is owned
by Montana's Chippewa Cree Tribe, which uses the tribal-
sovereignty doctrine to ignore states' laws that cap interest
rates on payday loans.

The appellate case is captioned as Gingras, et al. v. Rosette, et
al., Case No. 16-2019, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

The other Defendants are Think Finance, Inc., TC Loan Service,
LLC, Kenneth E. Rees, former President and Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board of Think Finance, TC Decision Sciences,
LLC, Tailwind Marketing, LLC, Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, and
Technology Crossover Ventures.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jessica Gingras and Angela C. Given are
represented by:

          Matthew B. Byrne, Esq.
          GRAVEL AND SHEA PC
          76 Saint Paul Street
          P.O. Box 369
          Burlington, VT 05402
          Telephone: (802) 658-0220
          Facsimile: (802) 658-1456
          E-mail: mbyrne@gravelshea.com

Defendants-Appellants Joel Rosette, Ted Whitford and Tim McInerney
are represented by:

          Richard Joseph Zack, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 2 Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 981-4726
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: zackr@pepperlaw.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: July 11 Oral Argument on Motions to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas denied a motion to
consolidate in the case captioned, IN RE PLAINS ALL AMERICAN
PIPELINE, L.P. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:15-CV-02404 (S.D.
Tex.).

The putative class members in this federal securities action are
investors in Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline, LP
(Plains), a crude-oil pipeline operator. On May 19, 2015, Line 901
-- a 10.6-mile long Plains pipeline across the Santa Barbara,
California coast -- ruptured and released crude oil. The
defendants are Plains; Plains Holdings, a limited partnership
formed to own an interest in Plains's general-partner and
incentive-distribution rights; officers and directors at the two
companies; and underwriters associated with public offerings of
the shares.

The plaintiffs allege that Plains made misrepresentations about
the measures taken to prevent such an occurrence before the spill
and after the spill about the extent of the release. They seek
damages for the decline in the value of Plains stock.

Alfred Davis moved to consolidate this putative class action with
a derivative action he filed on Plains's behalf for breach of
fiduciary duty. Davis's case is Civil Action No. 15-3632. Both the
plaintiffs and the defendants in the case oppose consolidation.

In the Memorandum and Order dated May 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FDcmaH from Leagle.com, Judge Rosenthal held that
consolidation under Rule 42 is premature at the time, subject to
reurging if the actions sought to be consolidated survive the
motions to dismiss.

The court sets oral argument on the motions to dismiss in the case
for July 11, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension
System is represented by Roger Farrell Claxton, Esq. --
roger@claxtonlaw.com -- LAW FIRM OF ROGER F. CLAXTON

Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit is
represented by Gerald H. Silk, Esq. -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jake
Nachmani, Esq. -- jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com -- and Jeremy P.
Robinson, Esq. -- jeremy@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMAN LLP, Thomas Robert Ajamie, Esq. -- tajamie@ajamie.com -
- AJAMIE LLP; and Luke O. Brooks, Esq. -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
DOWD LLP

IAM National Pension Fund is represented by Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
-- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON,
LLP, Angel P. Lau, Esq. -- alau@rgrdlaw.com -- Ashley M. Price,
Esq. -- aprice@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle S. Myers, Esq. --
danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. --
dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- and Luke O. Brooks, Esq. --
LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP

City of Warren Police & Fire Retirement System is represented by
Luke O. Brooks, Esq. -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
DOWD LLP

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is represented by Craig Eric
Zieminski, Esq. -- czieminski@velaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Johnston,
Esq. -- jjohnston@velaw.comc -- and Michael C. Holmes, Esq. --
mholmes@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS

BB&T Securities, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy N. LeRoy,
Esq. -- tleroy@sidley.com -- and Robin Wechkin, Esq. --
rwechkin@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP


PLS DIABETIC: Class Certification Sought in Podiatry Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit titled PODIATRY IN
MOTION, INC, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members, the
Plaintiffs, v. PLS DIABETIC SHOE COMPANY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-
10, the Defendants, Case No: 16-cv-06444 (N.D. Ill), asks the
Court to enter an order determining that this action may proceed
as a class action against the Defendant.

Plaintiff defines the classes as follows:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act;

          The Count I Class consists of (a) all persons with
Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf
of defendant PLS Diabetic Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its goods
or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out
notice.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act;

          The Count II Class consists of (a) all persons with
Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior
to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf
of defendant PLS Diabetic Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its goods
or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out
notice.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels;

          The Count III, IV & V class consists of (a) all persons
with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years
prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on
behalf of defendant PLS Diabetic Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its
goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt
out notice.

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=RwMsKRjQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman
          Cathleen M. Combs
          James O. Latturner
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          Web site: http://www.edcombs.com


POST: Faces Class Suit Over Shredded Wheat 'All Natural' Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that packaged foods behemoth Post lies about its Shredded Wheat
products being "100% natural" while they actually contain a
cancer-causing chemical, a California class action alleges in
federal court.

Lead plaintiff Andy Wu claims Post markets Shredded Wheat as "100%
natural whole-grain wheat" to capitalize on consumers' desire for
healthier food even though it knows its wheat contains glyphosate,
a "potent biocide" that the World Health Organization flagged last
year as a potential human carcinogen that may cause kidney and
liver damage.

When Wu filed his complaint on June 22, Post faced similar
allegations in a product liability class action in New York
federal court and a consumer protection suit in Washington, D.C.'s
superior court. Back in 2009, the food company was sued along with
Procter & Gamble, Frito-Lay, Kellogg's and others in Los Angeles
Superior Court for failing to tell consumers that its products
contain acrylamide, another suspected carcinogen.

"Post knows that consumers seek out and wish to purchase whole,
natural foods that do not contain chemicals, and that consumers
will pay more for foods that they believe to be natural," Wu said
in the complaint. "Post has profited enormously from its
fraudulently marketed products and its carefully orchestrated
label and image."

Agricultural giant Monsanto developed glyphosate, which the
complaint cites as the world's most popular herbicide, and has
marketed it under the notorious "Roundup" moniker since the 1970s.

In April, France's health and safety agency announced it would ban
weed killers containing glyphosate and tallowmine, a compound
added to glyphosate-based herbicides to enhance their strength.
Last year, the European Food Safety Agency found that combining
glyphosate with other chemicals was more dangerous to human health
than glyphosate alone.

Monsanto called the recent assessments of glyphosate's safety
political.

"This result was reached by selective 'cherry picking' of data and
is a clear example of agenda-driven bias," said Monsanto's Chief
Technology Officer Dr. Robb Fraley in a statement last year after
WHO classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.  Wu's
complaint claims Post sprays glyphosate on its wheat just before
harvesting to dry it out, a practice encouraged by Monsanto that
isn't necessary to a successful harvest. Drying wheat with
glyphosate only serves to increase crop yields and, in turn,
profits, Wu said.

Wu seeks to represent a class of everyone who bought Shredded
Wheat in the U.S. and a subclass of those who bought Shredded
Wheat in California. He is suing for unjust enrichment and breach
of express warranty, along with violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition
Law.

Wu wants Post to disclose the presence of glyphosate in Shredded
Wheat and to launch an advertising campaign informing consumers
that it isn't completely natural.

"Glyphosate is a dangerous substance, the presence and health
effects of which should be disclosed," Wu said.

The class is represented by Michael Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com
-- of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski in San Francisco and Beth
Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- and Erika Nusser --
enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- of Terrell Marshall Law Group in
Seattle.

Neither Wu's attorneys nor Post returned phone and email requests
for comment on June 24 morning.


PREMIER OFFICE: Faces "Peguero" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against PREMIER OFFICE CENTERS. The case
is titled AHIXZA Z. PEGUERO, and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER OFFICE CENTERS, doing
business as: PREMIER BUSINESS CENTERS, a Foreign Limited Liability
Company, and JEFFREY REINSTEIN, individually, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-22207-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2016). The Assigned
Judge is Hon. Jose E. Martinez.

Premier Office is a privately held executive suite and office
rental company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Waynice Amoii Green, Esq.
          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          E-mail: waynicea.green@gmail.com
                  pmh@rgpattorneys.com


QUALITY RESOURCES: Faces "Pierluca" Suit in M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Quality Resources, Inc. The case
is captioned Mario Pierluca and Marcus Holmes, on his own behalf
and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Quality Resources, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Cheryl
R. Mercuris, an individual, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01580-
JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon.
James S. Moody, Jr.

Quality Resources operates as a performance-based customer
acquisition marketing services provider.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
          Michelle E. Nadeau, Esq.
          KWALL, SHOWERS, BARACK & CHILSON, P.A.
          133 North Fort Harrison Avenue
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: (727) 441 4947
          Facsimile: (727) 447 3158
          E-mail: rbarack@ksbclaw.com
                  mnadeau@ksbclaw.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: $2.35MM Settlement in Emmons Has Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOROTHEA EMMONS and LISA STAPLETON,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, doing business as
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED OF NEVADA, a Nevada corporation;
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS NOCHOLS INSTITUTE, a California corporation;
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:13-cv-00474-DAD-
BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd granted the motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement filed by the
plaintiffs, Dorothea Emmons and Lisa Stapleton.

The proposed settlement seeks a gross settlement amount of
$2,350,000.00.  After deducting the requested attorney's fees and
costs, settlement administration costs, payment to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and the class
representative enhancement payments, the class members will net
$1,495,667.00.  The plaintiffs estimate each class member will
receive approximately $575.00.

Judge Drozd approved the plaintiffs as class representatives,
confirmed Capstone Law APC as class counsel, and approved
Simpluris, Inc. as settlement administrator.

A full-text copy of Judge Drozd's June 22, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/nP1Bar from Leagle.com.

Dorothea Emmons, Lisa Stapleton, Plaintiffs, represented by Bevin
Elaine Allen Pike -- bevin.pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC & Robert J. Drexler --
robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated, Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, Defendants,
represented by Erica C. Parks, Sidley Austin LLP, Jonathan M.
Brenner, Sidley Austin LLP & Aimee Grace Mackay --
amackay@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.

Quest Diagnostics Inc., Defendant, represented by Aimee Grace
Mackay, Sidley Austin LLP.


RAYONIER INC: Must Defend Against Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida denied defendants'
motions to dismiss in the case captioned, In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-CV-1395-J-32JBT (M.D. Fla.).

In the consolidated private securities fraud class action,
Defendants Rayonier, Inc., Lynn Wilson, Hans Vanden Noort, and
Paul Boynton move for the second time to dismiss the case on the
grounds that Lead Plaintiffs Pension Trust Fund for Operating
Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund have
failed to adequately plead their claims under the various
applicable pleading standards.

The Court earlier granted Defendants' first motions to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint and allowed Lead Plaintiffs
leave to amend.

Defendants argue that Lead Plaintiffs have again failed to
adequately plead that the allegedly fraudulent statements were
false or misleading when made and were made with scienter. Lead
Plaintiffs respond that they have more than met their heightened
pleading obligations.

In his Order dated May 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/dGsimP
from Leagle.com, Judge Corrigan found that Lead Plaintiffs have
met those pleading standards and even taking into account the
heightened pleading standards under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act and Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Mary Sating isrepresented by Francis P. McConville, Esq. --
fpmcconville@pomlaw.com -- Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. --
jagoldstein@pomlaw.com -- and Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM &
GROSS, LLP and Peretz Bronstein, Esq. -- peretz@bgandg.com --
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC

Samuel Keasler is represented by:

Christopher Stephen Polaszek, Esq.
THE POLOSZEK LAW FIRM, PLLC
201 One Tampa City Ctr, Ste 700
Tampa, FL 33602-5138
Tel: (813) 223-5505

Lake Worth Firefighters Pension Trust Fund is represented by Avi
Josefson, Esq. -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Brandon Marsh, Esq. -
Brandon@blbglaw.com -- David Ronald Stickney, Esq. --
david@blbglaw.com -- Gerald H. Silk, Esq. -- Gerald@blbglaw.com
-- and Jonathan Daniel Uslaner, Esq. -- jonathan@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, Lester R. Hooker, Esq.;
Maya S. Saxena, Esq. -- msaxena@saxenawhite.com -- SAXENA WHITE,
PA; and Robert D. Klausner, Esq. -- bob@robertdklausner.com --
KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON

Rayonier Inc. is represented by Charles M. Trippe, Jr., Esq. --
cmtrippe@mppkj.com -- and Joni Alexis Poitier, Esq. --
JAPoitier@mppkj.com -- MOSELEY, PRICHARD, PARRISH, KNIGHT & JONES,
Janine Cone Metcalf, Esq. -- jmetcalf@jonesday.com -- and Michael
J. McConnell, Esq. -- mmcconnell@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY

Paul G. Boynton is represented by Christopher Ryan Maloney, Esq.
-- cmaloney@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP, Jeffrey R. Wang,
Esq. -- jwang@fklaw.com -- FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN, LLP,
Janine Cone Metcalf, Esq. -- jmetcalf@jonesday.com -- and  Michael
J. McConnell, Esq. -- mmcconnell@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


REDDY ICE: Settlement in "Brown" FLSA Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, KENNETH BROWN, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. REDDY ICE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:14CV1786 RLW (E.D. Mo.),
District Judge Ronnie L. White of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that:

     -- the Commissions Plus Day Rate Class and Service
        Technician Class are certified in this FLSA collective
        action for settlement purposes.

     -- Plaintiffs Consent Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective
        Action Settlement Filed under Seal is granted.

     -- within 30 days after the completion of payments, the
        parties shall file a joint stipulation of dismissal.

The case was brought under Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. (FLSA), and, as such, any
settlement must be approved by the Court.

Plaintiff Kenneth Brown moved for conditional certification,
Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiffs filed a
reply brief. However, the parties reached a settlement before the
Court addressed the pending motion.

In considering whether the Plaintiffs are similarly situated for
purposes of certification under the first step, the Court applies
a lenient standard and finds that the two proposed classes, the
Commissions Plus Day Rate Class and the Service Technician Class
meets the criteria of this step. The parties contend that the
proposed classes contain similarly situated individuals warranting
certification for settlement purposes.

In his Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/3elUBh from Leagle.com, Judge White approved the
proposed agreement because the settlement is fair and equitable to
both parties.

Kenneth Brown, Jr. Esq. represented by Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. --
Kevin@dolleylaw.com -- Jason M. Finkes, Esq. --
jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com -- and Laura Spencer Garth, Esq. --
laura.garth@dolleylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC

Reddy Ice Corporation, Defendant, represented by Heather M. Lake,
Esq. -- hlake@constangy.com -- and John Hunter Johnson, Esq. --
hjohnson@constangy.com -- CONSTANGY AND BROOKS, LLP


REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit,
affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint in the case captioned,
ANDREW M. STEIN, et al. (15-5903); CANALE FUNERAL DIRECTORS, INC.,
et al. (15-5905), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN
SELECT HIGH INCOME FUND, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 15-5903, 15-5905 (6th Cir.).

Andrew M. Stein, Stein Holdings, Inc., Stein Investments, LLC,
(collectively, the Stein Plaintiffs), Warren Canale, and Canale
Funeral Directors, Inc., (collectively, the Canale Plaintiffs),
invested and lost significant amounts money in five investment
funds: the Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc.,
the RMK High Income Fund, the RMK Advantage Income Fund, the RMK
Strategic Income Fund, and the RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund,
all of which are named as Defendants in the action.

On October 25, 2013, the Stein Plaintiffs and the Canale
Plaintiffs each filed nearly identical six-count complaints in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
alleging violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), and
77o; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C.  Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5,
17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, as well as common-law vicarious
liability for violations of all these statutes and regulations.

In September 2014, after Defendants moved to dismiss both actions
on a variety of grounds, the district court granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motions to dismiss in nearly identical
orders, in which it held that Plaintiffs' claims were not untimely
under the applicable statutes of limitations and repose, and were
not barred by res judicata. Defendants moved for reconsideration
in both cases, arguing that the district court had improperly held
that Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553 (6th
Cir. 2005), was no longer binding precedent, and Wyser-Pratte
obligated the district court to find that Plaintiffs' claims were
barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. Applying Wyser-
Pratte, the district court granted the motions for reconsideration
in both cases and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims in full on July 31,
2015 on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the
statute of limitations.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue vehemently that Wyser-Pratte is not
binding on the Court because it constitutes an improper limitation
of Supreme Court doctrine, represents the minority rule, and was
wrongly decided.

In his Opinion dated May 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/vLmLxJ from Leagle.com, Judge Clay held that if the
repose periods began to run before October 25, 2010 for the
Securities Act claims and October 25, 2008 for the Securities
Exchange Act claims, Plaintiffs' claims are barred are in their
entirety. Unquestionably, they did -- the non-fund Defendants
turned over management of the closed-end funds at some point in
July 2008, and the complaints allege no misconduct whatsoever by
any Defendant after that date. Plaintiffs' claims are thus time-
barred by the statutes of repose.

Andrew M. Stein, et al. are represented by H. Naill Falls, Jr.,
Esq. -- nf@fallsveach.com -- FALLS & VEACH

Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc., et al. are
represented by Peter Sean Fruin, Esq. -- pfruin@maynardcooper.com
-- and Kathryn Roe Eldridge, Esq. -- keldridge@maynardcooper.com
-- MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C., Kevin C. Logue, Esq. --
kevinlogue@paulhastings.com -- and Kevin P. Broughel, Esq. --
kevinbroughel@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP, Britt K.
Latham, Esq. -- blatham@bassberry.com -- and Joseph B. Crace, Jr.,
Esq. -- jcrace@bassberry.com -- BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Faces "Mendlowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters Creditors
Bureau Inc. The case is captioned Blimie Mendlowitz, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau Inc., doing business as:
American Medical Collection Agency, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03136 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2016).

Retrieval-Masters is a recovery agency for Consumer collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUTHERFORD COUNTY: T.H. Files Suit v. Board of Education
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Rutherford County Board of
Education. The case is captioned T.H., a minor child; S.M. as
parent and next friend, and individually; J.D., a minor child;
T.D.; K.D., as parents and next friends, and individually; and
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rutherford County
Board of Education, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01367 (M.D.
Tenn., June 15, 2016). The Assigned District Judge is Hon. Waverly
D. Crenshaw, Jr.

Rutherford County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Tennessee. Board of education is the board of directors or board
of trustees of a school, local school district or higher
administrative level.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin S. Gilbert, Esq.
          Jessica F. Salonus, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
           (FRANKLIN TN OFFICE)
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354 1144
          Facsimile: (731) 664 1540
          E-mail: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com
                  jsalonus@gilbertfirm.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Aug. 25 Case Management Conference Set
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that a Case Management
Conference shall be held on August 25 in the case, KAREN L PURDY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02693-PJH (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the
order issued on June 9, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/F7C0QM
from Leagle.com.

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.

Select Portfolio Services, Inc., et al., Defendant, represented by
Connor Woolsey Olson -- connor.olson@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, Defendant, represented by Ashley Fickel --
afickel@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP & Christopher David Lee
-- clee@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, LLP.


SEQUOIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Chein" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sequoia Financial Services. The
case is captioned Chana Tela Chein, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Sequoia
Financial Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03135-
ARR-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon.
Allyne R. Ross.

Sequoia Financial is a Los Angeles debt collection service
specializing in receivables management for health care,
subrogation, litigation, and utilities collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SILVER WHEATON: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Gamble, Esq. -- gamble@thor.ca -- of Thorsteinssons LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that in the recent US case of In Re
Silver Wheaton Corp. Securities Legislation, CV15-5146-CAS(JEMx)
C/W: CV15-5173-CAS(JEMx), June 6, 2016, the US District Court
denied a motion by Silver Wheaton Corp. (SW) and three of its
executives (the defendants) to dismiss a class action commenced
against them.  The class action relates to the recent
international tax audit of SW by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA),
in which the CRA proposed to add C$715 million to SW's income and
impose transfer pricing penalties of C$72 million.  To defeat the
motion, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate factual allegations
above the speculative level in relation to, among other things,
(1) a material misrepresentation or omission and (2) scienter
(being a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or
defraud).  The Court found that the plaintiffs met this minimum
legal standard on both elements.  Here are some interesting points
(and principles) from the decision:

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false or
misleading statements by either (a) failing to record and
recognize a tax liability on SW's balance sheets or (b) failing to
disclose a contingent tax liability in SW's financial statements.

The Court found that whether the defendants were required to
disclose a tax liability under the applicable accounting standards
(i.e., GAAP and IFRS) did not depend on whether the Canadian tax
courts would ultimately affirm the CRA's reassessment (see page
13).  Rather, the defendants were required first to assume that
the CRA would audit SW's transfer pricing position, and then
determine whether it was more likely than not (i.e. more than 50%
chance) the CRA would find that SW owed additional income taxes
and penalties.  The Court went on to find that even if the
defendants were not required to record a tax liability, they were
required under GAAP and IFRS to disclose a contingent tax
liability unless the possibility that the CRA would reassess SW
was remote.  If such a possibility was not remote, the defendants
were required to disclose a contingent liability and estimate the
amount of the potential tax reassessment.

On these points the Court concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly
demonstrated that the defendants' reports to the SEC did not
comply with GAAP and IFRS, and as such, the reports contained
false and misleading information about SW's financial position.

On the issue of scienter, the Court found a strong inference that
the defendants knew or had reason to suspect that a CRA
reassessment was possible, if not probable, and yet they took no
efforts to incorporate this fact into SW's financial statements.

A clean audit opinion from SW's independent auditors and
accountants was of no assistance on this issue, in part because of
evidence that SW hid information from them.


SLD DELI: "Mendez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SLD DELI GRILL INC. (d/b/a GRACIE'S
CAFE), LAMBROS KREATSOULAS, STEVEN KREATSOULAS, and MICHAEL
KREATSOULAS, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04409
(S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Mendez regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the
hours that he worked over 40 each week.

Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants SLD Deli Grill Inc.,
Lambros Kreatsoulas, Steven Kreatsoulas, and Michael Kreatsoulas
who own and operate Gracie's Cafe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Telephone: (212) 317 1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
     E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


SONY CORP: Settles Class Suit Over PlayStation 3 for $7MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that after six years of litigation, Sony agreed to settle a class
action accusing it of misleading customers by saying the
PlayStation 3 could run other operating systems.

The consolidated class action began in April 2010, when several
lawsuits claimed Sony lied about the PlayStation 3 being able to
run a separate operating system, such as Linux, in addition to its
built-in gaming operating system.

While earlier models had that functionality, the "other OS"
feature was wiped out by a software update on April 1, 2010,
according to the lawsuits.  Ten million PS3 units have been sold
in the United States, ranging in price from $400 to $600,
according to court filings.  Sony introduced the PlayStation 4 in
2013.

Under terms of the settlement, Sony will pay $55 to each class
member who can show that he or she used a separate operating
system on the PS3 before the feature was eliminated.

Sony will also pay $9 to each class member who relied on Sony's
claims about the "Other OS" functionality when they bought their
gaming systems.

The settlement sets a $2.25 million cap for attorneys' fees and
provides $3,500 incentive awards for five named plaintiffs,
including lead plaintiff Anthony Ventura.

Sony will use its PlayStation network database to email class
members about the settlement. Advertisements about the deal will
be posted on technology and gaming websites such as CNET and
IGN.com.

The notification plan should reach an estimated 77 percent of
class members, according to the motion for preliminary settlement
approval.

Court documents do not indicate the total value of the settlement.
If the $2.25-million attorneys' fees award were calculated as the
traditional one-third of the projected settlement fund, Sony would
pay about $6.75 million to settle the suit.

Class attorney Rosemary Rivas and Sony attorney Luanne Sacks did
not return phone calls about the settlement June 20.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the PS3
class action with prejudice, but the Ninth Circuit partly reversed
in April 2014.

Settlement talks that began in August 2015 were concluded last
week after 10 months of negotiations.

Last year, Sony settled another class action with Playstation
users over a data breach that compromised more than 70 million
accounts in May 2011.

A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the PS3 "Other
OS" settlement will be held before U.S. District Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland on July 19.


SOTERIA LOSS: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE E. ROBINSON, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOTERIA LOSS PREVENTION FIRM, INC. and
WOODROW TILLERY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01957-RWS (N.D.
Ga., June 13, 2016), seeks declaratory relief, liquidated and
actual damages for Defendants' failure to pay federally mandated
overtime wages to Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) during Plaintiff's employment with
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an amount of time
that was more than 40 hours per workweek and was not paid the
overtime wage differential required by FLSA.

Soteria Loss is a mid-sized organization in the detective and
armored car services industry located in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PAUL J. SHARMAN, Esq.
          THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
          11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
          Alpharetta, GA 30022
          Telephone: (678) 242 5297
          Facsimile: (678) 802 2129
          E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Vacates Atty Fees Award in Voucher Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In Re: SOUTHWEST AIRLINES VOUCHER
LITIGATION, Case No. 11 C 8176 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F.
Kennelly granted Gregory Markow's motion for reconsideration and
vacated the court's order of April 25, 2016 awarding class counsel
fees.

Markow, a class member, moved the court to reconsider its approval
(in a reduced amount) of attorney's fees for class counsel for
work done after the original fee award and on appeal.  Markow
argued that the court made legal errors in making the fee award.
Markow also argued that notice should have gone out to the class
prior to the approval of the supplemental fee award so that class
members had an opportunity to object.

Judge Kennelly vacated the fee award and ordered notice to be
provided to the class regarding the request for fees.  Judge
Kennelly directed class counsel and Southwest to confer and to
provide a proposed form of notice, as well as a proposal for the
manner of giving notice, by no later than July 6, 2016.  The judge
gave Markow until July 13 to respond, and class counsel and
Southwest until July 20 to reply.

The case is set for a status hearing on August 8, 2016 at 9:30
a.m., though the court reserves the right to enter an order before
that date approving a notice plan.

A full-text copy of Judge Kennelly's June 22, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/1st4di from Leagle.com.

Adam J Levitt, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Gregg M. Barbakoff --
gbarbakoff@mauricewutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher LLP, Gregory
Wood Jones, Siprut Pc, Richard Lane Miller -- rmiller@siprut.com -
- II, Siprut, PC & Stephen C. Jarvis, Wawrzyn LLC.

Herbert C. Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg M. Barbakoff,
Maurice Wutscher LLP.

Herbert C. Malone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Wood Jones.

Herbert C. Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut,
Siprut PC,Richard Lane Miller, II, Siprut, PC & Stephen C. Jarvis,
Wawrzyn LLC.

Southwest Airlines, Co., Defendant, represented by Mitesh Bansilal
Shah -- mshah@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.c.,
pro hac vice, H. Thomas Wells, Jr. -- twells@maynardcooper.com --
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.c., pro hac vice, Lorrie Lizak Hargrove
-- lhargrove@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, Pc, pro
hac vice & Michael William Drumke -- mdrumke@smbtrials.com --
Swanson, Martin & Bell.


SP AUSNET: Maurice Blackburn Quizzed Over Bushfire Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pia Akerman, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm
Maurice Blackburn has been forced to answer questions from victims
of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires over its handling of a
landmark $494 million settlement that is overdue and months from
being paid out.

Simmering concerns about management of the vast sum -- the largest
in Australia's class-action history -- were aired in the Victorian
Supreme Court as a group of survivors of the Kilmore East-Kinglake
blaze put forward a detailed list of issues to judge Jack Forrest.

Settlement for that class action -- which involved a fire sparked
by a fallen powerline, that killed 119 -- was approved in December
2014, but no payments are likely until this year or early next
year, with some victims' claims yet to be assessed.

Maurice Blackburn is similarly administering the $300m payout for
the Murrindindi-Marysville bushfire class action, which settled in
February last year and was approved three months later.

Kinglake survivor Vicki Ruhr called for information about record
dividends paid to Maurice Blackburn's equity partners as the
settlement money started to flow in.  She also asked for an
independent auditor's report on the firm's administration costs to
be made public, and questioned why an interim payment could not be
made to those whose claims had been assessed.

"The bulk of them I think are questions that need to be answered,"
Justice Forrest said, thanking Ms. Ruhr.  "It seems to me that a
number of them were highly relevant to the way the scheme is
administered."

Maurice Blackburn's class-action head Andrew Watson said it was
still possible victims might receive payments before the end of
this year if certain timelines were met.  "Rest assured, we are,
and I am, particularly conscious of the need to ensure the payment
is effected in the most timely manner possible," said
Mr. Watson, who is charged with administering the settlement
schemes.

He said that while 78 people would share in $2m after successfully
requesting an interim payment based on extraordinary need or
compassionate grounds, a broader interim payment to victims would
"distract" his team.

Maurice Blackburn has so far reaped nearly $100m in fees from the
class actions. Justice Forrest authorized a further $4.8m to be
paid for work carried out since February this year.

Strathewen survivor Denis Spooner told the court he had been
forced to "jump through hoops" to receive a hardship payment from
the scheme and he believed Mr. Watson had "abused his power" as
administrator.

Ms. Ruhr said some of the class-action members felt "almost
ostracized", disappointed and distressed by the way the scheme had
been handled and the lack of information.

A further hearing has been scheduled for September.


STARBUCKS CORP: Must Defend Against Underfilled-Latte Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco refused to dismiss fraud and
false advertising claims accusing Starbucks of ripping off
consumers by under-filling lattes by 25 percent.

Californians Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles claim in court
that Starbucks instituted a "standardized recipe" in 2009 that
saves money on milk by under-filling lattes by 25 percent. The
recipe allegedly applies to the coffee giant's Tall, Grande and
Venti-sized lattes.

"At its retail locations, Starbucks represents on its menu that
its lattes contain '12 fl. oz.' for a Tall, '16 fl. oz.' for a
Grande, and '20 fl. oz.' for a Venti," according to a 24-page
complaint filed in March 2016. "However, Starbucks lattes are
uniformly under-filled pursuant to a standardized recipe. . .
Starbucks cheats purchasers by providing less fluid ounces in
their lattes than represented."

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson said on June 17, that
Strumlauf and Robles can advance a class-action lawsuit that seeks
damages based on fraud and false advertising. Starbucks had filed
a motion to dismiss the claims in April.

"While it is certainly possible that consumers would understand
that defendant's representation intended that the milk foam be
part of the fluid ounce measurement, or understand that steamed
milk takes up more space than cold milk, it is also possible that
consumers would expect the serving cups to be slightly larger,
such that the consumers would receive 16 ounces of the fluid
portion of the latte when ordering a 'Grande,'" he wrote in June
17, 14-page order.

He added that the alleged deception is implausible as a matter of
law and that the case should go in front of a jury.

"At this stage, the court finds it probable that a significant
portion of the latte-consuming public would believe that a
'Grande' contains 16 ounces of fluid, measured without milk foam
or in its cooled state," Henderson wrote. "If nothing else, it is
probable enough that the issue should be decided by a trier of
fact, not on a motion to dismiss."

Strumlauf and Robles sued Starbucks Corporation for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
unjust enrichment, violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, violation of the state's Unfair Competition and
False Advertising Laws, negligent misrepresentation and fraud.

Henderson granted Starbucks' motion to dismiss the implied
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and negligent
misrepresentation claims.

He said that the negligent misrepresentation claim is governed by
the economic-loss doctrine, which states that tort recovery of
economic damages "is barred unless such damages are accompanied by
some form of harm to person or property, or the action falls under
an exception."

Henderson said that is not the case in the plaintiffs' underlying
action.

"Thus, in actions for negligence, liability is limited to damages
for physical injuries and recovery of economic loss is not
allowed," he explained. "There was no threat of physical harm as a
result of defendant's actions, and no other special situations
apply that would warrant finding an exception to the economic loss
doctrine."

The case captioned, SIERA STRUMLAUF, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant., Case No. 16-cv-01306-THE (N.D.
Cal.).


STERLING JEWELERS: Settlement in "Tapia" Granted Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Edward J. Davila entered an order in the class action lawsuit
styled KATHYA TAPIA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a Class
of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
STERLING JEWELERS INC., an unknown business entity; SIGNET
JEWELERS LTD, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case 5:14-cv-00624-EJD (N.D. Cal.),
granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

This Class is certified for settlement purposes only: "All former
non-exempt, hourly employees of Ultra Stores, Inc., its successors
and affiliates ("Ultra") who were hired by Ultra on or
before June 14, 2013 and who were employed in an Ultra retail
store in the State of California at any time on or after December
9, 2009, excluding any such employee who executed and did not
revoke a full release of claims relating to or arising out of
the Lawsuit for a settlement payment of $1,000.00, minus
withholdings, pursuant to an individual settlement program offered
by Sterling Jewelers Inc., the parent corporation of Ultra (i.e.,
the "Individual Settlement Program").

The Court also approved:

     -- payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
        Agency of $1,000.00 as its share of the settlement of
        civil penalties in this case;

     -- the fees, expenses and any other costs of CPT Group, Inc.
        in administering the Settlement, in the amount of $7,500;

     -- the payment of Service Enhancements in the amount of
        $5,000 to be awarded to Plaintiff (in addition to any
        recovery that she may receive as a Class Member under
        the Settlement) in recognition for her efforts and the
        risks she undertook on behalf of the Class Members;

     -- the payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the
        amount not to exceed 33.33% of the Gross Settlement
        Amount, i.e. $93,323.50; and

     -- the payment of attorneys' costs to Class Counsel in
        the amount not to exceed $6,000.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ji02NPG3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458 9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458 9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
                  abl@quintlaw.com


STRIPE A ZONE: "Nugent" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
GILFORD NUGENT, DALTON MCDERMOTT AND BRONTA WASHINGTON
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
PLAINTIFFS v. STRIPE A ZONE, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00614-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and overtime wages for themselves, and for all those
similarly situated to them, that are required to be paid under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs alleged that they did not receive their wages or
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Specifically, Defendants failed to account for and pay
Plaintiffs for all time spent where they were engaged in
activities that were integral and indispensable to the principal
activities being performed by Plaintiffs by working through their
lunch hour, where said lunch hour was deducted from the pay of
Plaintiffs.

Stripe A specializes in pavement marking offering parking lot
striping, pavement maintenance, seal coating and signs services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst
          BOB WHITEHURST
          5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, No. 363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903)593 5588


SUNOCO INC: Appeals to 3rd Cir. From Ruling in "White" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Sunoco Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Donald White v. Sunoco Inc., Case No. 2-15-
cv-04595, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8, 2016, District
Court Judge Paul S. Diamond denied Sunoco Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration and stay the litigation of the Case.

The putative class action concerns the availability of a five-cent
per gallon discount on fuel purchases made with a Sunoco Rewards
Credit Card.  Donald White proceeded against Sunoco, alleging
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Sunoco filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation,
relying on the underlying Cardholder Agreement that purportedly
requires the plaintiff to arbitrate any claims relating to his
Sunoco Rewards Credit Card account.

Judge Diamond concluded that the Agreement (and its arbitration
clause) governs only the Plaintiff's relationship with Citibank,
the card issuer.  A full-text copy of Judge Diamond's May 24, 2016
memorandum is available at https://is.gd/jD7yOM from Leagle.com.

The appellate case is captioned as Donald White v. Sunoco Inc.,
Case No. 16-2808, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Donald White is represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
                  rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  dstanoch@golombhonik.com

Defendant-Appellant Sunoco Inc. is represented by:

          Kathryn E. Deal, Esq.
          Seamus C. Duffy, Esq.
          Meredith C. Slawe, Esq.
          Katherine L. Villanueva, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
          18th & Cherry Streets
          One Logan Square, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-3386
          Facsimile: (215) 988-2757
          E-mail: Kathryn.Deal@dbr.com
                  Seamus.Duffy@dbr.com
                  Meredith.Slawe@dbr.com
                  Katherine.Villanueva@dbr.com


SUNRUN INC: Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel Due July 26
-------------------------------------------------------
Carole Lee Greenberg and Sunrun Inc., et al., entered into a
stipulation deferring defendants' deadline to respond to the
complaint pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), and vacating an
August 5, 2016 initial case management conference.  In this class
action, plaintiff alleges Sunrun Inc., et al. violate federal
securities laws.

The Stipulation provides that Defendants will have no obligation
to respond to the complaint until after the Court appoints a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

Counsel for the defendants will meet and confer with the court-
appointed lead counsel within 14 days after the Court makes its
appointment to discuss a schedule for the filing of any amended
complaint and defendants' responses, including their currently
anticipated motions to dismiss.

Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel are due
by July 26, 2016.

The case is, CAROLE LEE GREENBERG, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN INC., LYNN
JURICH, BOB KOMIN, EDWARD FENSTER, JAMESON MCJUNKIN, GERALD RISK,
STEVE VASSALLO, RICHARD WONG, BEAU PEELLE, EREN OMER ATESMEN,
REGINALD NORRIS, WILLIAM ELMORE, FOUNDATION CAPITAL VI, L.P.,
FOUNDATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. VI, LLC, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, RBC
CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and SUNTRUST
ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-2480-CRB
(N.D. Cal.). District Judge Charles R. Breyer presides over the
case.

A copy of the court's decision dated June 8, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/7Ce6Wafrom Leagle.com.

Sunrun Inc., et al., Defendant, represented by Anna Erickson White
-- AVickery@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Robert L Webb --
rwebb@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Su-Han Wang
-- swang@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


SUPREME PRODUCTION: Bid for Class Cert. Filed in "Kubala" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Trenton Schulze files a renewed motion for conditional
certification in the lawsuit entitled TED L. KUBALA, Jr. and
TRENTON SCHULZE, each individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. SUPREME PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:15-cv-00116 (S.D. Tex.).

In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that Supreme failed to pay
its Oilfield Employees overtime wages required under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The Putative Class Members generally perform
these activities on behalf of Supreme's clients: (1) rigging up,
(2) operating, (3) rigging down, (4) and working in the shop.  All
of this work involves intense manual labor, the Plaintiff says.

Trenton Schulze seeks to allow his coworkers, who performed
similar job duties and received similar pay, to receive notice
about their right to participate in this collective action and
stop the statute of limitations from running on their valuable
back wage claims.

Mr. Schulze also asks the Court to order Supreme to post the
Notice and Consent forms in Supreme's jobsites/offices for the
entire opt-in period; order Supreme to produce to Class Counsel
the contact information for each Putative Class Member within 10
days of the Court's order; authorize a 60-day notice period for
Putative Class Members to join the Case; and (9) order equitable
tolling from the date of filing of his original motion, Oct. 2,
2015.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tc0ZXxQX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          David L. Rumley, Esq.
          Jeffrey G. Wigington, Esq.
          WIGINGTON RUMLEY DUNN & BLAIR, LLP
          123 North Carrizo St.
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 885-7500
          Telecopier: (361) 885-0487
          E-mail: drumley@wigrum.com
                  jwigington@wigrum.com


SWF OPERATIONS: Wins Final OK of "Kohler" Suit Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mary S. Soriven entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
KIMBERLY KOHLER, o/b/o herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. SWF OPERATIONS, LLC and DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, Case
No. 8:14-cv-02568-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla.):

   (1) granting the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
       Class Action;

   (2) approving the Parties' Settlement and Settlement Agreement
       with the exception of the cy pres recipient;


   (3) directing Defendant SWF to establish the non-reversionary
       Settlement Fund within 14 days from the date of the Order
       as provided in the Joint Motion;

   (4) directing that the non-reversionary Settlement Funds be
       distributed in accordance with the Settlement Agreement,
       except as otherwise directed in the Order.  Specifically,
       the Settlement Funds will be distributed as follows:

       a. Defendant SWF must, within 14 days from the date the
          Settlement Fund is established, disburse to Named
          Plaintiff, Kimberly Kohler, $2,500 for her efforts in
          bringing about this Settlement;

       b. Defendant SWF must, within 14 days from the date the
          Settlement Fund is established, send settlement checks
          in the amount of $75 to each Class Member whom
          Defendant SWF was able to provide notice regarding the
          Settlement.  In accordance with the Parties'
          stipulation in the Joint Motion, the Class Members
          will have 60 days from the date the checks are
          disbursed in which to cash their checks;

       c. The remaining Settlement Funds that are not disbursed
          on the foregoing date (i.e. $6,900, calculated as 92
          undelivered notices to Class Members multiplied by
          $75 per Class Member) will be retained for a period of
          60 days from the date the payments are disbursed to
          allow time for other Class Members who did not receive
          notice to come forward and assert their respective
          claims to the Settlement Funds;

       d. If individuals have not come forward or any checks have
          not been cashed at the expiration of the 60-day period,
          those remaining funds (i.e. the funds from the
          undelivered notices referenced in paragraph (c) plus
          the funds from any uncashed settlement checks) will
          within seven days be paid as a donation to the cy pres
          recipient:

          Bay Area Legal Services Inc.
          1302 N. 19th Street, Suite 400
          Tampa, Florida 33605-5230; and

       e. No later than seven days after Defendant SWF disburses
          the remaining proceeds to the cy pres recipient, the
          Parties must file their joint stipulation of dismissal
          with prejudice concerning this matter.  Therein, the
          Parties must advise the Court as to whom has been paid
          with respect to the Settlement Funds;

   (5) Defendant SWF must within 14 days from the date the
       Settlement Fund is established pay to Class Counsel
       $55,000 in attorneys' fees and costs as provided by the
       Settlement;

   (6) This case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending receipt of a
       final stipulation of dismissal.  If no stipulation is
       filed and no motion to reopen the case is filed prior to
       120 days from the date of this Order, the Court will,
       thereafter, dismiss this action with prejudice on its own
       motion;

   (7) The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions in
       this case; and

   (8) The Clerk is further DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order
       to the cy pres recipient, Bay Area Legal Services Inc., at
       the address noted above in section 4(d) of this Order.

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


TARGET CORPORATION: Sued Over Parmesan Cheese False Ad
-------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY ZACHARY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06172 (E.D. Mo., June 13, 2016), seeks actual
damages to be proven at trial, including all compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, as a result of
Defendant's practices resulting in the Plaintiffs purchasing
Target's Market Pantry branded "Parmesan 100% Grated Cheese"
products without understanding the true content of Defendant's
products or Defendant's omissions, suppressions, and/or
concealment of material terms to increase its own ill-gotten
profits.

The Defendant advertised and sold millions of containers of its
Market Pantry branded "Parmesan 100% Grated Cheese" products as
"100%" Parmesan cheese. However, on information and belief, such
products are not in fact "100%" Parmesan cheese, but rather
contain significant amounts of adulterants and fillers. Further,
on information and belief, the "100%" Parmesan cheese consists of
cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent derived from wood
pulp.

Target is the second-largest discount retailer in the United
States, behind Wal-Mart.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          Philip Sholtz, Esq.
          THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
          211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 932 3232
          Facsimile: (314) 932 3233
          E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
                  phil@thedriscollfirm.com


TIME WARNER: Wisconsin Judge Dismisses Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Barrett, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports a U.S.
district judge in Milwaukee has dismissed a lawsuit that accused
Time Warner Cable of keeping subscribers' personal information
after they ended their cable service.

Derek Gubala, formerly of Oak Creek, claimed that Time Warner
Cable kept personal identifiable information such as names and
addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers and credit card
accounts of former customers, in violation of the Cable
Communications Policy Act.

The CCPA would provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day of
violation, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

Mr. Gubala accused Time Warner Cable of putting former customers
at risk of identity theft and other dangers.  His lawyers wanted a
class-action status for his lawsuit.

On June 17, U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper dismissed the case,
citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in a case involving
a Virginia man who sued the internet search firm Spokeo for
posting false information about people.

The Supreme Court said consumers could bring legal claims in such
cases only if the information used by the company caused actual
harm to the plaintiffs.  Consumer rights advocates had sought a
broader ruling that would let people sue without showing a real
injury.

Mr. Gubala, who now lives in Illinois, was represented by attorney
Joseph Siprut of Chicago, who previously filed similar lawsuits in
California against Time Warner Cable.

At least one of those cases wound up in arbitration, the preferred
method for companies to avoid potentially pricey, class-action
lawsuits.

"We will be appealing the court's order immediately," Mr. Siprut
said on June 20.

Time Warner Cable declined to comment.

The lawsuit contended that, while the company's privacy policy
indicates that subscribers' personal information is destroyed
after it's no longer needed, the company actually keeps it all
indefinitely.

Mr. Gubala was a Time Warner Cable subscriber from 2004 to 2006,
according to his suit, but when he called the company again in
2014, he learned it still had all his personally identifiable
information on file.

"There are numerous serious and troubling privacy issues
implicated by TWC's practice of retaining and misusing their
former customers' personal information, including the risk of
identity theft and conversion of personal financial accounts," the
suit noted.

That kind of data "functions as a new form of currency that
supports a $26 billion per year online advertising industry in the
United States," according to the suit, and has growing value to
each individual consumer.

The Time Warner Cable decision was consistent with the Supreme
Court ruling regarding Spokeo, said Ed Fallone, associate
professor of law at Marquette University.

"As I read Judge Pepper's opinion, it's a very straightforward
application of what the Supreme Court was saying in Spokeo.  The
Supreme Court did make it clear that someone could be injured by
the theft of intangible data, but there has to be a clear
allegation of that, and I think it was missing in the (Gubala)
complaint," Mr. Fallone said.

"There are many other similar class-action lawsuits that have been
recently dismissed by federal judges around the country, under the
same rationale," he added.

Congress could someday change the law, but for now, consumers
should realize that their personal, identifiable information isn't
private if they share it with a business.

"I think once you give it to one company, it's pretty much out
there," Mr. Fallone said.


TRANSENTERIX INC: Sued in N. Car. Over Inflated Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
ASHOK V. BANKLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSENTERIX, INC., TODD M.
POPE, and JOSEPH P. SLATTERY, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00313-BR (E.D. N. Car., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover damages,
suffered by Plaintiff and the other Class members as a direct
result of Defendants' fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate
the price of TransEnterix stock and the subsequent significant
decline in the value of TransEnterix stock when Defendants' prior
misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct were revealed, in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Accordingly, claims are asserted against TransEnterix and certain
of its officers and/or directors who made materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period in press releases,
analyst conference calls, and SEC filings.

TransEnterix is a medical device company that seeks to use
flexible instruments and robotics to improve the outcomes of
minimally invasive surgery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Bruce McDaniel, Esq.
          Lafayette Square, Esq.
          McDANIEL & ANDERSON, L.L.P.
          4942 Windy Hill Drive
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: (919) 872 3000
          Facsimile: (919) 790 9273
          E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com

               - and -

          Jack Reise, Esq.
          Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750 3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750 3364
          E-mail: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
                  rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392 0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392 0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com


TRILLIUM HEALTH: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action for a breach of privacy has been commenced
against Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga Ophthalmologist Dr.
Tony Vettese, and his assistant, Lisa Lyons.

Mississauga businesswoman and Trillium patient Katie Mallinson has
alleged that Lyons used her access to Trillium's entire database
to secretly review the confidential medical records of Trillium
patients for many years and hundreds of times.

The class action characterizes Lyons as an electronic "Peeping
Tom", who surreptitiously looked into the private lives of her
victims, for her own amusement.  Neither Mallinson nor Class
Members are current patients of Vettese.

Such records contain highly sensitive and private information
about patients' medical histories.  For example medications taken,
treatments received, operations undergone, the diseases and
disorders they may suffer from, and family circumstances, among
others.

The claim seeks $2 million in general damages as well as exemplary
damages and punitive damages, plus individual awards for class
members, costs and interest.

The claim alleges that Trillium's privacy policies and procedures
were inadequate, underfunded, and unenforced.  It also contends
that Dr. Vettese left Lyons to her own devices for hours at a
time, and that despite being one of Ontario's top paid physicians
he spent neither money nor time protecting the privacy interests
of Trillium patients.

The total number of patients affected is not yet known.  Lyons was
given unrestricted access to every record of every patient the
hospital has ever treated.  The Hospital's privacy office failed
to detect any of Lyon's misconduct, and only began investigating
when Ms. Mallinson reported her own suspicions of it.

The claim also alleges that Trillium has conducted only a cursory
internal investigation, and asks Ontario's Superior Court to
appoint an auditor to determine the full extent of the breach of
privacy.

The allegations have not yet been proven in Court.

Trillium has already admitted to Ms. Mallinson that her medical
information was improperly accessed by Lyons for at least four
years, and says that Lyons herself has acknowledged to it that she
did so.

The Plaintiff's counsel is the Mississauga litigation firm of Du
Vernet, Stewart, who were successful counsel in the Ontario Court
of Appeal case, which established the common law right to privacy
in Ontario, Jones v. Tsige.

Potential class action members who have already been advised by
Trillium that their privacy has been invaded, or who suspect they
have been victim of this privacy breach are asked to contact the
firm for more information about the case.

SOURCE DU VERNET, STEWART Barristers and Solicitors

For further information:

Media Contact:

     Christopher Du Vernet, Esq.
        B.A. (Hons.), M.A., LL.B., Ph.D.
     DU VERNET, STEWART, Barristers and Solicitors
     Telephone: 416-231-1668
     Email: duvernet@duvernet.ca


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Sought in "La Crosse"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled LA CROSSE COUNTY,
WISCONSIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. AND TRINITY
HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00117-slc
(W.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to certify this class:

     "All entities in the State of Wisconsin who purchased an ET-
Plus End Terminal, not for resale, between February 25, 2009 and
October 28, 2014 (the Class)."

Plaintiff further requests that the Court designate it as class
representative and appoint the law firms Saltz, Mongeluzzi,
Barrett & Bendesky, P.C. and Gustafson Gluek PLLC as Co-Lead Class
Counsel. Plaintiff further requests that Hawks Quindel S.C. be
appointed Liaison Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f3tAk1mL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron N. Halstead, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
          222 W. Washington Ave., Suite 450
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 257 0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256 0236
          Email: ahalstead@hq-law.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT
          & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496 8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496 0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Cathy K. Smith, Esq.
          Sara J. Payne, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  csmith@gustafsongluek.com
                  spayne@gustafsongluek.com


TRUSTONE FINANCIAL: Bulger Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned ROY BULGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. TRUSTONE FINANCIAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. 16-cv-750 (E.D. Wisc.), asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the proposed class in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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=6IDJOOMC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & 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


UDREN LAW: Pa. Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in "Glover" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Thomas Saylor of Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed
a superior court order and remanded the matter for further
proceedings in the case captioned, MARY E. GLOVER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED FORMER AND CURRENT
HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant, v. UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C.,
A NEW JERSEY DEBT COLLECTOR, Appellee, DELLA JOHNSON (A/K/A EDELLA
ROBINSON, A/K/A EDELLA ROBINSON JOHNSON), ERIC JOHNSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED FORMER AND
CURRENT HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, Appellants, PHELAN HALLINAN &
SCHMIEG, LLP, Appellee, Case Nos. 3 WAP 2015, 4 WAP 2015  (Pa.).

Mary Glover filed a putative class action against Udren Law
Offices, PC (Udren) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, alleging, inter alia, that Udren had violated Act 6 by
charging unearned and excessive attorney's fees. Udren filed
preliminary objections, asserting that Glover had failed to state
an actionable claim. The common pleas court agreed, finding that
Udren's conduct as a debt collector was governed by the Fair
Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA).

Glover appealed, arguing that, because Act 6 permits a borrower to
recover treble damages from a "person" who collects excess fees in
connection with the mortgage foreclosure process, and defines
"person" broadly to "include but not be limited to" residential
mortgage lenders, the common pleas court had improperly narrowed
the scope of the statute's protections. A divided panel of the
Superior Court affirmed, holding that, because Section 406's plain
language regulates only the conduct of residential mortgage
lenders, Section 502 does not authorize an action against a
lender's counsel for a Section 406 violation. The majority
reasoned that, had the Legislature intended Section 406 to reach
law firms acting on behalf of residential mortgage lenders, it
would have used express language to that effect in the text.

On appeal, the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether a law
firm, representing a residential mortgage lender in connection
with foreclosure proceedings, can be liable to a borrower for
attorney's fees charged in violation of the Pennsylvania Loan
Interest and Protection Law.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/UIkq3z from Leagle.com, Judge Saylor held that the
Superior Court majority's holding contravenes the core and
conventional principle of statutory construction that, when a
statute's terms are plain, the courts are bound to enforce them.


UNITED FEDERAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Gunter Complaint Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TONYA GUNTER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, DOES 1-5 inclusive and ROE CORPORATIONS 6-10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00483-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge
Miranda M. Du denied the motion filed by the United Federal Credit
Union (UFCU) to dismiss Tonya Gunter's amended complaint.

Judge Du also ordered that Gunter's Notice of New Authority is
stricken and that Gunther is granted leave to amend her amended
complaint to include allegations that she was party to the Opt-In
Agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Du's June 22, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/4Us9jJ from Leagle.com.

Gunter filed a class action suit against UFCU alleging that the
credit union had breached contracts and violated state law through
its practice of charging overdraft fees to customers.  UFCU moved
to dismiss Gunter's complaint, and Gunter filed an amended
complaint asserting a breach of contract claim and a claim for
violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Tonya Gunter, Plaintiff, represented by Jae K. Kim --
jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro hac vice, James
Strenio -- james@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm, APC,
Richard D. McCune -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro
hac vice, Taras Kick -- taras@kicklawfirm.com -- pro hac vice,
Thomas A. Segal, The Kick Law Firm, APC, pro hac vice & Gregory G.
Gordon, Gregory G. Gordon, Ltd..

United Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by James A.
Kohl -- jkohl@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard Attorneys,
PLLC & Robert W. Hernquist -- rhernquist@howardandhoward.com --
Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC.


UNITED SERVICE: Policyholders File Class Action Against Lawyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hammersly, writing for Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette,
reports that more than a dozen lawyers who already face a federal
judge's penalties tied to ethics violations in a class-action
insurance lawsuit last year -- Adams v. USAA -- find themselves in
another legal tangle involving the same case.

Now, policyholders for the insurance company United Services
Automobile Association have sued.

The latest court action, Wartick v. USAA, alleges that 12
plaintiffs' lawyers and three who defended USAA worked together
improperly last year to arrange the settlement in Adams v. USAA
that played out in federal and state courts.

One of the best-known plaintiffs' lawyers named in the suits is
John Goodson of Texarkana, a state and national political campaign
donor and a University of Arkansas System trustee.  He is married
to Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson.

"The true people who had been harmed, the class members, were
going home empty-handed by design," Little Rock attorney
Robert Trammell said on June 21.  Mr. Trammell's law firm filed
Wartick v. USAA, 63CV-16-463, in Saline County Circuit Court on
June 17.

The three named plaintiffs, led by Kenneth Wartick of Benton,
"wanted something done," Mr. Trammell said.

The Adams case plaintiffs alleged that the USAA insurance company
illegally depreciated labor costs in figuring claims for actual
cash-value property damage, harming certain insurance
policyholders.

The case's settlement in Polk County Circuit Court in December
primarily benefited the plaintiffs' attorneys and the insurance
company, the Wartick filing says.

The Wartick complaint alleges that the plaintiffs and defense
lawyers worked as adversaries for about 17 months in Adams v. USAA
in federal court presided over by Chief District Judge P.K. Holmes
III of Fort Smith.  But by June 19, 2015, lawyers for both sides
had "secretly colluded in 'misleading conduct . . . acting with
some degree of bad faith'" to file a dismissal of that federal
case.

They didn't inform Holmes of an "already-signed settlement
document duly consummated in secrecy on June 16, 2015," the
Wartick complaint says. "Defendants knew the tactic was
'improper,' 'misleading,' and 'with reckless indifference' thus
implying bad faith."

The proposed settlement included a long, difficult-to-read notice
to class members; quick-pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees of $1.85
million; and a "cumbersome, annoying" claims process for
policyholders to fill out before they could be paid anything by
USAA for their losses, the Wartick complaint said.

The plaintiffs' attorneys fees were more than 12 times higher than
the damages paid to injured class members, the lawsuit said.

The Wartick suit asks for compensatory and punitive damages from
USAA and the 15 lawyers individually, and "in concert or as part
of a conspiracy . . . for an abuse of process."

The same 15 lawyers, plus one more from Arkansas, were scheduled
for a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on June 24 before Judge Holmes.  At
issue is ethics violations related to their handling of the Adams
v. USAA case, (2:14-cv-2013), in state and federal courts.

In April, Judge Holmes notified the lawyers that he had decided to
penalize them for "misleading conduct" that was "unequivocally
improper" in moving Adams v. USAA in midlitigation from his
federal court to state court in Polk County.

Their intent, Judge Holmes said, was to gain approval of a joint
settlement agreement from a state judge working under state court
rules that required less scrutiny than federal courts require.

The lawyers who face penalties have denied any wrongdoing in Adams
v. USAA.  In court filings, they have argued that many Arkansas
federal judges have allowed court procedures that Holmes wants to
punish them for using.

Federal judges in and outside of Arkansas allow forum-shopping,
and federal appeals courts have upheld the practice, the lawyers
have argued.  The lawyers also have asked Judge Holmes to spare
them from punishment.

The federal judge has suggested that he may order the attorneys to
file documents in every class-action case they are involved in,
acknowledging that they have been penalized for ethics violations
in similar cases.

Besides John Goodson, the Arkansas attorneys named in the Wartick
class-action case include: plaintiffs' attorneys Matt Keil, a
Goodson partner in Texarkana; W.H. Taylor, Timothy Myers, Stevan
Vowell and William Putman of Fayetteville; and Tom Thompson and
Casey Castleberry of Batesville. Defense attorneys include Lyn
Pruitt of Little Rock.

Other attorneys named are based in Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania
and Connecticut.


UNITED STATES: Court Strikes Amended Complaints in "Johnson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan entered an order striking the
Plaintiff's amended complaints in the lawsuit titled DAVID M.
JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00072-TSC (D.D.C.).  Judge Chutkan opined that the amended
complaints are stricken because the Plaintiff seeks to add
unrelated claims and unrelated defendants.

According to the Order, the civil action began as one under the
Freedom of Information Act, in which the Plaintiff, proceeding pro
se, sought to compel release of certain Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission records.  Since filing his FIOA complaint
against the EEOC and the Office of Personnel Management, Plaintiff
has filed two amended complaints, one of which he filed without
obtaining leave of court or written permission of the Defendant.

The amended complaints include Title VII class action
discrimination claims against the Department of the Treasury
(which encompasses the Internal Revenue Service).  In his motion
for class certification, the Plaintiff explains that he seeks to
represent a class of African-American IRS agents, who allegedly
were discriminated against with respect to training, promotions
and terminations.

Even if joinder of the Plaintiff's Title VII claims had been
appropriate, a pro se litigant may represent himself, but cannot
appear on behalf of another person, Judge Chutkan said.  She adds
that there is no indication that the Plaintiff is qualified to
serve as class representative.  Hence, Judge Chutkan denied the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Judge Chutkan also denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel the
Defendants' initial disclosures and sanctions.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I7dqkaLR


UPLAND, CA: Faces "Hilliard" Suit in C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against City of Upland. The case is
styled Christopher Hilliard, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. City of Upland,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01272 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2016).

The City of Upland is located southeast of Los Angeles, nestled in
the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


USA WHEEL: Abrego Seeks Collective Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled JARAMY ABREGO,
RANDAL BARBER, and JEFFERY LEWIS, Individually and on Behalf of
all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. USA WHEEL AND
TIRE OUTLET INC. the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00919 (S.D.
Tex.), move the Court to:

     (1) conditionally certify this matter as a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b);

     (2) authorize mailing of the Notice to Potential Class
Members and Opt-In/Consent Form to all "Drivers", "Warehouse
Workers", "Maintenance Workers" and "Manual Laborers" who were
employed by Defendant at any time within the three years
immediately preceding conditional certification; and

     (3) require Defendant's representative(s) to produce under
oath and under penalty of perjury, the names, addresses, phone
numbers, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers of all such
class members so that notice may be timely implemented.

The Plaintiffs described the Class as:

     "All hourly employees who are or were in a position similar
to theirs (i.e., "Drivers", "Warehouse Workers", "Maintenance
Workers" and "Manual Laborers") and who were paid in a similar
manner. More importantly, the job duties of Plaintiffs and the
members of the putative class are such that, according to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the promulgated regulation, they are
eligible for payment of overtime wages at a rate of one and one-
half times their regular rate."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8RIyQBO2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


UTAH: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Legal Representation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Winslow, writing for Fox13, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been leveled against Utah, accusing the state of not
doing enough to provide people with attorneys who cannot afford
them in court.

Six men are suing the state for failing to provide them with
adequate legal representation, assisted by the ACLU of Utah and
the firm Holland & Hart.  Under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, you have a right to a lawyer if you cannot afford
one.

One of the plaintiffs, Skylar Garner, is facing a criminal charge
in Carbon County for violating a no-contact order.  He alleged in
the lawsuit he has met with his court-appointed attorney for less
than five minutes.  Anthony Murdzak alleged in the lawsuit he was
jailed earlier this year but held for 10 days and never once met
with a court-appointed lawyer.

"Following the arraignment, Mr. Murdzak had not met with defense
counsel, had received no discovery, was unaware of when he would
next meet with his defense counsel or when a preliminary hearing
was set for his case," the lawsuit states.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah said on June 21 that
more than 80 percent of Utahns cannot afford a lawyer, so they
must have the benefit of a public defender.  Those lawyers are
typically paid for by counties and municipalities, but have no
state oversight.  However, the ACLU has claimed, the system is
failing.  A series of audits, including one commissioned by the
Sixth Amendment Center, have found significant lapses in the court
system providing counsel, including underfunded and overworked
public defense attorneys. The Utah State Legislature has recently
attempted to address it by providing more oversight of public
defenders and funding.

"The state has known about these persistent and egregious issues
with its public defense system for years.  And yet, the state has
continued to abdicate its responsibilities in this area, offering
neither funding nor oversight to assist counties and
municipalities in the provision of defense to those who cannot
afford a private attorney," ACLU of Utah Legal Director
John Mejia said on June 21.  "The legislation passed during the
2016 Legislative Session is far beyond 'too little, too late.'"

The Utah Attorney General's Office said on June 21 it was
reviewing the lawsuit.

"The timing of this lawsuit is particularly unfortunate," Utah
Federal Solicitor Parker Douglas said in a statement.  "Over the
last year, the Judicial Committee, of which I am a member, has
worked to assure that Utah appropriately responds to the needs of
the indigent accused.  The Committee's work led to the 2016
passage of S.B. 155, sponsored by Senator Todd Weiler and
Representative Dan McCay.  After going into effect on May 10, the
bill created a commission to ensure proper indigent defense and
ways to fund those services.

"The bill was the result of an extraordinary effort by the Utah
Judiciary, the Utah Legislature, members of the county attorneys,
and many other state officials, as well as leaders of state and
county criminal defense groups.  To ask a judge to review these
measures now, before any opportunity to see the results of that
effort, is premature, and will require a single judge to review
the collective efforts of the many interested stakeholders who
have spent thousands of hours addressing the same issues."

In a statement, House Minority Leader Brian King, D-Salt Lake
City, said lawmakers need to do more to address the public
defender system.

"Utah has made significant efforts this past session through
Senate Bill 155 by creating an Indigent Defense Commission.
However, the bill does not go far enough to fund our
constitutional obligation under the Sixth Amendment to pay for
indigent defense," he said in the statement.  "In order to ensure
true justice for all our citizens, the state must guarantee the
right to legal counsel by providing on-going, full funding of
indigent defense and the ending of flat fee contracting. An
individual's rights should not be based on income or social
status.  We look forward to working with the ACLU and our
legislative colleagues to find legislative solutions to this very
important issue."


VIACOM: Shareholders Sue Redstone, Daughter
-------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that shareholders joined the fray in the struggle for Viacom,
claiming that both incumbent and ousted directors appeased Sumner
Redstone to maintain their lucrative positions, even as he
descended into dementia and drooled at the table.

On June 16, the lead independent director of Viacom's board,
Frederic Salerno, sued Sumner Redstone and his daughter Shari,
claiming she's trying to seize control of the company through
undue influence over her 93-year-old father by removing the
independent board.

Sumner Redstone controls Viacom through National Amusements Inc.,
which owns 80 percent of the voting shares of the company.
However, his holdings represent only 10 percent of the company's
equity.

National Amusements filed its own complaint the same day, seeking
to affirm the removal of Salerno and four other board members:
George Abrams, Blythe McGarvie, William Schwartz and former CEO
Philippe Dauman.

Salerno portrays Shari Redstone as a "puppet master" who controls
her father because of his "debilitating health and isolation."

But a shareholder class action filed by lead plaintiff Eric
Gilbert says Shari Redstone and Philippe Dauman "are playing a
corporate Game of Thrones with Viacom, seeking to outflank each
other in controlling Sumner Redstone, the Sumner M. Redstone
National Amusements Trust, NAI and ultimately Viacom."

He names the Redstones, National Amusements, Viacom and all
members of the board of directors, including the dismissed
directors, as defendants.

"Sumner Redstone's personal issues, including a constant parade of
girlfriends half his age and bitter family feuding with his
children, have played out in the press for many years," according
to the complaint. "While Sumner Redstone's physical and mental
health have been in serious decline for several years, the board
has failed to protect the company or the holders of its non-voting
Class B common stock from the chaos that would ensue at Viacom
when Sumner Redstone inevitably became incapacitated or passed
away."

Gilbert says the incumbent directors routinely renominated
Redstone to serve on the board each year although he has not
attended a meeting since 2014, and at that time "dozed and
drooled" through them.

"In essence, the board continued to appease the declining Sumner
Redstone -- or whomever was controlling him at the moment, whether
it be live-in girlfriends, family members, such as his daughter
Shari Redstone, or Viacom officers, such as president and CEO
Philippe Dauman -- in order to maintain their lucrative positions
as directors of the company," the class-action complaint claims.

The lawsuit asks the court to invalidate the June 2016 amendments
to Viacom's bylaws, which give Redstone a director-level veto. It
also claims that a bylaw that purports to allow directors to
remove fellow directors violates Delaware law.

The shareholders are represented by Elizabeth McGeever with
Prickett, Jones & Elliott in Wilmington, Del.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Investor Class Action Over Emissions Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Tovey, writing for The Telegraph, reports that Volkswagen is
facing a multi-billion legal claim from investors who lost out
when the company's shares collapsed because of its "widespread
deliberate deceit" over the emissions scandal.

International law from Quinn Emanuel has filed the first in a wave
of class actions claims against the German car maker on behalf of
shareholders who it says lost "many hundreds of millions of euros"
following VW's admission in September that it cheated pollution
control tests.

The move is being backed by legal funding firm Bentham, which says
it has gathered major VW shareholders, including sovereign wealth
funds, global asset managers and major pension investors, who
suffered in the wake of the car group admitting as many as 11m
vehicles worldwide were fitted with "defeat devices" to beat
emissions controls.  The news wiped tens of billions of euros off
the company's market value.

Bentham added it is in talks with a "very large number" of other
VW investors about them joining the class action, which is being
filed in Germany.

Jeremy Marshall, chief investment officer of Bentham -- which
expects to receive about a fifth of any damages won in return for
covering the legal fees -- said he expected the claims to
"ultimately run into the billions of euros".

"This is merely the first step in the campaign," Mr. Marshall
said.  "We have been struck throughout by the depth of feeling
that exists against VW's admitted practices and its recent
reaction to its self-inflicted crisis.

"The breadth of the shareholder base represented should be a wake-
up call to VW that it needs to engage with shareholders now,
resolve matters and concentrate on regaining its market share."

VW has so far taken EUR16.2bn in provisions to deal with the cost
of so-called "dieselgate" scandal, which first emerged in the US
in late September last year.  However, the company has also agreed
to buy back more than 500,000 affected cars in the US, which could
significantly increase the costs, and may still face huge fines
from American authorities.

Since the scandal sent the company into crisis, VW's sales have
fallen and the car maker has shaken up its management board.  It
is also facing calls for further action from major investors. They
claim that, despite VW launching a huge and ongoing external
investigation into who knew what and when about the scandal,
executives have failed to take sufficient action to ensure such an
event can never happen again.

Matthias Mueller, who took over as chief executive as the crisis
erupted, outlined a new focus on electric vehicles and self-
driving cars for, as VW seeks to get back on track after the
scandal.

The claim, filed by Quinn Emanuel against VW, centers around
investors not being told about the problems when the company was
first aware of them.  Such knowledge, it claims, would have meant
they were unlikely to have invested in VW.

Nadine Herrmann, the lawyer who is leading the case at Quinn
Emanuel, said: "Our clients are serious investors who care deeply
about good corporate governance and functioning capital markets.
If there ever was a corporate scandal where courts must vindicate
the information rights of capital market investors, it is this
one."

One investor being represented by Quinn Emanuel -- which has won
almost $50bn (GBP32bn) for clients in the past and represented
Google, Sony and Fifa -- is CalSTRS, the giant pension scheme for
Californian teachers, which has funds of almost $190bn.

Brian Bartow, CalSTRS general counsel, said VW had engaged in
"widespread deliberate deceit" and must be held to account.

"We have serious concerns about VW's internal controls, governance
and oversight by the board," he added.  "This claim seeks to
recover not only our economic losses, but, ultimately, to
implement much needed corporate governance reforms at VW."

VW's management was expected to face tough questions at the annual
meeting on June 22.  Investor groups are urging shareholders to
reject a vote of confidence in management.  Asset manager Hermes
is calling for a special audit to investigate whether directors
properly scrutinized executives' actions.

There will also be calls for the company to reveal findings from
law firm Jones Day's investigation of the scandal.  VW has delayed
giving details of the probe, saying doing so could discourage
people from being open with lawyers trying to discover the causes
behind the use of defeat devices.

Pressure on the company grew on June 20 when it emerged that
German prosecutors are investigating Martin Winterkorn, the former
chief executive who quit five days after the scandal broke.  The
probe is into whether he was involved in market manipulation by
not making public VW's deceit earlier, with allegations that he
had known about it for some time.  When he quit he said he was
"unaware of any wrongdoing on his part".

VW was unavailable for comment.


WAL-MART STORES: "Cruz" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
-----------------------------------------------------
Kiara Cruz, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-mart Store Inc., a foreign
company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80382, was transferred
from the U.S States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, to the U.S States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-06166 to the proceeding.

Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets.

The "Cruz" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Jan-Yura Korolinsky, Esq.
          16640 SW 145 Ave.
          Miami, FL 33177
          Telephone: (305) 905 7406
          E-mail: korolinsky@outlook.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angelika Hunnefeld, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig
          333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579 0500
          Facsimile: (305) 579 0717
          E-mail: hunnefelda@gtlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Jones, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED. the Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01135, was transferred from the U.S States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois -
(Chicago). The Northern District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06177
to the proceeding.

Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets.

The "Jones" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100%
GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve
the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product
in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL
encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and
Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target,
SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2,
2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions
arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived
consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%"
grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the
underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling
representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged
role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling
house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kelly Dobbs Bunting, Esq.
          David E. Sellinger, Esq.
          Theodore J. Mcevoy, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988 7858
          E-mail: buntingk@gtlaw.com
                  sellingerd@gtlaw.com
                  mcevoyt@gtlaw.com


WELLS FARGO BANK: Court Certifies Classes in "McLaughlin"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LATASHA McLAUGHLIN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendant, No. C 15-02904 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William
Alsup granted, in part, and denied, in part, the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

Judge Alsup certified a damages class and a declaratory class for
claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).  The judge also
appointed Latasha McLaughlin as class representative of all
plaintiff classes, Berman DeValerio and Wolf Popper LLP as class
counsel, with Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper LLP to serve as
lead counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's June 22, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/v55I4m from Leagle.com.

The named plaintiff, Latasha McLaughlin, brought the TILA action
against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the owner and servicer of her home
mortgage.  McLaughlin alleged that the bank breached its TILA
obligation to provide her with an accurate payoff statement
regarding her home mortgage.

Latasha McLaughlin, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan Chowning
Poppler -- cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,
Kristin J. Moody -- kmoody@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio, Patricia I. Avery -- pavery@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf
Popper LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Insley-Pruitt -- minsley-
pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, pro hac vice & Joseph J.
Tabacco, Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Ashley Lynn Shively
-- ashively@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Peter Joseph Kennedy
-- pkennedy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Raymond A. Cardozo
-- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


WESTFORD REGENCY: "Aucoin" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Act
------------------------------------------------------------
LEONA AUCOIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WESTFORD REGENCY INN, INC. and
WESTFORD REGENCY HEALTH SPA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 16-
1673 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks redress for
Defendants' violation of the Wage Act (Massachusetts tips laws),
and seeks mandatory treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees
pursuant to General Laws.

Mrs. Leona Aucoin, seeks an order awarding declaratory and
injunctive relief as permitted by law including enjoining
Defendants from continuing their unlawful practice of allowing
Banquet Captains to share tips with Banquet Servers.

The class is defined as All current and former employees of
Defendants who, from June 9, 2010 through the present, worked as
Banquet Servers and had a portion of their tips unlawfully paid to
Banquet Captains."

Westford Regency owns, operates, and manages Westford Regency Inn
and Conference Center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq.
          Danielle F. Jurema, Esq.
          FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN
          189 Wells A venue
          Newton, MA 02459
          E-mail: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com
                  dfi@fogelmanlawfirm.com


WHOLE FOODS: Sued Over False Dietary Supplement's Vit. A Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente, an individual on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Whole Foods
Market, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Whole Foods Market California,
Inc., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC623645 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016),
seeks to recover equitable relief including monetary damages,
specific performance, rescission, attorney's fees and cost, and
all other remedies this Court deems just and proper due to
Defendants' violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and by breaching an
express and implied warranty.

The Defendant allegedly misrepresented the Vitamin A content of
its Women's Food Based Multivitamin dietary supplement as 10,000
IU per serving when a third party independent laboratory found
only 1.746 IU Vitamin A per serving.

Whole Foods Market Inc. is an American supermarket chain
exclusively featuring foods without artificial preservatives,
colors, flavors, sweeteners, and hydrogenated fats.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devon M. Lyon, Esq.
          LYON LEGAL
          2698 Junipero Avenue, Suite 201A
          Signal Hill, CA 90755
          Telephone: (562) 216 7382
          Facsimile: (562) 216 7385
          E-mail: d.lyon@lyon-legal.com


XTO ENERGY: 2nd Bid for Class Certification in "Roderick" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WALLACE B. RODERICK IRREVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST, Amanda Roderick, Successor Trustee, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XTO ENERGY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 08-1330-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), Judge Eric F.
Melgren denied the plaintiff's second motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of Judge Melgren's June 22, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/mgptuX from Leagle.com.

The plaintiff, Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, owned
natural gas wells that were operated by the defendant XTO Energy,
Inc..  The Trust claimed that it was underpaid in royalty fees by
XTO.

Wallace B. Roderick Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
Barbara C. Frankland -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A.
Sharp, PA & Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A.
Sharp, PA.

XTO Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher A. Brown
-- cabrown@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey C.
King, Winstead PC, pro hac vice, John W. Broomes --
jbroomes@hinklaw.com -- Hinkle Law Firm LLC - Epic Center & Mark
Banner -- mbanner@hallestill.com -- Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable,
Golden & Nelson, PC, pro hac vice.


YUCAIPA AMERICAN: Centonze Seeks to Block SBEEG Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CENTONZE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RONALD W. BURKLE, YUCAIPA AMERICAN
ALLIANCE FUND II, L.P., YUCAIPA AMERICAN ALLIANCE (PARALLEL) FUND,
L.P., YUCAIPA AMERICAN ALLIANCE FUND II, LLC, YUCAIPA AMERICAN
FUNDS, LLC, YUCAIPA AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, LLC, THE YUCAIPA
COMPANIES, LLC, HOWARD M. LORBER, JASON T. KALISMAN, JOHN J.
DOUGHERTY, ANDREW BROAD, MICHELLE S. RUSSO, KENNETH E. CRUSE,
BRADFORD B. NUGENT, MICHAEL E. OLSHAN, ADAM STEIN, SBEEG HOLDINGS,
LLC, and TROUSDALE ACQUISITION SUB, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
59138434 (Del. Chancery Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks to enjoin the
merger of SBEEG Holdings, LLC and Trousdale Acquisition Sub, Inc.
with and into Morgans, with Morgans continuing as the surviving
corporation in the merger (Proposed Buyout or Merger).

This lawsuit also seeks an order requiring that the Morgans Board
and the Controlling Stockholder Defendants comply with their
fiduciary obligations and awarding Plaintiff and the Class damages
suffered as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing.

Yucaipa American specializes in buyouts of mid to large size
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike
          Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504 4957
          Facsimile: (302) 397 2681

               - and -

          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455 1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455 1498


ZIMMERMAN REED: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Michael Stephen Kanne of the Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, affirmed the district court's dismissal of
Plaintiff Carlos Rocha's amended complaint.

The appellate case is captioned, CARLOS G. ROCHA, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. J. GORDON RUDD, JR., ANNE T. REGAN, PATRICIA A.
BLOODGOOD, ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP, GREGORY J. MEYERS, SUSAN
ELLINGSTAD, and LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 15-1538 (7th Cir.).

Plaintiff Carlos Rocha sued Defendants in federal district court,
alleging several theories of harm, including legal malpractice and
fraud, in association with a case against FedEx.

Defendants, a group of law firms and several of their attorneys,
had previously represented Plaintiff Carlos Rocha and other FedEx
delivery drivers in an employment misclassification case against
FedEx. The employment misclassification case ultimately settled,
but Rocha was excluded from the settlement. Just before the
settlement was finalized, Rocha retained Johnson, his current
spouse, and discharged Defendants as his counsel.

On October 30, 2012, Rocha and Arize 11, represented by Johnson,
filed a 518-paragraph, 16-count complaint against FedEx and
numerous FedEx executives, which included allegations of
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), the Sherman and Clayton Acts, and Illinois law. Rocha
eventually amended the complaint to 17 counts. The district court
dismissed Rocha's amended complaint on January 17, 2014, finding
it to be "an egregious violation of Rule 8(a)."

On appeal, Rocha contends that the district court erred by (1)
dismissing his legal malpractice claim, (2) dismissing his fraud
claim, and (3) dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/IvjIpV from Leagle.com, Judge Kanne held that the
district court correctly ruled that Rocha could not establish a
legal malpractice claim as a matter of law because his claims
under Fluegel v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 1:05-cv-
02326, (N.D. Ill. dismissed Sept. 17, 2012), were still viable
after he discharged Defendants as his counsel. Neither Rocha's
amended complaint, nor his proposed second amended complaint could
meet the requisite pleading standards. His own pleadings and
attached exhibits defeat any plausible claim of fraud.


* South African Gold Mining Companies to Appeal Silicosis Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franny Rabkin, writing for BDLive, reports that the Johannesburg
High Court was on June 23 set to hear an application to appeal
against its landmark silicosis class action judgment, which paves
the way for between 17,000 and 500,000 mine workers and former
mine workers suffering from silicosis to sue the mining companies
for damages.

The size and the scope of the certified class is unprecedented: if
the lawsuit is to go ahead on the basis of the High Court's order,
it will be against almost every gold mine in SA, including their
parent companies.  And it will cover their conduct over years --
from 1965 to last year.  It will also cover both silicosis and
tuberculosis sufferers.

In a case where so much is at stake -- claims could run to
billions of rand -- the gold mining companies have lodged six
separate applications for leave to appeal.  Between them, they
have contested almost every aspect of the judgment.

On June 23, the court was set to hear the applications by Gold
Fields, AngloGold Ashanti, Anglo American SA, DRDGold, African
Rainbow Minerals and Harmony Gold.

The companies said the judgment addressed a "number of highly
complex and important issues".  These included a "far-reaching
amendment of the common law, that had not previously been
considered by other courts in SA".

They believed that the court was incorrect on some of these issues
and that another court may take a different view.

In the judgment -- penned by Deputy Judge President Phineas
Mojapelo and Judge Bashier Valley -- the judges acknowledged that
for the mine workers to succeed, their case will "entail and
traverse novel and complex issues of fact and law".

But they said for the vast majority of the mine workers -- most of
them are poor, ill and living in far-flung places across the
sub-continent -- the class action was the only realistic chance of
their making a claim for compensation.

To deny the class action would be to deny them access to courts
-- something the courts "should be very careful" about, said the
judges.




                            *********

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  * * *