CAR_Public/160706.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 134




                            Headlines


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hillman"
ADT LLC: $2.7-Mil. "Garnett" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
AFNI INC.: Faces "Alan" Suit in C.D. California
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
AKORN INC: No Motions or Answer Filed in Shareholder Case

ALJ REGIONAL: Faneuil Accrued $90,000 In 6 Months Ended March 31
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: "Perry" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to N.D. Ohio
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS: Appeal Filed in "Yi" Class Suit
ASTELLAS PHARMA: November 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AT&T: Judge Authorizes Customers' Appeal in Data Throttling Suit

AUTOMATIC DATA: "Endara" Sues Over Payroll Debit Card Charges
BAC HOME: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Higgins" Class Suit
BLS LIMOUSINE: "Andujar" Suit Alleges N.Y. Labor Laws Violations
BOIRON INC: Settles Class Action Over Homeopathic Flu Remedy
BORDER TRANSFER: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Mass. Wage Act

BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Grant of Summary Judgment
BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Faces Technology Suit in M.D. Fla.
CAIRO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CALIFORNIA: Court Reduces Costs Assessed Against Boyd
CARPENTERS PENSION: Appeal Filed From Ruling in ERISA Class Suit

CATERPILLAR INC: September 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
CELATOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Palmisciano Seeks to Stop Sale to Jazz
CENTURYTEL OF MISSOURI: Mo. Junks Untimely Appeal in "Sanford"
CHASE BANK: Doyley Appeals From Ruling in "Gehrich" Class Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: "Cummings" Fraud Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.

CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: Del. Ch. Denies Chang's Motions
CHUBB LTD: Faces "Boesch" Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Compensation
CITE LLC: Faces "Smith" Suit in N.D. Ill.
CLAUDIA ARANGO: Violates FLSA in Florida, "Zait" Class Suit Says
CLAWFOOT SUPPLY: Faces "Russell" Suit in D.N.J.

CONT 516: Faces "Sheehan" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
CONTICO CORP: Sued by Lead Worker/Foreman Over Violations of FLSA
COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA: Denial of Class Cert. in "Limmer" Reversed
CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Sallustro" Case Pending
CYPRESS GROUP: Sued by Anti-Money Laundering Worker in Alabama

DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Approves $50MM Class Action Settlement
DEBT RECOVERY: Faces "Gil" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
DEMOINE DECLOUETTE: Faces "Carrasco" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeals Ruling in Suit by Disabled Children
EDEGREE ADVISOR: Sued for Violating FLSA and New York Labor Laws

FCA US: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Defective" Gear Shifter
FIFTH STREET: FSC Class Action Ongoing in New York
FIFTH STREET: Plaintiff's Request for Legal Cost Underway
FIFTH STREET: Glancy Prongay & Murray Appointed as Lead Counsel
FIRST STUDENT: "Chavez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages

FITNESS EVOLUTION: Sued Over Unauthorized Bank Deductions
FLORIDA OPPORTUNITY: Faces "Ledon" Suit in S.D. Fla.
GENCOR NUTRIENTES: 9th Cir. Reinstates Portion of "Bitton" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: "Armenti" Sues Over Vehicle Mileage Claims
GODADDY.COM: Faces "Bennett" Suit in S.D. Ala.

GOOGLE INC: Defeats Parents' Appeal in Nickelodeon Class Action
GRANITE SOURCE: Faces "Raudales" Suit Over Unpaid OT Under FLSA
GREAT-WEST LIFE: Colorado Court Certifies ERISA Class Action
HARVEST NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss Pending
HERR FOODS: Faces "Hu" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

HOMEAWAY INC: Faces Suit Alleging Breach of Contract, Fraud
HOT PANDEYUCA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Pizarro" Suit Claims
INDONESIA: YLKI Calls for Class Action Over Fake Vaccines
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Aug. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
JOHN C HEATH: Files Appeal From Ruling in "Leslie" Class Suit

JP MORGAN: Settles TCPA Class Action for $3.75 Million
LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: 4 Securities Class Suits Filed
LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Federal Consumer Class Action Filed
LICE TROOPERS: Sobrino Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT for Technicians
MARRONE BIO: Negotiating Terms of Formal Settlement

MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
MAYER BROWN: Averts Class Action Over $1.5BB GM Bankruptcy Loan
MDL 2619: Twinlab to Provide Indemnity and Defense
MEXZICAN TAQUERIA: "Ruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Action Over Debt Interest Rate Can Proceed

MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Izquierdo" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MRS BPO: Faces "Ronquillo-Griffin" Suit in C.D. Cal.
MYDATT SERVICES: "Levin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
MYDATT SERVICES: "Rogers" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
NATIONAL HOSPITAL: Faces "O'Dell" Suit in N.D. W. Virg.

NDG COFFEE: Faces "Paida" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: Rockland County Files Class Action Over Suez Scheme
NO. 1 CHINESE RESTAURANT: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY: Appeals Ruling From "Chambers" Class Suit
P & H 49: Faces "Robles" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law

PEPSICO INC: "Sciortino" Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay
PERRIGO COMPANY: Ami Files Suit Alleging Securities Act Breach
PERRIGO COMPANY: July 11 Hearing on Bid to Appeal Ruling
PREMIUM NUTRACEUTICALS: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Matus" Suit
QUALITY BUILT: Gates Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to D. S. Car.

QL WHOLESOME: "Mendez" Suit Claims FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law Violation
RASH CURTIS: Faces "McMillion" Suit in N.D. Cal.
RAYMOND JAMES: Brink Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Appeals Court to Review ZIP Code Case
RIGHTSCORP INC: Parties to Revise Settlement

RIZEN FLEET: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
ROBERT BLACK: Agrees to Suspend Fine Policies on Minor Crimes
ROCK CREEK: Baldwin Filed Voluntary Dismissal
RUSSELL BRANDS: Faces False Advertising Class Action in New York
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: "Mladinich" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.

SANTA FE: Faces "Cole" Suit Over Deceptive Ads, Labeling
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Balint" Suit in W.D. Penn.
SQM US: Faces "Ewing" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
ST. NICHOLAS FISH: Faces "Galindo" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
THERANOS INC: Keller Rohrback Files Class Action in California

TOMORROW PCS: Faces "Blank" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TOP GUARD: Faces "Aranguren" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
TOTAL CARD: Dismissal of "Genova" Suit Under Appeal
TURTLE BEACH: Appeal in Nevada Supreme Court Remains Pending
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Renew Push to Halt Fraud Class Action

TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Provides Indemnity and Defense in "Mathews"
UNCLE TOM'S: Faces "Alaman" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
UNITED STATES: Child Deportation Class Action Can Proceed
UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Court Appeal Filed in "Keepseagle" Case
UTILITY TREE: "Torres" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to N.D. Cal.

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Price Tag Raised to $15 Billion
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Ford" Action Pending
WARNER CHAPPELL: Donahue Fitzgerald Attorneys Wrap Up Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses "Chambers" Suit
ZTB II: "Palma" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.


                            *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hillman"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SIDNEY HILLMAN HEALTH CENTER OF ROCHESTER
and TEAMSTERS HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCE PLAN LOCAL 404, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES and ABBVIE INC., Defendants,
No. 13 C 5865 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sara L. Ellis granted Abbott
Laboratories' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended class
action complaint without prejudice.

Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester and Teamsters Health
Services and Insurance Plan Local 404 (collectively with Hillman,
the "Funds") are multi-employer benefit plans and health services
funds that provide health benefits, including prescription drug
coverage, to their members.  The Funds sought to represent a
nationwide class of such third-party purchasers or third-party
payors (TPPs) who from 1998 to 2012 reimbursed and paid all or
some of the purchase price for Depakote, a drug developed and
initially marketed by Abbott Laboratories and later by AbbVie,
Inc. (collectively, "Abbott"), for indications not approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The Funds also sought to
represent subclasses of TPPs in New York and Massachusetts.  The
Funds brought claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO,
violation of the New York deceptive business practices act, and
unjust enrichment under New York and Massachusetts law.

Abbott moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint.

Judge Ellis dismissed the RICO claims because the Funds have not
adequately alleged proximate cause under RICO.  With the dismissal
of the federal claims, Judge Ellis declined to address the state
law claims, deferring consideration of Abbott's arguments on these
issues until the Funds have adequately alleged a basis for the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of Judge Ellis' June 29, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/1AAcGL from Leagle.com.

Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, Plaintiff, represented
by Edmund S Aronowitz -- earonowitz@gelaw.com -- Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., James J Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -
- Hausfield LLP, James J. Sabella -- jsabella@gelaw.com -- Grant &
Eisenhofer P.a., Kristen M Ward -- kward@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld
Llp, Mary S Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.a.
& Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Teamsters Health Services and Insurance Plan Local 404, Plaintiff,
represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Edmund S
Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Frank R. Schirripa --
fschirripa@hrsclaw.com -- Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP,
James J. Sabella, Grant & Eisenhofer P.a. & Mary S Thomas, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.a..

Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Inc., Defendants, represented by
William F Cavanaugh, Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com -- Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Adeel Abdullah Mangi -- aamangi@pbwt.com
-- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler Llp, Jonah Moses Knobler --
jknobler@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler Llp, Jonathan
Richard Lahn -- jonathan.lahn@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP
& Niji Jain -- njain@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
LLP.


ADT LLC: $2.7-Mil. "Garnett" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHIRLEY GARNETT, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADT, LLC, and DOES 1-
50, inclusive, Defendants, Civ. No. 2:14-02851 WBS AC (E.D. Cal.),
Judge William B. Shubb granted the plaintiff's motions for final
approval of class and class action settlement and for reasonable
attorney's fees, expenses, and an incentive award.

The putative class action was brought by Shirley Garnett against
ADT, LLC, asserting claims arising out of ADT's alleged failure to
reimburse for work-related vehicle expenses and failure to provide
accurate wage statements as required by California law.

The gross settlement amount in the case is $2.7 million and about
$1.6 million of the total fund will be distributed to class
members, after the incentive award, attorney's fees, and costs are
deducted.  Each of the 831 class members who submitted a claim
form will receive a settlement check based on the number of
workweeks he or she was employed by the defendant during the class
period.  The average amount class members will receive is
$1,470.68 and the highest award is $4,280.01.  The plaintiff's
anticipated award is $1,552.39.  No money from the class fund will
revert to defendant and, as a result, the claims administrator
estimated that there will be $458,728.15 remaining for
distribution after the 831 claims are paid.  This amount will also
be distributed on a workweek basis and the average additional
amount each class member will receive is $552.

Judge Shubb appointed Garnett as representative of the class and
awarded her an incentive payment of $7,500.  The judge also
appointed Robin Workman and Aviva Roller, Workman Law Firm, as
counsel to the settlement class.  The plaintiff's counsel was
awarded fees and costs in the amount of $978,534.60.

A full-text copy of Judge Shubb's June 28, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/LX0sOS from Leagle.com.

Shirley Garnett, Plaintiff, represented by Robin G. Workman,
Workman Law Firm, PC & Aviva N. Roller, Workman Law Firm, PC.

ADT, LLC, Defendant, represented by Linda Claxton --
linda.claxton@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Alec Hillbo -- alec.hillbo@ogletreedeakins.com
-- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C. & Rachel Jan
Moroski -- rachel.moroski@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins.

Ricardo Castillo, Unknown, represented by D. Alan Harris --
harrisa@harrisandruble.com -- Harris & Ruble.


AFNI INC.: Faces "Alan" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afni, Inc. The case
is styled Jason Alan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Afni, Inc. and Does 1-100,
inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
04409-GW-JC (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
George H. Wu.

Afni is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  tfriedman@toddflaw.com


AIRMEDIA GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Airmedia Group Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015, that the Filing Defendants' motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit is pending.

The Company and two of its officers were named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on June 25, 2015 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:  Huang
v. AirMedia Group Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-04966-ALC
(S.D.N.Y.).  The complaint in this putative class action alleges
that certain of the defendants' financial statements and other
public statements and disclosures contained misstatements or
omissions, including with respect to the alleged sale of an equity
interest in the Company's advertising subsidiary, in violation the
U.S. securities laws.  The complaint states that plaintiffs seek
to represent a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as
a result of their trading activities related to the Company's ADRs
between April 15 and June 15, 2015, and alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On November 10, 2015, the Court appointed China Xiayuan
Transportation Co. Ltd. as the lead plaintiff and appointed a lead
counsel.  On January 15, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, advancing similar allegations and claims as the
previously filed complaint and seeking to represent a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
trading activities related to the Company's ADRs between April 7
and June 15, 2015.

On February 5, 2016, the Company filed a letter pursuant to the
judge's individual practice rules, in which the Company identified
the bases for its anticipated motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and requested a pre-motion conference.

On February 10, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a letter in
response to the Company's the February 5, 2016 letter.  On
February 11, 2016, the court denied the request for a pre-motion
conference, and ordered a briefing schedule.

Consistent with the court's briefing schedule, on March 10, 2016,
the Company and one of its officers  (the "Filing Defendants")
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On April 7,
2016, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to
dismiss.  On April 21, 2016, the Filing Defendants filed a reply
to the lead plaintiff's opposition.  The action otherwise remains
in its preliminary stages.

"We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend the
actions vigorously," the Company said.

                           *     *     *

On May 13, 2016 , the Court granted Plaintiffs' Letter Motion
dated May 2, 2016, in which Plaintiffs seek a pre-motion
conference for their anticipated motion to strike Exhibit J of
Defendants' pending motion to dismiss and oppose Defendants'
accompanying request for judicial notice of the exhibit.  The
Court granted that request, in so far as it seeks leave to move to
strike the exhibit and oppose Defendants' request for judicial
notice.  Plaintiffs shall submit their motion by May 27, 2016.
Defendants' opposition, if any, shall be filed by June 10, 2016.
Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed by June 24, 2016.

Airmedia Group Inc. is represented in the case by:

          Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Tel: (212) 735-3000
          Fax: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: smusoff@skadden.com


AKORN INC: No Motions or Answer Filed in Shareholder Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that no motions or answer have been filed in
the shareholder class action lawsuit.

On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed
entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., at el., in the federal district
court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944. The
complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers
violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters
related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of
its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. and
VersaPharm, Inc. A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v.
Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 15- cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015
making similar allegations. On August 24, 2015, the two cases were
consolidated and a lead plaintiff appointed in In re Akorn, Inc.
Securities Litigation. No motions or answer have been filed in the
case.

The Company's board of directors also received shareholder demand
letters and two shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
Company' s accounting for its acquisition and restatement of its
financials. The cases, Safriet v. Rai, et al., No. 15-cv-7275, and
Glaubach v. Rai, et al., No. 15- 11129, both filed in the Northern
District of Illinois have been stayed pending anticipated rulings
on any motions to dismiss the defendants may file in In re Akorn,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

On March 8, 2016, an additional case was filed, Kogut v. Akorn,
Inc., et al., in Louisiana state court in the Parish of East Baton
Rouge, No. 646474. The Kogut action seeks an order requiring the
Company to make its pending SEC filings, issue audited financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2015, and
hold its annual shareholder meeting.


ALJ REGIONAL: Faneuil Accrued $90,000 In 6 Months Ended March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Faneuil is named
as a defendant in a proposed class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The
case, styled Brown, et al., v. Transurban USA, Inc., et al., was
filed on April 15, 2015. Faneuil's outside counsel estimated that
the maximum exposure was $90,000. As such, Faneuil accrued $90,000
during the six months ended March 31, 2016.


ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: "Perry" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Perry, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio
residents similarly situated, the Plaintiff. v. Allstate Indemnity
Company, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate
Insurance Company, Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance Company,
Encompass Home & Auto Insurance Company, Encompass Insurance
Company of America, Encompass Indemnity Company, Encompass
Property & Casualty Company, and Esurance Insurance Company, the
Defendants, Case No. CV16863318, was removed from the Ohio
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland). The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01522-CAB to the proceeding.
The assigned Judge is Hon. Christopher A. Boyko.

Allstate is a publicly held personal lines property and casualty
insurer in America, serving more than 16 million households
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
          WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS
          1600 Midland Bldg.
          101 Prospect Avenue, W
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 781 1111
          Facsimile: (216) 781 6747
          E-mail: dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

               - and -

          James A. DeRoche, Esq.
          Stuart I. Garson, Esq.
          GARSON JOHNSON
          1600 Midland Bldg.
          101 Prospect Avenue, W
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 696 9330
          Facsimile: (216) 696 8558
          E-mail: jderoche@garson.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN-PAINESVILLE
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352 3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352 3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Eric Kennedy, Esq.
          WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS
          1600 Midland Bldg.
          101 Prospect Avenue, W
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 781 1111
          Facsimile: (216) 781 6747
          E-mail: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq.
          Leah R. Bruno, Esq.
          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          DENTONS US - CHICAGO
          233 South Wacker Drive, Ste. 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876 8000
          Facsimile: (312) 876 7934
          E-mail: mark.hanover@dentons.com

               - and -

          Gregory R. Farkas, Esq.
          FRANTZ WARD
          200 Public Square, Ste. 3000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 515 1660
          Facsimile: (216) 515 1650
          E-mail: gfarkas@frantzward.com


ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS: Appeal Filed in "Yi" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chong Su Yi filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Chong Yi v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, Case No. 8:16-cv-
01073-TDC, in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland at Greenbelt.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed against Archdiocese of New Orleans on April 11, 2016,
and was assigned to the Hon. Theodore D. Chuang.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans, officially in Latin
Archidioecesis Novae Aureliae, is an ecclesiastical division of
the Roman Catholic Church administered from New Orleans,
Louisiana.  It is the second-oldest diocese in the present-day
United States, having been elevated to the rank of diocese on
April 25, 1793, by Pope Pius VI during Spanish colonial rule.  Our
Lady of Prompt Succor and St. Louis, King of France are the patron
saints of the Archdiocese and Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis is
its mother church as St. Patrick's Church serves as the Pro-
Cathedral of the Archdiocese.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The appellate case is captioned as Chong Yi v. Archdiocese of New
Orleans, Case No. 16-1719, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.


ASTELLAS PHARMA: November 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Prograf (Not for Resale), You May Be Entitled to
Money from a Class Action Settlement

The following statement is being issued by Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC regarding In re Prograf Antitrust Litigation.

A lawsuit is currently pending claiming that Astellas Pharma US,
Inc. ("Astellas" or "Defendant") violated state antitrust, unfair
competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws of
certain states by delaying the availability of a less expensive
generic version of the immunosuppressant prescription drug
Prograf(R)(known as tacrolimus).  Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant's conduct caused some consumers and third party payors
to pay too much for Prograf in certain states from September 3,
2008 to December 31, 2010 (also referred to as the "Class Damage
Period").  This lawsuit does not claim that Prograf is unsafe or
ineffective.  Astellas denies any wrongdoing.

Are You Affected? As a Consumer, you may be a member of the
Settlement Class if you paid for some or all of the purchase price
for Prograf and/or its generic equivalent, in capsule form, for
consumption by yourself or a member of your family any time
between April 15, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (the "Class Period")
in Arizona, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin.  As a Third-Party
Payor, you may be a member of the Settlement Class if you paid for
some or all of the purchase price for Prograf and/or its generic
equivalent, in capsule form, for consumption by your members,
employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries (including
government-funded employee benefit plans) and not for resale in at
least one of the above-listed states during the Class Period.

What Are Your Rights And Options? Stay in the class and file and
claim: To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must file a claim form on or before December 6, 2016.  Claim
forms may be requested online at
www.PrografIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com or by writing to
Prograf Indirect Purchaser Settlement, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10112,
Dublin, OH 43017-3112.

Exclude Yourself: If you do not want to be included as a Class
Member, you must exclude yourself by submitting a written Request
for Exclusion available at
www.PrografIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com  to the Settlement
Administrator at the address above by September 8, 2016.  If you
exclude yourself, you get no benefits, but keep your right to file
your own lawsuit.  Third Party Payors should visit the website for
a complete list of items required in your exclusion request.  Any
Third Party Payor included in the Settlement Class that does not
submit a valid request for exclusion providing all necessary
information and documentation will be bound by the terms of the
Settlement.  Further, all members of the Settlement Class who have
not requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by the
Settlement entered in the Action even if they do not file a timely
Proof of Claim.

Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the
Settlement Class and will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and
future Court rulings.

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice
or for a claim form, may be made to Class Counsel at the following
addresses:

         J. Gerard Stranch, IV
         Joe P. Leniski, Jr.
         BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC

         The Freedom Center
         223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN  37203
         Tel: (615) 254-8801

         James R. Dugan, II
         Douglas Plymale, Ph.D.
         David Franco
         DUGAN LAW FIRM
         One Canal Place
         365 Canal St., Suite 1000
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Tel: (504) 648-0180

A hearing will be held on November 2, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern
Time, before the Honorable Rya W. Zobel in Courtroom 12 of the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210 to
determine, among other things, whether the proposed settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.

Want More Information? This notice is only a summary.  More
information can be found at
www.PrografIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com by calling 1-844-322-
8238, writing to Prograf Indirect Purchaser Settlement, c/o GCG,
P.O. Box 10112, Dublin, OH 43017-3112 or by email at
Questions@PrografIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com


AT&T: Judge Authorizes Customers' Appeal in Data Throttling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a federal judge
has authorized customers of AT&T to immediately appeal his
decision to send their lawsuit over data throttling to
arbitration, according to court records.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen authorized the appeal, after
a hearing on June 23, according to entries on the court docket.
He hasn't issued a written decision spelling out his reasons.

The move means that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could soon
decide whether AT&T must face a potential class-action for
allegedly slowing down the broadband connections of users with
"unlimited" data plans.

The consumers say they were duped by AT&T, which allegedly sold
them "unlimited" mobile broadband plans, but then throttled users
who hit monthly caps ranging from 3-5 GB.

The dispute stems from AT&T's 2011 decision to throttle
subscribers with "unlimited" smartphone data.  The Federal Trade
Commission has also sued AT&T over its practices; that matter is
pending in the 9th Circuit.

From 2011 until 2015, AT&T allegedly throttled more than 3.5
million customers who exceeded monthly allotments.  The company
recently revised its throttling practices and now only slows down
customers who exceed 22 GB in a month.  AT&T also now only
throttles those users when the network is congested.

Earlier this year, Judge Chen granted AT&T's request to send the
case to arbitration.  He ruled that the wireless consumers who are
suing AT&T signed contracts that require arbitration of disputes
on an individual basis.  The consumers can still proceed with
individual arbitrations, but doing so often is prohibitively
costly.

In May, the consumers asked Judge Chen to authorize an appeal to
the 9th Circuit.  They argued it wouldn't be practical for them to
litigate each matter separately, given the complexity and cost of
the case.


AUTOMATIC DATA: "Endara" Sues Over Payroll Debit Card Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Endara, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., First
Data Corporation, Meta Financial Group, Inc., Metabank, The
Wendy's Company, Wendy's Restaurants, LLC, Wendy's International,
Inc., Wendy's of N.E. Florida, Inc., and John Does #1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01032 (M.D. Fla., June 14, 2016),
seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, reasonable costs and
expenses of suit, including attorney fees and any further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, negligence and violation of
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

This is in connection with payroll debit cards Defendants issued.
Defendants provided Plaintiff with a Payroll Card at a time when
he was employed at Wendy's. Defendants allegedly charged fees to
access the wages he had earned, failing to provide the full amount
of his wages in a form that was negotiable and payable in cash, on
demand, without discount.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc., First Data Corporation, Meta
Financial Group, Inc. and Metabank are providers of payroll
services, servicing Wendy's payroll.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
     Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
     EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASUCCI, LLP
     5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417
     Davie, FL 33328
     Tel: (954) 889-3359
     Fax: (954) 889-5913
     Email: jeggnatz@elplawyers.com


BAC HOME: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Higgins" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sheila H. Baker, Juanita Buckhalter Clarke, Rhonda A.
Day, Martha Megredy, David Nadeau and W. Glenn Perry filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the case entitled Larry
Higgins, et al. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, et al., Case No.
5:12-cv-00183, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky at Lexington.

On June 7, 2016, Chief District Judge Karen K. Caldwell denied
plaintiffs' motion that the District Court alter, amend, vacate or
set aside its order dated September 30, 2015 which dismissed this
entire action.  A copy of that Opinion and Order is available at
https://is.gd/aQSxOE from Leagle.com.

The District Court entered that order after the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered an opinion in 2015 stating
that the District Court "should have granted defendants' motion to
dismiss" and that this Court "should have dismissed plaintiffs'
action. . . ." Higgins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 793 F.3d
688, 691, 694 (6th Cir. 2015).

The plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in dismissing this
entire action because that is not what the Sixth Circuit's opinion
requires.

This case centers on a Kentucky statute requiring that mortgage
assignments be recorded with the county clerk within 30 days of
the assignment. KRS 382.360(3). There are two relevant ways that
mortgages can be assigned under Kentucky law. The first is through
a written instrument that explicitly assigns the mortgage. The
second is by way of an assignment of the note that is secured by
the mortgage. Under Kentucky common law, "the assignment of a note
secured by a mortgage transfers the interest in the underlying
mortgage." Christian Cty. Clerk v. Mortgage Elec. Registration
Sys, Inc., 515 F. App'x 451, 455 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Napier v.
Duff, 136 S.W.2d 1083, 1085 (Ky. 1939).

The plaintiffs asserted in their complaint that their mortgages
were assigned to various of the defendants but the defendants
failed to record the mortgage assignment as they were required to
do under the statute. The defendants argued in a motion to dismiss
that they were not required under the statute to record the
mortgage assignments at issue because the mortgages were not
assigned by a written document explicitly assigning the mortgage.
Instead, the mortgages were assigned to them only by operation of
law because the notes had been assigned to them.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 17, 2015, the
Sixth Circuit rejected a challenge to the MERS system and the
assertion that its operation violated Kentucky law with respect to
recording mortgage assignments.  The Sixth Circuit held that,
while the assignment of a mortgage may, under Kentucky law, be
required to be of record with the county clerk, there is no
parallel requirement for recording assignments of the related
promissory notes.

Under the MERS system, when a home is financed through a note and
mortgage, the lender on the note is identified as the issuing
bank. In turn, the mortgagee is identified as MERS, as nominee of
the mortgagee and its successors. When in turn the note and the
related mortgage are sold or resold, such as takes place during
securitization, no further recordation is made with the county
clerk. Rather, the note is transferred to the purchaser thereof,
and assuming they are a member of the MERS system the related
interest in the mortgage is assigned to the acquirers benefit.

The appellate case is captioned as Larry Higgins, et al. v. BAC
Home Loans Servicing, LP, et al., Case No. 16-5995, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants W. Glenn Perry, Juanita Buckhalter Clarke,
Sheila H. Baker, Rhonda A. Day, David Nadeau and Martha Megredy
are represented by:

          Carroll M. Redford, III, Esq.
          MILLER, GRIFFIN & MARKS, PSC
          271 W. Short Street, Suite 600
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 255-6676
          Facsimile: (859) 259-1562
          E-mail: cmr@kentuckylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, fka Countrywide
Home Loans Servicing, L.P.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; U.S. BANK,
N.A., as Trustee for the Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
Securities Corp., CSMC Mortgage-backed Pass-through Certificates,
Series 2006-6, and, on behalf of the class, as Trustee of other
similarly-situated trusts; and COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING,
L.P., are represented by:

          Cornelius Edwin Coryell, II, Esq.
          WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS LLP
          500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 2800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589-5235
          E-mail: ccoryell@wyattfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          Dustin E. Meek, Esq.
          TACHAU MEEK PLC
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 3600
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 238-9900
          E-mail: dmeek@tachaulaw.com

Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          Bethany A. Breetz, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON PLLC
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587-3400
          E-mail: bbreetz@stites.com

Defendant-Appellee FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION is
represented by:

          Jonathan William Garlough, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 832-4500
          E-mail: jgarlough@foley.com

Defendant-Appellee FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as conservator
for, Federal National Mortgage Association, is represented by:

          Asim Varma, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          1369 E. Street, S.E.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          E-mail: asim.varma@aporter.com


BLS LIMOUSINE: "Andujar" Suit Alleges N.Y. Labor Laws Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Andujar, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BLS Limousine Service of New York, Inc.,
Defendant, INDEX NO. 707432/2016 (N.Y. Sup., June 23, 2016),
alleges that the Plaintiff are (i) entitled to unpaid overtime
wages from Defendant for working more than forty hours in a week
and not being paid at rates not less than 1.5 times their regular
rate; and (ii) entitled to maximum liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act and New
York Labor Law.

Defendant provides taxi and limousine services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-740-2000
     E-mail: abdul@adbdulhassan.com


BOIRON INC: Settles Class Action Over Homeopathic Flu Remedy
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie A. Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
consumer class actions seldom go to trial.  But repeat litigation,
following a pair of settlements, led homeopathic product maker
Boiron Inc. to try a California class suit alleging a homeopathic
flu remedy didn't work (Lewert v. Boiron, Inc., C.D. Cal., No. 11-
10803, verdict 6/16/16.

A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California June 16 found for Boiron.

"What was unique about us is that we had settled before, and it's
like the plaintiffs left us no choice," Christina G. Sarchio --
csarchio@orrick.com -- who represented Boiron, told Bloomberg BNA.

"The company said, 'you know what, we feel good about our facts,
we feel good about our evidence, we don't feel we've done anything
wrong, and we'll leave it to the jury system to make that decision
for us,'" Ms. Sarchio, with Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe in
Washington, D.C., said.

"It's otherwise going to be death by a thousand paper cuts.  Let's
just pull the band-aid off and see what happens," she said.

Ordinarily, settlements happen pre-trial.  In the area of class
suits, settlement often happens after a class is certified.

Companies worry that a class action trial is "just too risky.
Even in the most aggressive kinds of cases where defendants feel
confident about the evidence they have, and the facts, I've had
settlements at the courthouse steps," Ms. Sarchio told Bloomberg
BNA.  "We've picked a jury, in some instances."

Companies worries about ramifications if they lose, Ms. Sarchio
said.

"This company was in a similar position; it had settled twice
before," she said.

Settlements

One was a nationwide settlement that included all Boiron
homeopathic products over a 12-year period of time.

That settlement, in Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., S.D. Cal., No. 11-
2039, provided a $5 million fund to reimburse class members and
called for label changes to make clear that the products'
advertised uses hadn't been evaluated by the Food and Drug
Administration (16 CLASS 200, 2/27/15).

The other settlement, in DeLaRosa v. Boiron, Inc., C.D. Cal. No.
10-1569, involved one Boiron product, Childrens' Coldcalm. The
DeLaRosa settlement also provided monetary relief to class members
and a similar label change.

But suits persisted, even with the settlements, she said.

In the case that went to trial, Christopher Lewert, representing a
California class, alleged the company's Oscillococcinum (Oscillo)
flu remedy was no more effective than a sugar pill.

Juror Observations

The flu product case was tried to seven jurors, one of whom spoke
to the parties afterward, Ms. Sarchio said.

That juror said he felt the plaintiffs hadn't met their burden of
proof, she said.  "For them to allege the product didn't work as
advertised, they should have demonstrated that it didn't actually
work, and they hadn't done that."

The juror also thought the named plaintiff didn't put on evidence
relating to classwide harm -- he testified but no other consumers
spoke about the product, she said.

Could the outcome in this case perhaps prod more companies to take
consumer class suits to trial?

"It depends on how aggressively some of the plaintiffs' bar goes
after some of the companies," Ms. Sarchio said.  "And if they have
repeat targets, then I think there's going to be fatigue and so
they are just going to want to go to trial.

"So to the extent a company feels confident that they've done the
right thing, hopefully this sends a message that they should be
willing to stand up and try a case," she said.

Here, Ms. Sarchio said, the parties went through mediation as
required by the court, but without resolution.

Stewart Weltman, one of Mr. Lewert's attorneys, told Bloomberg BNA
he doesn't comment on pending cases.  Attempts to reach other
attorneys for the plaintiff weren't successful.

Mr. Weltman is with Boodell and Domanskis LLC in Chicago. Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. and Westerman Law Corp. also
represented the plaintiff.


BORDER TRANSFER: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Mass. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS DaSILVA and MATTEUS FERREIRA, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BORDER TRANSFER OF
MA, INC. Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-11205-PBS (D. Mass., June 23,
2016), was brought on behalf of current and former Massachusetts
delivery drivers of Defendant, who were allegedly deprived of
wages due them under the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Border Transfer of MA, Inc. does business in Massachusetts and
operates delivery facilities in Massachusetts.  Border Transfer is
in the business of providing the delivery of retail merchandise
for its large retail store/big box customers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994 5800
     E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             bweber@llrlaw.com


BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Grant of Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT DICUIO; WILLIAM SELF; ANGELA BRYANT;
KAREN POCILUYKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; REUBEN ZADEH, Appellants, v. BROTHER INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, No. 15-2548 (3rd Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee Brother
International Corporation.

The case is a putative consumer fraud class action based on
Brother's design of certain printer models.  The appeal was filed
by Robert DiCuio and Angela Bryant.

In affirming the district court's entry of summary judgment in
favor of Brother, the Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs have
not shown the existence of a genuine dispute about whether they
received the expected page yield for their used color cartridges
and thus suffered an ascertainable loss under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's June 29, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/oaZHwi from Leagle.com.


BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Faces Technology Suit in M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buccaneers Limited
Partnership. The case is captioned Technology Training Associates,
Inc., and Larry E. Schwanke, D.C. doing business as: Back to
Basics Family Chiropractic, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v.
Buccaneers Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-
01622-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Mary S. Scriven.

Buccaneers operates a football team. The company was founded in
1976 and is based in Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. Cohen, Esq.
          BOCK LAW FIRM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500

               - and -

          Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
          Phillip Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


CAIRO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Madison -- St. Clair Record, reports
that a former police dispatcher alleges that a city did not pay
him overtime wages.

Christopher Coleman filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois against the city of Cairo, Illinois
alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was employed by the
defendant from March 2014 to February.  The plaintiff alleges that
he had worked for more than 40 hours while also doing "off-the-
clock" work but was not paid any overtime wages for all work
performed.  The plaintiff holds the city of Cairo, Illinois
responsible because the defendant allegedly had knowledge of how
much time plaintiff was working at any given workweek but still
failed to pay him any overtime compensation.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to enjoin the
defendant, payment for all overtime wages owed to plaintiff and a
similar amount as liquidated damages, post-judgment interest at
the highest legal rate, court costs and any further relief the
court grants.  He is represented by Brian D. Parish and Brian H.
Mahany of MahanyLaw in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:16-cv-00672-NJR-DGW


CALIFORNIA: Court Reduces Costs Assessed Against Boyd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARTHA BERNDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No.
03-cv-03174-NJV (N.D. Cal.), Judge Nandor J. Vadas granted the
plaintiff Lisa Boyd's motion to disallow certain costs as
unrecoverable under the law.  The defendants were awarded costs
against Boyd in the amount of $7,595.84.

The case was filed as a putative class action in 2003.  Boyd
joined the case on January 31, 2011, with the filing of the Fifth
Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
was denied by Judge Hamilton on March 20, 2012, and the case
proceeded with the ten named plaintiffs.  The defendants moved for
a judgment on the pleadings as to three of the plaintiffs, Raisa
Jeffries, Shelly Adcock, and Boyd, on the ground that these
plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The court
granted the defendants' motion on August 27, 2013, and the three
plaintiffs were dismissed from the action.

The case proceeded regarding the claims of the seven remaining
named plaintiffs.  The claims of six of the seven plaintiffs were
settled prior to trial.  The settling plaintiffs were the Estate
of Judy Longo, Marta Hastings, Sophia Curry, Karen Currie,
Kimberley Morin, and Patricia Moreira.

On March 14, 2016, judgment was entered in favor of the defendants
against Boyd.  On March 28, 2016, the defendants filed a Bill of
Costs seeking costs of $12,491.17.  Boyd objected and on April 29,
2016, the Clerk reduced the recoverable costs to $10,204.80.  Boyd
then petitioned the court to disallow certain costs as
unrecoverable under the law.

Judge Vadas found that it would be inequitable to assess costs
against Boyd related to litigation before she joined the case, or
attributable to any settling Plaintiff.  In light of the
defendants' undisputed failure to live up to its agreement to
provide proof that it has excluded costs attributable to any
settling plaintiff, Judge Vadas assessed costs against Boyd only
in the amount which she conceded are attributable to her.

A full-text copy of Judge Vadas' June 28, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/pIUSfY from Leagle.com.

Martha Berndt, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela Yvette Price --
votepyp@pypesq.com -- Law Offices of Pamela Y. Price, Siddharth
Jhans, Farrise Law Firm, Charles Stephen Ralston , John L. Burris,
The Law Offices of John L. Burris, Lance Randall Stewart, Farrise
Law Firm, P.C., Sharon Joellen Arkin, The Arkin Law Firm & Simona
A. Farrise, Farrise Law Firm.

The Estate of Judy Kay Longo, Marta Hastings, Sophia Curry,
Patricia Moreira, Karen Currie, Kimberley Morin, Plaintiffs,
represented by Pamela Yvette Price, Law Offices of Pamela Y.
Price, Charles Stephen Ralston, John L. Burris, The Law Offices of
John L. Burris, Lance Randall Stewart, Farrise Law Firm, P.C. &
Simona A. Farrise , Farrise Law Firm.

Shelly Adcock, Lisa R. Boyd, Raissa Jeffries, Plaintiffs,
represented by Pamela Yvette Price, Law Offices of Pamela Y.
Price, Charles Stephen Ralston, John L. Burris, The Law Offices of
John L. Burris & Simona A. Farrise, Farrise Law Firm.

California Department of Corrections, Teresa Schwartz, Joseph
McGrath, D. Skerik, Dwight W. Winslow, Defendants, represented by
Lyn Harlan, Attorney General's Office & Christopher Michael Young,
Office of the Attorney General.


CARPENTERS PENSION: Appeal Filed From Ruling in ERISA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal was filed by defendants from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Thomas Underwood, et al. v. Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-14464, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 11, 2016, Judge
Laurie J. Michelson granted in part:

     -- Plaintiff Roger Schleben's motion for damages; and

     -- Plaintiff Thomas E. Underwood's motions for prejudgment
        interest and for costs and attorney's fees,

        in the lawsuits styled ROGER SCHLEBEN v. CARPENTERS
        PENSION TRUST FUND -- DETROIT AND VICINITY, and TRUSTEES
        OF CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND -- DETROIT AND VICINITY;
        and THOMAS E. UNDERWOOD, individually and on behalf of
        all others similarly situated v. CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST
        FUND -- DETROIT AND VICINITY, and TRUSTEES OF CARPENTERS
        PENSION TRUST FUND -- DETROIT AND VICINITY, Defendants,
        Case Nos. 14-cv-11564, 13- cv-14464 (E.D. Mich.).

Messrs. Schleben and Underwood filed separate suits arising from
amendments to the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund-Detroit and
Vicinity (the "Plan") that were made by the fund's trustees which
reduced the disability benefits that Schleben, Underwood and
others had already started to receive.  The Plan is a
multiemployer benefits plan subject to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

In September 2014, Judge Michelson granted summary judgment in
Underwood's favor, holding that to the extent that the amendment
reduced the benefits that Underwood and other class members had
already started to receive on the date the amendment became
effective, it violated the Plan and was unenforceable.  Judge
Michelson also dismissed a motion to dismiss Schleben's complaint
for similar reasons.

In October 2014, the trustees amended the Plan's amendment
provision to permit amendments that reduce the benefits of
participants already receiving them.  In September 2015, Judge
Michelson held that the amendment violated the Plan's terms,
granting Underwood's and Schleben's motions for summary judgment.

These motions were then filed: (1) Schleben's motion for damages;
(2) Underwood's motion for prejudgment interest; and (3)
Underwood's motion for costs and attorneys' fees.

Judge Michelson granted in part:

          -- Schleben's Motion for Damages, and awarding
             Schleben: (1) prejudgment interest at a rate of
             5.48% to be applied using the stream of benefits
             method; (2) attorneys' fees of $71,110.00;
             (3) and costs of $416.52;

          -- Underwood's Motion for Prejudgment Interest, and
             awarding Underwood prejudgment interest at a rate of
             5.48% to be applied using the stream of benefits
             method; and

          -- Underwood's Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees,
             and awarding Underwood (1) attorneys' fees of
             $699,758.00; and (2) costs of $16,441.63.

A full-text copy of Michelson's March 2, 2016 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/CibBBNfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross-Appellants are Thomas E. Underwood
and Donald E. Lee, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

The Defendants-Appellants Cross-Appellees are Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund, Detroit & Vicinity, Pension Plan; and Trustees of
Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund - Detroit and Vicinity, Pension
Plan.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Underwood, et al. v.
Carpenters Pension Trust Fund, et al., Case No. 16-1883, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross-Appellants Thomas E. Underwood and
Donald E. Lee are represented by:

          Eva T. Cantarella, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (866) 775-5987
          Facsimile: (248) 335-3346
          E-mail: ecantarella@hertzschram.com

Defendants-Appellants Cross-Appellees Carpenters Pension Trust
Fund, Detroit & Vicinity, Pension Plan; and Trustees of
Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund - Detroit and Vicinity, Pension
Plan, are represented by:

          Edward J. Pasternak, Esq.
          NOVARA TESIJA, P.L.L.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 2370
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 354-0380


CATERPILLAR INC: September 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about
whether Caterpillar Inc. ("Caterpillar" or "Defendant") brand
engines with exhaust emission control systems, known as the CAT
Regeneration System ("CRS"), failed to work reliably, causing its
EPA 2007 Compliant Caterpillar On Highway C13 and C15 engines
(manufactured in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009), including the CRS
components incorporated therewith ("Subject Engines"), to lose
horsepower and shut down, requiring Caterpillar authorized dealer
technicians to repair the Subject Engines which they supposedly
could not effectively do.  The Defendant denies the allegations in
the lawsuit, and the Court has not decided who is right.

The Settlement includes all persons in the United States who are
original purchasers or original lessees, subsequent purchasers or
subsequent lessees, (including but not limited to those having
purchased via a TRAC option or some rights to residual purchase of
vehicles at lease end) of a vehicle powered by a Subject Engine.

The Settlement establishes a $60 million Settlement Fund for the
benefit of the Class.  All Class members who submit a valid claim
will be eligible to receive a pro rata share of the Net Settlement
Fund according to the following guidelines:

A. Class members who experienced no CRS Related Repairs are
eligible to receive (but not guaranteed) $500 for each Subject
Engine.

B. Class members who experienced one to five qualified CRS Related
Repairs are eligible to receive (but not guaranteed) $5,000 per
Subject Engine.

C. Class members who experienced six or more qualified CRS Related
Repairs are eligible to receive (but not guaranteed) $10,000.00
per Subject Engine.

Instead of seeking a payment as set forth in B. or C. above, each
eligible Class member that experienced at least one CRS Related
Repair has the option to seek to claim losses up to a maximum of
$15,000, experienced as a consequence of qualified CRS Related
Repairs.  These losses can include but not be limited to towing
charges, rental charges, and hotel charges.  In the event the
Class member seeks payment pursuant to this optional prove up
process, the Class member shall not be eligible to seek payment
under, B. or C. above.

Payments to eligible claimants may be adjusted pro rata (up or
down) depending on the number of eligible claims filed and the
total amount of the Settlement Fund available to pay claims.
Payments to Class members will exhaust the Net Settlement Fund.
No money will be returned to Caterpillar.

In order to receive a cash payment Class members must complete and
submit a valid Claim Form.  Claim Forms are available at
www.EngineSettlement.com or by calling 1-888-593-5379.  The
deadline to file a Claim is March 20, 2017.

Class members who do not want to be legally bound by the
Settlement must exclude themselves by August 6, 2016.  If Class
members do not timely exclude themselves, they will release any
claims they may have against Caterpillar relating to the lawsuit.
Class members may object to the Settlement by August 21, 2016.  A
Detailed Notice available on the website explains how to exclude
or object to the Settlement.  The Court will hold a Hearing on
September 20, 2016 to consider whether to approve the Settlement
and a request for attorneys' fees of up to 33.33% of the
Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of reasonable expenses and
service awards of $20,000 each to the Class Representatives.
Class members may appear at the hearing, but don't have to.  For
more information, call the toll free number or visit the website
www.EngineSettlement.com


CELATOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Palmisciano Seeks to Stop Sale to Jazz
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAULINE PALMISCIANO, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CELATOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MICHAEL R. DOUGHERTY,
SCOTT JACKSON, JOSEPH A. MOLLICA, JEAN-PIERRE BIZZARI, RICHARD S.
KOLLENDER, JOSEPH M. LOBACKI, SCOTT MORENSTEIN, and NICOLE
VITULLO, Case No. 3:16-cv-03814-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., June 27, 2016),
is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Celator to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Celator will be acquired by Jazz through Jazz's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Plex Merger Sub.

On May 31, 2016, Celator and Jazz issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated May 27, 2016, to sell Celator to Jazz.  Merger Sub
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares
of Celator common stock for $30.25 in cash for each share of
Celator they own.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $1.5 billion.

Celator, a Delaware corporation, is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company specializing in combination therapy and
developing products to improve outcomes for patients with cancer.
The Company's corporate headquarters are located in Ewing, New
Jersey.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.

Jazz is a public limited company organized under the laws of
Ireland with its corporate headquarters located in Dublin 4,
Ireland.  Jazz is a biopharmaceutical company specializing in
identifying, developing and commercializing pharmaceutical
products.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Jazz.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Rubin, Esq.
          NEUHAUSER, RUBIN & MENDLOWITZ, LLC
          701 Cross Street, Suite 266
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (516) 590-0544
          Facsimile: (516) 506-0832
          E-mail: arubin@nrmlawllc.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
                  kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


CENTURYTEL OF MISSOURI: Mo. Junks Untimely Appeal in "Sanford"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KYLE SANFORD, Respondent, v. CENTURYTEL OF
MISSOURI, LLC d/b/a CENTURYLINK, Appellant, No. SC95465 (Mo.), the
Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed CenturyTel of Missouri LLC's
appeal from the trial court's order sustaining Kyle Sanford's
motion for partial summary judgment and overruling CenturyLink's
motion to compel arbitration.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because CenturyLink did not
timely file its appeal within 10 days of entry of the order
denying arbitration.

On December 3, 2012, Kyle Sanford filed a class action petition in
the trial court against CenturyLink, alleging that CenturyLink
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, section
407.020, by charging customers a "Universal Service Fund
Surcharge" on its high-speed internet services.  CenturyLink
responded to Sanford's petition by moving to dismiss or stay trial
court proceedings and to compel arbitration under the parties'
agreement.  CenturyLink argued that Sanford agreed to its
"Internet Services Agreement," which contains a mandatory
arbitration clause for "any and all claims, controversies or
disputes of any kind."

Following a hearing, the trial court, on July 10, 2014, entered an
order denying arbitration: "After hearing and review of the
pleadings the Court finds there is no genuine issue of material
fact on the issue of consideration and the issue of arbitrability
and the Movant is entitled to Partial Summary Judgment as a matter
of law.  Partial Summary Judgment is entered in favor of the
Plaintiff as prayed."

"The trial court's July 10, 2014 order sustaining Mr. Sanford's
motion for partial summary judgment and overruling CenturyLink's
motion to compel arbitration is an interlocutory order that was
appealable under section 435.440 immediately upon entry.  Rule
81.04(a) required CenturyLink to file a notice of appeal 10 days
after entry of the order.  It failed to do so until August 18,
2014, and, therefore, CenturyLink's appeal is dismissed as
untimely," the Supreme Court of said.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 28, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/V13KWH from Leagle.com.


CHASE BANK: Doyley Appeals From Ruling in "Gehrich" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Tamiqueca J. Doyley filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Jonathan Gehrich, et al. v. Chase Bank USA,
N.A., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-05510, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 29,
2016, District Judge Gary Feinerman denied Objector Tamiqueca
Johnson Doyley's motion for attorney fees, expenses, and an
incentive award in the case.

In July 2012, Jonathan Gehrich filed the class action against
Chase Bank for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  On March 2, 2016, the Court certified the
settlement class and modified and approved a proposed settlement,
which provides for, among other things, $21,531,656 to the
Collection Call Subclass and Court-approved attorney fees and
costs of $7,257,914.

On March 2, 2016, the day the court issued the final approval
order, Ms. Doyley moved for $285,000 or $297,000 in attorney fees,
$9,216 in costs, and an incentive award "equal to or greater than"
$1,500.  She premises her fee request on the Court's reallocation
of $950,000 from the proposed dedicated $1 million cy pres
distribution to the Collection Call Subclass.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Jonathan Gehrich, et al. v.
Chase Bank USA, N.A., et al., Case No. 16-2791, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jonathan I. Gehrich, Robert Lund, Corey
Goldstein, Paul Stemple and Carrie Couser are represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Jonathan I. Gehrich is represented by:

          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N. 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Robert Lund is represented by:

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com

Appellant Tamiqueca J. Doyley is represented by:

          Alan G. Geffin, Esq.
          GPG LAW
          101 N.E. Third Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-5530
          E-mail: alan@gpglawfirm.com

Defendants- Appellees Chase Bank USA, N.A., and J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A., are represented by:

          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN
          2029 Century Park E.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-0000
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          Facsimile: (310) 556-5959
          E-mail: jstrickland@stroock.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: "Cummings" Fraud Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyece Cummings and Daniel Lapka, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chesapeake Energy
Group, its Affiliates and its Guarantors, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02338, (S.D. N.Y., March 30, 2016) was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
on June 14, 2016, and assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00647.

According to the complaint, Chesapeake impaired holder's rights to
receive payment of the principal and interest under the Class
Notes held by Class members who elected to exchange their Class
Notes for 8.00% Notes.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. is an Oklahoma energy company.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon Z. Novod, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. (NY)
     485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (646) 722-8500
     Fax: (646) 722-8501

          - and -

     James Stuart Notis, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (201) 567-7377
     Fax: (201) 567-7337

          - and -

     Meagan Alicia Farmer, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     Tower 56, 126 E. 56th St. 8th fl.
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 905-0509
     Fax: (212) 905-0508

Defendant is represented by:

     Jason Michael Halper, Esq.
     ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP (NYC)
     51 West 52nd Street
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel:(212) 506-5000
     Fax: (212) 506-5151

          - and -

      Robert P Varian, Esq.
      ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE-SAN FRANCISCO
      405 Howard St
      The Orrick Building
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 773-5934
      Fax: (415) 773-5759
      Email: rvarian@orrick.com


CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: Del. Ch. Denies Chang's Motions
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Chang, v. Children's Advocacy Center of
Delaware, Inc., C.A. No. 11632-VCS (Del. Ch.), Judge Joseph R.
Slights, III of the Court of Chancery of Delaware addressed three
motions recently filed by the plaintiff, Weih Steve Chang, as
follows:

          (1) The Motion to Reopen Jane Doe 30 vs. Earl B.
              Bradley (CA No. 10C-05-023) By Granting Joinder of
              Persons/Parties was denied.  To the extent the
              Motion to Reopen seeks an order for leave to amend
              the complaint to name additional defendants related
              to the Bradley litigation, the motion was likewise
              denied.

          (2) The Motion to Recuse was denied.

          (3) The Motion to Stay was denied.

A full-text copy of the Court of Chancery's June 29, 2016 ruling
is available at https://is.gd/8smyFo from Leagle.com.


CHUBB LTD: Faces "Boesch" Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREG BOESCH, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, vs. Chubb Ltd.
d/b/a Chubb Group of Insurance Cos.; Federal Insurance Co.; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-03536-MEJ (N.D.
Cal., June 23, 2016), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
appropriate overtime compensation, provide or authorize meal and
rest periods, and maintain accurate time records, in addition to
restitution, interest, penalties, and injunctive relief in
violation of state law, rules, regulations, and Wage Orders of the
Industrial Welfare Commission.

Defendants operate a property and casualty insurance company in
the United States and offer commercial, specialty, surety, and
personal insurance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
     Logan Starr, Esq.
     BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
     1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 444-9300
     Fax: (510) 444-9301
     E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
             logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com


CITE LLC: Faces "Smith" Suit in N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against CITE, LLC. The case is captioned
Brian Smith, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITE, LLC, Evangeline Gouletas, and
John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06314 (N.D. Ill.,
June 17, 2016).

CITE is in the eating places industry in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CLAUDIA ARANGO: Violates FLSA in Florida, "Zait" Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIANGELA ZAIT, and all others similarly situated v. CLAUDIA G.
ARANGO, MD, P.A., a Florida professional association, and CLAUDIA
G. ARANGO, M.D., individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-22716-RNS (S.D.
Fla., June 27, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
alleged willful violations of overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Claudia G. Arango, MD, P.A., operates a medical clinic, and
regularly transacted business within Miami-Dade County, Florida,
including the work performed by the Plaintiff while she was
employed by the Defendants.  Claudia Arango, M.D., has operational
control over the Defendant Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 923-5899
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


CLAWFOOT SUPPLY: Faces "Russell" Suit in D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CLAWFOOT SUPPLY,
LLC. The case is captioned RYAN RUSSELL INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CLAWFOOT
SUPPLY, LLC doing business as SIGNATURE HARDWARE, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-03568-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., June 20, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Michael A. Shipp.

Clawfoot Supply was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes manufacturing plumbing fixture fittings and trim
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark W. Morris, Esq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM
          811 16th Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443 0333
          E-mail: mmorris@clarklawnj.com


CONT 516: Faces "Sheehan" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONT 516 WEST 136TH
REALTY CORP. The case is styled SHEEHAN, JOHN INDIV AND OBO
HIMSELF AS A MEMBER OF HARAN REALTY CO, LLC AND SABOSA REALTY CO,
LLC, AND OBO OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF SAID LTD LIABILITY COMPANIES
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CONT 516 WEST 136TH REALTY
CORP, AKS 183RD REALTY LLC, AMANDA 181 REALTY LLC, DRIMA ASSETS
INC, DRIMA ASSETS LLC, NATHALIA 4419 3RD AVENUE LLC, BRIGGS TOWER
LLC, 2215 REALTY LLC, ALLUKE LLC, 2160 & 2162 LLC, JOHN DOE' AND
JANE DOE INTEDED TO BE THE NAMES OF ANY PERSONS OR ENTITIES IN
POSSESSION OF THE ASSETS OF HARAN REALTY CO.; CONT EAST 163RD LLC,
3042 LLC, 666 LLC, 703 WEST 180TH REALTY CO, LLC, FERRAB REALTY
LLC, 684 EAST 222ND REALTY CO, LLC, EAST 199TH ST LLC, WILLRAB
REALTY CORP, 96 WADSWORTH LLC, 2296 REALTY LLC, 2550 BAINBRIDGE
CORP, 2960 & 3029 LLC, ISWIL REALTY CORP, RAQUEL REALTY LLC,
VALENTINE TOWERS LLC, WIIS REALTY LLC, 3230 RADCLIFF; and CONT LLC
AND SABOSA REALTY CO LLC, HARAN REALTY CO, LLC, AND SABOSA REALTY
CO, LLC; ZADRIMA, JAC , WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, SALLY RABINE, GENESIS
REALTY GROUP, LLC, TWO BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION LLC, EXPERT PLUMBING
CORP, RABINE RALTY CORP, 116 MOSHOLU LLC, 151 NAGLE REALTY CORP,
1225 REALTY CORP, 1250-1260 REALTY CO LLC, 1343 REALTY LLC, 1651
LLC, 1735 REALTY LLC, 2008 REALTY LLC, 2764-66 REALTY LLC, Case
No. 612716/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 20, 2016). The assigned Judge
is Hon. Jerry Garguilo.

CONT 516 and other defendants are real estate agents and managers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          BARNES & BARNES, P.C.
          445 Broadhollow Rd, Ste 229
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (516) 673-0674

The Defendants are represented by:

          WESTERMAN BALL EDERER MILLER
          1201 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556
          Telephone: (516) 622 9200


CONTICO CORP: Sued by Lead Worker/Foreman Over Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL POOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONTICO CORP., Case No. 2:16-cv-03815-JHR-JS (D.N.J.,
June 27, 2016) is brought as a collective action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated -- non-exempt
construction lead worker/foreman -- who allegedly suffered damages
as a result of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the Defendant's Web site, "Conti delivers turnkey
construction projects across the United States and around the
world."  Headquartered in Edison, New Jersey, Contico performs
construction development, engineering, design, building,
management and maintenance services, both commercial and
governmental projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P. A.
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Building 2, Suite 220
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA: Denial of Class Cert. in "Limmer" Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Iowa reversed the trial court's denial of
a class action certification in the case captioned CARLA M.
LIMMER, as Trustee of the Carla M. Limmer Trust, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA, Defendant-Appellee,
No. 15-0723 (Iowa Ct. App.).  The case was remanded for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 29, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/NJJFFU from Leagle.com.

In January 2015, Carla Limmer, as trustee of the Carla M. Limmer
Trust, filed a complaint for declaratory order, judgment, and
injunctive relief, in which she challenged a property registration
fee imposed by the defendant, the City of Council Bluffs.  The fee
in question was part of a rental registration program that charged
owners of residential real estate $15 per rental unit.  Limmer
sought a declaration that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost to
administer the registration program and thus unconstitutionally
acted as a tax on real estate owners, an injunction from enforcing
the registration fee, and an award of monetary damages for
payments made by her as registration fees that exceeded the
reasonable cost to administer the registration program.


CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Sallustro" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Tanya Sallustro remains
pending.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares
of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.
The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).
Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent
to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a
motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the
litigation.  On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling
appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff.  Counsel for Mr. Schuck
filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015. On
December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

After requesting several extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016.  The
Company's reply brief was filed on April 25, 2016.  No hearing
date has been set by the Court at this time.

Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an
estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time.

The Company operates two distinct business segments: a specialty
pharmaceutical segment focused on developing and commercializing
novel therapeutics utilizing synthetic Cannabidiol ("CBD"); and, a
consumer product segment in manufacturing, marketing and selling
plant-based CBD products to a range of market sectors.


CYPRESS GROUP: Sued by Anti-Money Laundering Worker in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees v. THE CYPRESS GROUP, LLC, a Domestic Corporation,
REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation and REGIONS
BANK, a Domestic Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-01043-SGC (N.D.
Ala., June 27, 2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
other "Anti-Money Laundering Analyst" or Anti-Money Laundering
Investigator" employees and former employees similarly situated to
her, who elect to opt into the action, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Cypress Group, LLC, is a Domestic Business Corporation, doing
business in Birmingham (Jefferson County), Alabama.  Regions
Financial Corporation is a Foreign Corporation with its
headquarters located in Birmingham.  Regions Bank is a Domestic
Business Corporation, doing business in Birmingham.

Cypress is a professional accounting, financial services and human
resources firm specializing in delivering project management and
skilled professionals for mid to long-term projects.

Regions Financial Corporation is one of the nation's largest full-
service providers of consumer and commercial banking, wealth
management, mortgage and insurance products and services.  Regions
Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regions Financial
Corporation, and it operates approximately 1,600 banking offices
and 2,000 ATMs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick G. Montgomery, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN ALABAMA, PLLC
          63 S. Royal Street, Street 710
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 800-6030
          Facsimile: (251) 800-6061
          E-mail: pmontgomery@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
          E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com
                  RMorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew. R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33824
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Approves $50MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mansfield, wriitng for VTDigger, reports that a federal judge
has approved a $50 million settlement in a class-action dairy
pricing lawsuit in the Northeast, a landmark step after seven
years of antitrust litigation that has affected nearly 9,000
farms.

Chief Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District of Vermont
approved the settlement in Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America on
June 7.  The decision came three weeks after a fairness hearing
May 13, where farmers and officials across the region supported
the settlement.

The class-action case, filed in 2009, alleged that Dairy Farmers
of America Inc. conspired to become the sole seller of Grade A
milk in the Northeast.  The nonprofit cooperative, according to
the lawsuit, is not member-focused and forced small farmers to
join in order to avoid market pressures that would put them out of
business.

Farmers also alleged that DFA used a closely affiliated for-profit
company, Dairy Marketing Services, to become the sole buyer of
Grade A milk and drive down milk prices.  They alleged the
defendants violated federal antitrust laws and, when directed to
take action to remedy the situation, thwarted instructions by the
U.S. Department of Justice and several state's attorneys.

"We believe the settlement is an excellent one for dairy farmers
in the Northeast," lawyers at the firm Cohen Milstein representing
the farmers said in a statement on June 27.  "We intend to defend
the settlement and the court's decision granting final approval to
it on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd
Circuit."

Two farmers, Jonathan and Claudia Harr, have decided to appeal the
settlement to the appeals court in New York City.  The Harrs
previously led a small cohort of farmers who sought to fire the
lawyers, including those at Cohen Milstein.  Judge Reiss wrote in
her June 7 decision that the farmers presented no evidence showing
wrongdoing by the lawyers.

The $50 million settlement works out to $16.7 million for the
farmers' lawyers.  About 9,000 farms will each get about $4,000,
and at least 7,551 have already submitted claims under the
settlement.  The money is in addition to a $30 million settlement
that Dean Foods Co. paid out in 2011 to drop its name from the
case.

The approved settlement is the third proposed in the seven-year
case.  Judge Reiss declined to rule on the first settlement in
April 2015, prompting the small group of plaintiffs to seek to
fire the lawyers.  The second came in August, and it was amended
in December.

"The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation
weigh heavily in favor of approving the (settlement)," Judge Reiss
wrote.  "Any trial would be a substantial additional expense and a
time-consuming process, which would be exacerbated by the fact
that neither party is presently engaged in trial preparations."

Judge Reiss also wrote that the $50 million settlement was a
"modest recovery" but "not insubstantial" when added to the $30
million settlement from 2011, and "when viewed against the
backdrop of the risks of continued litigation."  The settlement is
also "more extensive" than what Judge Reiss would order if the
case went to trial.

The settlement does not require Dairy Farmers of America to say it
violated antitrust laws or conspired to bring down the price of
milk.  Instead, the settlement requires the cooperative to change
its behavior.

Among the requirements of the agreement:

   -- Dairy Farmers of America and Dairy Marketing Services must
allow farmers to leave the cooperative and join a competing
cooperative, and the parties are not allowed to retaliate against
any farmers for participating in the lawsuit.

   -- Dairy Farmers of America and Dairy Marketing Services must
disclose certain financial information and fund an independent
advisory counsel for four years to review the financial
information.  For five years, a farmer ombudsperson will work to
investigate and resolve any complaints from farmers.

   -- A market administrator must facilitate independent testing
of one of the cooperative's laboratories and give a report.
Farmers will be allowed to get "split samples" of their milk so
they can test their milk at independent labs up to three times a
year at no cost.  There will be new standards for five years
requiring reporting if a test shows that milk has been
adulterated.

   -- Dairy Farmers of America and Dairy Marketing Services cannot
obtain a controlling interest in Dairy One, a milk testing
organization, for 10 years, and DFA members cannot hold a majority
of seats on the Dairy One board.

   -- Seven Dairy Farmers of America members and two independent
advisers will form an audit committee to monitor compliance with
the judge-approved settlement.  The nine-person committee must
report on compliance at the Dairy Farmers of America annual
meeting.


DEBT RECOVERY: Faces "Gil" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debt Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned Daniel Gil, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Debt
Recovery Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03287
(E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2016).

Debt Recovery is a New York-based debt collection company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEMOINE DECLOUETTE: Faces "Carrasco" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARRASCO, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, v. DEMOINE DECLOUETTE, Case 2:16-cv-11128 (E.D. La.,
June 21, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Demoine Declouette maintains a construction company
operating out of Rayne, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 483-8008
     E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

        - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeals Ruling in Suit by Disabled Children
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation; Michelle
Rhee, Chancellor; and Deborah Gist, District of Columbia State
Superintendent of Education filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled DL, et al. v. DC, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
01437-RCL, in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 31, 2016, District
Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered judgment in favor of the
Plaintiffs, finding the District liable for violating the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, District law, and the
Rehabilitation Act, and entitled the Plaintiffs to declaratory and
injunctive relief.

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

On June 21, Judge Lamberth issued a Corrected Memorandum Opinion &
Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law, a copy of which is
available at https://is.gd/RrMjlp from Leagle.com.  The Order
issued on May 18 is consistent with the corrected findings of fact
and conclusions of law.

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

The Plaintiffs are former preschool-age children in the District
with various disabilities, allege that the Defendants have
systemically failed to provide, or failed to timely provide,
special education and related services to them and other children,
in violation of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq., section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a), and
District of Columbia law.

The Plaintiffs have been divided into four subclasses and brought
claims that correspond to distinct requirements of the IDEA.  More
specifically, the Plaintiffs' claims relate to the District's
alleged failures to identify substantial numbers of children who
are in need of special education and related services, timely
evaluate children for special education and related services,
timely issue eligibility determinations for special education and
related services, and provide smooth and effective transitions for
children from Part C to Part B services.

The appellate case is captioned as DL, et al. v. DC, et al., Case
No. 16-7076, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees DL; Tameka Ford, Parent and Next Friend of
D.L.; JB; Leah Bland, Parent and Next Friend of JB; FD; Frederick
Davy, Parent and Next Friend of FD; Monica Davy, Parent and Next
Friend of FD; TF; Angelique Moore, Parent and Next Friend of TF;
Timothy Lantry; Arlette Mankemi; Kerianne Piester; TL; Ronald
Wisor; XY; Bryan Young; and Tammika Young are represented by:

          Bruce Jerome Terris, Esq.
          TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP
          1121 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-4632
          Telephone: (202) 682-2100
          E-mail: bterris@tpmlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants District of Columbia, Michelle Rhee and
Deborah Gist are represented by:

          Loren L. AliKhan, Esq.
          DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          441 4th Street, NW
          One Judiciary Square, Sixth Floor
          Washington, DC 20001-2714
          Telephone: (202) 727-3400
          E-mail: loren.alikhan@dc.gov


EDEGREE ADVISOR: Sued for Violating FLSA and New York Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EDEGREE ADVISOR, LLC, GLOBAL SERVICES TECH LLC, and
HELIOS MEDIA LLC, Case No. 7:16-cv-05016-NSR (S.D.N.Y., June 27,
2016), is brought to recover monetary relief arising from the
Defendants' alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act, the New York's Wage Theft
Prevention Act, and the State of New York Department of Labor's
Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations.
The Plaintiff asserts the FLSA claims not only individually, but
also on behalf of this class of potential opt-in plaintiffs:

     Any individual who worked as an hourly-paid Manager or Team
     Leader for Helios Media and/or EDegree Advisor anywhere in
     the United States at any time within the past three (3)
     years (the "FLSA Collective").

Edegree Advisor, LLC, is a Delaware State limited liability
company, headquartered in Clearwater, Florida.  Global Services
Tech LLC is a Delaware State limited liability company with a
mailing address of 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 303, in Wilmington,
Delaware.  Helios Media LLC is an Arizona State limited liability
company, headquartered in Clearwater, Florida.

The Defendants employ a team of "Advisors" base-level employees,
who make telephone calls to potential applicants to vet them and
induce them to apply to the for-profit online educational
institutions that the Defendants serve.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd St. #4,
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: Jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  Nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


FCA US: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Defective" Gear Shifter
----------------------------------------------------------
DERYL WALL, JUSTINE ANDOLLO, and DANIELLE AND JOBY HACKETT, on
behalf of themselves and persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
Case 5:16-cv-01341-TJH-JPR (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2016), on behalf
of all other owners or lessees of 2012-14 Dodge Chargers and
Chrysler 300s, and 2014-15 Jeep Grand Cherokees that allegedly has
defective gear shifter.

FCA (commonly referred to as Chrysler) is a motor vehicle
manufacturer and a licensed distributor of new, previously
untitled Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram brand motor vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

        - and -

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


FIFTH STREET: FSC Class Action Ongoing in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Defendants
were scheduled to respond to the consolidated complaint in the FSC
class-action lawsuits by May 31, 2016.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative
securities class-action lawsuits arising from its role as
investment adviser to FSC. The first lawsuit was filed on October
1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall, Trustee,
Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust
UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-07759-LAK. The second lawsuit was filed on October 14,
2015, in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v. Fifth Street
Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488. The case was later
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where it is pending as Case No. 16-cv-00088-
LAK. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908-LAK. The defendants in all three
cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C.
Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Richard Petrocelli, FSC,
and the Company.

The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased FSC common stock between July 7, 2014, and
February 6, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuits allege in general terms
that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme
designed to artificially inflate the true value of FSC's
investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase
FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as the asset manager and
investment advisor (through subsidiaries) of FSC. For example, the
lawsuits allege that FSC improperly delayed the write-down of five
of its investments until the fiscal quarter ending in December 31,
2014, after FSAM had conducted its IPO in October 2014, when FSC
purportedly should have taken the write-down before FSAM's IPO.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought in any of the actions. On February 1, 2016,
the court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System
as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff filed its consolidated complaint on April
1, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges claims similar to
those pled in the original complaints on behalf of the same
putative class. Defendants were scheduled to respond to the
consolidated complaint by May 31, 2016.


FIFTH STREET: Plaintiff's Request for Legal Cost Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in
a class action lawsuit are in the process of briefing plaintiff's
request for that fee.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder of FSC on January
29, 2016, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The
case is captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et al., C.A.
No. 11947-VCG. The defendants in the case are Bernard D. Berman,
James Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn, Richard P.
Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G. Owens,
Douglas F. Ray, Fifth Street Management LLC, FSC, Fifth Street
Holdings L.P., and the Company.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to FSC stockholders by, among other things, issuing an
incomplete or inaccurate preliminary proxy statement that
purportedly attempted to mislead FSC stockholders into voting
against proposals presented by another shareholder (RiverNorth
Capital Management) in a proxy contest in connection with FSC's
2016 annual meeting. The competing shareholder proposals sought to
elect three director nominees to FSC's Board and to terminate the
Investment Advisory Agreement between FSC and the Company. The
complaint also charges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by perpetuating and failing to terminate the
Investment Advisory Agreement and by seeking to entrench
themselves as directors and FSAM affiliates as FSC's manager. The
FSAM entities are charged with breaching their duties as alleged
controlling persons of FSC and with aiding and abetting the FSC
directors' breaches of duty. The complaint seeks, among other
things, an injunction preventing FSC and its board of directors
from soliciting proxies for the 2016 annual meeting until
additional disclosures are issued; a declaration that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to
terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement and by acting to have
the FSC board of directors and Fifth Street Management LLC remain
in place; a declaration that any shares repurchased by FSC after
the record date of the 2016 annual meeting will not be considered
outstanding shares for purposes of the FSC stockholder approvals
sought at the annual meeting; and awarding plaintiff costs and
disbursements. The plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings and
for a preliminary injunction.

Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings
and moved to dismiss the case. FSC also filed another amendment to
the preliminary proxy statement, making additional disclosures
relating to issues raised by plaintiff and RiverNorth. On February
16, 2016, plaintiff informed the Delaware court that the basis for
his injunction motion had become moot and that he was withdrawing
his motions for a preliminary injunction and expedited
proceedings.

On February 18, 2016, FSC announced that it had entered into an
agreement with RiverNorth pursuant to which RiverNorth would
withdraw its competing proxy solicitation. Plaintiff later
informed the court that his case has become moot, and plaintiff
moved for a "mootness fee." The parties are in the process of
briefing plaintiff's request for that fee.

The Company believes that, with respect to itself and its related
entities, all of the claims in the above described lawsuits are
without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend against such
claims.


FIFTH STREET: Glancy Prongay & Murray Appointed as Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has
appointed Kiernan and Susan Duffy as lead plaintiffs and the law
firm of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel in the FSAM
class-action lawsuits.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two putative
securities class-action lawsuits filed by purchasers of the
Company's shares. The suit is related to the above shareholder
class actions brought by shareholders of FSC, for which Fifth
Street Management serves as investment adviser.

The first lawsuit by the Company's shareholders was filed on
January 7, 2016 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and is captioned Ronald K. Linde, etc. v.
Fifth Street Asset Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00025. The defendants are the Company, Leonard M. Tannenbaum,
Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne
Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison, and Frank C. Meyer.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities who purchased common stock in or pursuant to
the Company's October 30, 2014 IPO. The complaint alleges that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct to
artificially inflate FSC's assets and investment income and, in
turn, the Company's valuation at the time of its IPO, thereby
rendering the Company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus
materially false and misleading. The plaintiffs have not
quantified their claims for relief.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted the Company's unopposed
motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, where the case can be
coordinated with the securities class actions filed by FSC
shareholders. The case is now pending in the Southern District of
New York as Case No. 1:16-cv-01941-LAK. On April 22, 2016, the
court appointed Kiernan and Susan Duffy as lead plaintiffs and the
law firm of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel. Lead
plaintiffs had until June 13, 2016 to file an amended complaint if
they wish to do so.

On March 7, 2016, the other putative class action by the Company's
shareholders was filed, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The case is captioned Joyce L.
Trupp Agreement of Trust v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et
al., No. 1:16-cv-01711. The defendants are the same as in the
Linde case, and the complaint is a virtual clone of the Linde
complaint. The Trupp plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her case
before lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed in the
Linde case.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
vigorously to defend itself against the plaintiffs' allegations.


FIRST STUDENT: "Chavez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Manuel Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. First Student, Inc., an entity, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00562 (D.
Colo., December, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages for off-the-
clock work, failure to pay minimum wage, inaccurate paycheck
statements, failure to pay all wages due upon the end of
employment, unfair business practices claims, and breach of oral
contract under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by First Student as bus drivers and
driver assistants, in the intrastate transportation of students to
local municipal schools and providing students intrastate
transportation to extracurricular activities.

The Defendants allegedly do not compensate the Plaintiffs for
prep-time period prior to actual bus trip as well as the post
inspection activities they conduct after the buses are parked.

First Student Management LLC is a corporation located at 1812
South 12th Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania and is a subsidiary of
First Student Inc., a foreign corporation located at 705 Central
Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio. Defendants operate out of approximately
37 separate bus yards in the state of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
     Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
     Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
     550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
     Glendale, CA 91203-1922
     Telephone: (818) 547-5200
     Email: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com
            mike.falveylaw@gmail.com,
            armand.falveylaw@gmail.com

          - and -

     Carol L. Gillam, Esq.
     Sara Heum, Esq.
     THE GILLAM LAW FIRM
     10866 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Telephone: (310) 203-9977
     Fax: (310) 203-9922
     Email: carol@gillamlaw.com
            sara@gillamlaw.com


FITNESS EVOLUTION: Sued Over Unauthorized Bank Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Fresno County man has filed a class-action suit against a
gym services provider alleging it automatically debited his bank
account without pre-authorization.

Jogert Abrantes filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on June 23 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California against Fitness Evolution LLC
alleging violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he had an
agreement for Fitness 19 to deduct $24 from his account on a
reoccurring basis.  The suit states that this account was
transferred to the defendant.  The plaintiff holds Fitness
Evolution LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly deducted
more than $24 from plaintiff's account monthly without his
authorization and without providing plaintiff any written
electronic signature authorizing this payments.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory damages
of $1,000 per class member, actual damages, interest, all legal
fees and any other relief as this court deems just.  He is
represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices
of Todd M. Friedman PC in Beverly Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 1:16-cv-00903-LJO-SKO


FLORIDA OPPORTUNITY: Faces "Ledon" Suit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Opportunity
Real Estate Investment, LLC. The case is captioned Mario Ledon
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-22304-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Federico A. Moreno.

Florida Opportunity specializes in commercial real estate
investments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


GENCOR NUTRIENTES: 9th Cir. Reinstates Portion of "Bitton" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed in
part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the dismissal with
prejudice of the putative class action complaint in the case
captioned MICHAEL BITTON; BRIAN O'TOOLE; ROBERT SOKOLOVE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENCOR NUTRIENTES, INC., a California
corporation; GE NUTRIENTS, INC., a California corporation; JITH
VEERAVALLI, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Gencor
and GE Nutrients; GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania
corporation; GNC CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; GENERAL
NUTRITION CENTERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; S&G PROPERTIES,
LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company; DIRECT DIGITAL LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; BRANDON ADCOCK, an
individual; PAUL REICHELT, an individual; JOHN KIM, an individual;
TRUDEMA, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; FORCE FACTOR
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees,
No. 14-56381 (9th Cir.).

The complaint was filed by Michael Bitton, Brian O'Toole, and
Robert Sokolove against Gencor Nutrients, Inc., and GE Nutrients,
Inc. ("Gencor"); Direct Digital, LLC, Truderma, LLC, and Force
Factor, LLC, ("Wholesalers"); General Nutrition Corporation and
related entities ("GNC"); and several executives of the named
corporate entities.  Gencor manufactures Testofen -- an extract of
the herb fenugreek.  The Wholesalers and GNC manufacture
nutritional supplements containing Testofen, which GNC sells to
the public.

Gencor claimed that a "double-blind, randomized, placebo-
controlled human clinical study" established "statistically
significant results" showing increases in "free testosterone" in
study participants who took Testofen.  The plaintiffs alleged that
they purchased Testofen products in reliance on this
representation, which they alleged is false.  Although the
plaintiffs conceded that Gencor conducted a clinical trial, the
complaint alleged that the trial's results -- when subjected to
"universally-accepted principles of statistical analysis," which
require adjustment for the likelihood of a "false positive" when
multiple variables are analyzed -- do not establish a
"statistically significant" increase in free testosterone levels
in study participants.  The complaint alleged that application of
the "simplest and most commonly used method of making such
adjustments" -- the "Bonferroni correction" -- establishes that
the trial's results as to free testosterone are not statistically
significant.  These allegations were supported by an expert report
(the "Jewell report"), attached to the complaint, which critiqued
Gencor's Testofen study and concluded that Gencor's claims as to
the study's results were false.

The complaint asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), claims under California and
New York false advertising and deceptive business practices
statutes; breach of express and implied warranties; negligent
misrepresentation; and common law fraud and restitution.  The
district court dismissed all claims with prejudice.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit (1) reversed the dismissal of the
California and New York statutory claims and the negligent
misrepresentation claim; (2) affirmed the dismissal of the civil
RICO and fraud claims and claims against Gencor CEO Jith
Veeravalli; and (3) vacated the dismissal with prejudice of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and breach of warranty
claims.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 28, 2016 memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/tpKy2l from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Armenti" Sues Over Vehicle Mileage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Donna Armenti, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01473 (S.D. Cal., June 14,
2016), seeks temporary and permanent enjoinment, restitution or
restitutionary disgorgement of all illegally obtained amounts
obtained by Defendants as a result of their misconduct with pre
and post-judgment interest, appropriate equitable relief and legal
costs for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California False
Advertising Law.

Defendant allegedly falsely represented in promotional materials
that their vehicles would achieve 17 miles per gallon in city
driving, 24 on highways and combined fuel economy of 19 despite
Plaintiffs' claims that they achieved materially less miles per
gallon than advertised.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal office located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit,
Michigan 48265. It manufactured, distributed, advertised,
promoted, sold, leased and warranted the affected vehicles.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
     Natasha N. Serino, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
     16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
     San Diego, CA 92127
     Tel: (858) 485-6535
     Fax: (858) 485-0608
     Email: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
            natashaserino@amslawoffice.com

          - and -

     James R. Hail, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JAMES R. HAIL
     1113 Bow Willow Trail Way
     Chula Vista, CA 91915
     Tel: (619) 213-2972
     Email: jim@haillawoffice.com


GODADDY.COM: Faces "Bennett" Suit in S.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The case is captioned Jason Bennett, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00291-N (S.D. Ala., June 20, 2016).

GoDaddy is a publicly traded Internet domain registrar and web
hosting company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Cox, Esq.
          9786 A Timber Circle
          Spanish Fort, AL 36527
          Telephone: (251) 517 4753
          E-mail: federalcourt.notices.jrclegal@gmail.com


GOOGLE INC: Defeats Parents' Appeal in Nickelodeon Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Google and Viacom on June 27 defeated an
appeal in a nationwide class action lawsuit by parents who claimed
the companies illegally tracked the online activity of children
under the age of 13 who watched videos and played video games on
Nickelodeon's website.

By a 3-0 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia said Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., and Viacom Inc.
were not liable under several federal and state laws for planting
"cookies" on boys' and girls' computers, to gather data that
advertisers could use to send targeted ads.

The court also revived one state law privacy claim against Viacom,
claiming that it promised on the Nick.com website not to collect
children's personal information, but did so anyway.

The June 27 decision largely upheld a January 2015 ruling by U.S.
District Judge Stanley Chesler in Newark, New Jersey.  It returned
the surviving claim to him.

Jay Barnes, a lawyer for the parents, declined to comment.

Viacom spokesman Jeremy Zweig said the company is pleased with the
dismissals and confident it will prevail on the remaining claim.
"Nickelodeon is proud of its record on children's privacy issues
and strongly committed to the best practices in the industry," he
added.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The June 27 decision is a fresh setback for computer users, after
the same appeals court last November 10 said Google was not liable
under federal privacy laws for bypassing cookie blockers on Apple
Inc.'s Safari browser and Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer
browser.

Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes, who wrote both decisions, said that
ruling doomed many of the parents' claims against Mountain View,
California-based Google and New York-based Viacom.

He also rejected the parents' claims under the Video Privacy
Protection Act, a 1988 law adopted a year after a newspaper wrote
about movies rented by failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork,
based on a list provided by a video store.

Judge Fuentes said the law was meant to thwart the collection of
data to help monitor people's video-watching behavior.

He said Congress, despite amending the law in 2013, never updated
it to cover the collection of data such as users' IP addresses,
browser settings and operating settings, and reflect a
"contemporary understanding" of Internet privacy.

"Some disclosures predicated on new technology, such as the
dissemination of precise GPS coordinates or customer ID numbers,
may suffice," Judge Fuentes wrote.  "But others -- including the
kinds of disclosures described by the plaintiffs here -- are
simply too far afield from the circumstances that motivated the
act's passage to trigger liability."

The revived privacy claim accused Viacom of reneging on a promise
on Nick.com that said: "HEY GROWN-UPS: We don't collect ANY
personal information about your kids.  Which means we couldn't
share it even if we wanted to!"

Judge Fuentes said a reasonable jury might find Viacom liable for
"intrusion upon seclusion" if it found its alleged privacy
intrusion "highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable man."

The case is In re: Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation, 3rd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-1441.


GRANITE SOURCE: Faces "Raudales" Suit Over Unpaid OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARWIN J. RAUDALES and other similarly-situated individuals v.
GRANITE SOURCE, CORP. and CARLOS GONZALEZ, individually, Case No.
1:16-cv-22694-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2016), seeks to recover
from the Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Granite Source, Corp., is a Florida corporation, having place of
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Carlos Gonzalez is the
owner/Director/manager of the Company.  The Company is a
construction and remodeling company doing business in Miami-Dade
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GREAT-WEST LIFE: Colorado Court Certifies ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Moore, writing for Planadviser, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado has granted a motion
for class certification in an Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) lawsuit against Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance
Company.

The complaint underlying the case alleges Great-West breached its
fiduciary duty of loyalty under ERISA Sections 502(a)(2)-(3) --
namely by setting predetermined interest rates artificially low
and charging excessive fees in order to increase its own profits
from the sale and servicing of certain group annuity contracts.

At question in the case is the Great-West Key Guaranteed Portfolio
Fund.  John Teets, a participant in the Farmers' Rice Cooperative
401(k) plan, elected to invest his plan contributions in the fund.
The investment relationship between Great-West and the plan is
governed by a group annuity contract which, among other
provisions, provides for a participant's investment to accrue
interest at a rate set prior to each quarter.  According to Teets,
the interest rate here is "determined unilaterally by Defendant,
without any specified methodology . . .  However, pursuant to the
contract, the effective annual interest rate is guaranteed never
to be less than 0%."  Money invested in the fund is not kept in a
segregated account, but rather is deposited into defendant's
general account.

Last year, the court denied Great-West's motion to dismiss.  The
company had argued that the Guaranteed Portfolio Fund falls under
the guaranteed benefit policy (GBP) exemption in ERISA.

In the current opinion, U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez
found that Teets demonstrated that all four prerequisites of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are clearly met.  Judge
Martinez certified a class definition of "all participants in and
beneficiaries of defined contribution employee pension benefit
plans within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(2)(A), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1002(2)(A), who had funds invested in the [Fund] from six
years before the filing of this action until the time of trial."
As of November 2015, there were more than 270,000 ERISA plan
participants in 13,600 retirement plans invested in the fund.

Judge Martinez also denied Great-West's motion to exclude expert
opinion of Steven Pomerantz about excess fees and damages.
According to the opinion, Mr. Pomerantz opines that 89 basis
points and the credited rate are the only true costs that Great-
West must subtract from the fund's investment returns to calculate
net profits, to the exclusion of other alleged costs that might be
factored into the equation.  But, Great-West argues that
Pomerantz's choice to exclude other alleged costs makes his
methodology "fundamentally flawed," and renders his report
contradictory to established facts.

Judge Martinez said Great-West is free to cross-examine
Mr. Pomerantz on these issues.


HARVEST NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss Pending
------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the
dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013)
("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor
Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J.
Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural
Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April
11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v.
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C.
Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W.
Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013).

The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or
misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock
price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into
the Phillips case.

The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits.

"We are currently unable to estimate the amount or range of any
possible loss," the Company said.


HERR FOODS: Faces "Hu" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herr Foods
Incorporated. The case is styled Michelle Hu, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated, and John Does 1-100, the
Plaintiffs, v. Herr Foods Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-03313 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2016).

Herr Foods produces and supplies snack food to retail customers.
The company provides potato chips, pretzels, tortilla chips,
cheese curls, and popcorn.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


HOMEAWAY INC: Faces Suit Alleging Breach of Contract, Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BRICKMAN, BRENDA OSBORNE, THEADORE KIRKPATRICK, MALISSA
ANTONUCCI, PAUL and MOLLY RITCHEY, h/w, PATRICIA KUTNER,
CHRISTOPHER COLL, CHRISTOPHER O'KEEFE, KENNETH and BONNIE SLIGER,
h/w, and HEIDI JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOMEAWAY, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00733-LY
(W.D. Tex., June 23, 2016), seeks damages and other relief arising
from Defendant's alleged breach of contract, fraud, and violations
of consumer protection laws in relation to its marketplace model,
including Defendant's promise and reassurance that it would not
charge additional fees to renters.

Defendant, through its various websites, operates as a vacation
rental marketplace, allowing homeowners and managers (hereinafter
"owners") to offer short-term vacation rental properties to
travelers by charging owners annual subscription fees for the
right to list their vacation properties on one or more of
Defendant's websites.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Singley, Esq.
     THE SINGLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC
     4131 Spicewood Springs Rd., Ste. O-3
     Austin, TX 78759
     Phone: 512-334-4302
     Fax: 512-727-3365
     E-mail: mike@singleylawfirm.com

        - and -

     Ketan U. Kharod, Esq.
     KHAROD LAW FIRM, P.C.
     P.O. Box 151677
     Austin, TX 78715-1677
     Phone: (512) 293-1556
     Fax: (512) 852-4506
     E-mail: ketan@kharodlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
     Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
     361 W. Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Phone: 610-642-8500
     Fax: 610-649-3633
     E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
             awf@chimicles.com
             ses@chimicles.com

        - and -

     Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
     JONES WARD PLC
     Marion E. Taylor Building
     312 S. Fourth Street, 6th Floor
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     Fax: (502) 587-2007
     E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

        - and -

     Robert Adhoot, Esq.
     Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
     Bradley K. King, Esq.
     ADHOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     1016 Palm Ave.
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Phone: 310-474-9111
     Fax: 310-474-8585
     E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
             bking@ahdootwolfson.com


HOT PANDEYUCA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Pizarro" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL A. PIZARRO and other similarly-situated individuals v. HOT
PANDEYUCA & COMPANY, INC. and DAVID ALFADARY, individually, Case
No. 1:16-cv-22691-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2016), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Hot Pandeyuca & Company, Inc., is a Florida corporation, having
place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Miguel a.
Pizarro is the owner/director/manager of the Company.  Hot
Pandeyuca is a bakery located in Miami.  The Defendants employed
the Plaintiff as a non-exempt full time bakery employee
approximately from July 21, 2014, to January 15, 2016, or 77
weeks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


INDONESIA: YLKI Calls for Class Action Over Fake Vaccines
---------------------------------------------------------
Jakarta Globe reports that Indonesian Consumer Protection
Foundation (YLKI) on June 27 urged the Indonesian public to file a
class action suit against the Health Ministry and the Food and
Drug Monitoring Agency (BPOM) for failing to prevent the
distribution of fake vaccines, which according to police
investigations had been circulating freely in the market
completely undetected for an incredible 13 years.

YLKI chairman Tulus Abadi said although the police have arrested
the suspects and launched further investigations into the case,
the public can also contribute by filing a class action suit
against the ministry and the drug monitoring agency.

"The public doesn't have direct access to the vaccines.  The fake
vaccines were distributed through medical institutions, by medical
officers.  They can be sued for negligence," Tulus said in
Jakarta.

Parents whose children were born after 2004 should consider suing
the Health Ministry since their sons and daughters could have been
injected with the fake vaccines.

"We're ready to facilitate a class action suit to prevent more
negligence from the ministry and the BPOM," Tulus said.

Separately, Jakarta Health Agency Head Koesmadi Priharto said the
agency has started its own investigations into private medical
facilities, clinics and hospitals to find out where the fake
vaccines had been distributed.

Fake vaccines had apparently been used in medical facilities in
Jakarta, Banten, West Java, Central Java and Yogyakarta.

The police have arrested 15 people and named all of them suspects
in the unfolding case.


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Aug. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who
purchased Inovalon Holdings, Inc. ("Inovalon" or the "Company")
common stock in connection with the Company's February 12, 2015
initial public offering (the "IPO").  The deadline to move for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the case is August 23, 2016.

The lawsuit, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleges that during its IPO
the Company misrepresented the impact changes to corporate
taxation in New York would have on its operations and results.

If you purchased Inovalon common stock and suffered losses on that
investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
via email at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832, to discuss your legal rights before the August 23,
2016 lead plaintiff deadline.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta,
Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


JOHN C HEATH: Files Appeal From Ruling in "Leslie" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant John C. Heath, Attorney at law, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Leslie v. Heath, Case No. 2:15-
CV-00833-PMW, in the United States District Court for the District
of Utah - Salt Lake City.

The appellate case is captioned as Leslie v. Heath, Case No. 16-
4114, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Edward Leslie, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Karolina S. Kulesza, Esq.
          DRIGGS BILLS & DAY, P.C.
          331 South 600 East
          Salt Lake City, UT 84102
          Telephone: (801) 326-0809
          E-mail: kkulesza@lawdbd.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          17 North State Street Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

Defendant-Appellant JOHN C. HEATH, Attorney at law, is represented
by:

          Kenneth Brent Black, Esq.
          Lauren A. Shurman, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          201 South Main Street, Suite 1100
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-4904
          Telephone: (801) 328-3131
          Facsimile: (801) 578-6999
          E-mail: kbblack@stoel.com
                  lauren.shurman@stoel.com

               - and -

          Kathleen P. Lally, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 777-7005
          E-mail: Ekathleen.lally@lw.com


JP MORGAN: Settles TCPA Class Action for $3.75 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARm.com, reports that pursuant to a
motion filed in Florida federal court on June 24, JPMorgan Chase
Bank NA (Chase) has agreed to pay $3.75 million to resolve a
proposed class action in alleging the bank autodialed cellphone
numbers that were reassigned from former customers to new users
who hadn't agreed to receive calls.

The case, James v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:15-cv-02424) involved
autodialed calls made by Chase intended for its own customers,
regarding Chase deposit accounts, but that reached parties
different than those Chase was trying to call.

Plaintiffs had filed suit in October of 2015 alleging that Chase
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing
autodialed calls to cellular telephone numbers that were
reassigned from Chase customers to new cell phone subscribers or
customary users and as a result the company did not have the call
recipients' prior express consent to make such calls.  Chase
denied any liability or that its practices violate the TCPA.

On February 12, 2016 the court ordered the parties to utilize
mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter.  The parties
engaged in a full-day mediation session on April 11, 2016.  While
the parties did not settle the case at that session, they made
significant progress and ultimately agreed to the settlement
outlined herein.

On April 26, 2016 the parties filed a notice that the case had
been settled in principle and indicated that details of the
settlement would be forthcoming.

Discovery showed that Chase called up to 675,000 unique cellular
telephone numbers associated with its deposit accounts business
line from January 1, 2014 through March 22, 2016, where Chase's
records contain a notation indicating that they called a wrong or
reassigned number. (Of note, once Chase placed a notation on an
account indicating that its customer's phone number was incorrect,
it was Chase's policy to immediately cease future calls to that
phone number.)

As noted above, Chase had vehemently disputed that it violated the
TCPA.  To that end, Chase raised a host of defenses to Plaintiffs'
claims, including:

At the time of this settlement, the Supreme Court had yet to issue
a ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339, on the question of
whether the alleged violation of a federal statute, without
anything more, confers Article III standing.  A broad, adverse
ruling by the Supreme Court could have eliminated Plaintiffs'
claims, and those of the class, in their entirety.
Also at the time of the settlement, the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals was weighing a consolidated appeal of the Federal
Communications Commission's July 10, 2015 Declaratory Ruling and
Order ("2015 FCC Order").  Adverse action by the D.C. Circuit
could have profoundly negative consequences for Plaintiffs'
claims.

The 2015 FCC Order, while favorable for consumers, included a one-
call safe harbor for calls made to reassigned cellular telephone
numbers, like those at issue here.  Because of this safe harbor,
Chase may have a viable defense to many of the calls it made to
absent class members.

Plaintiffs also faced significant risk that at least some of their
claims would be dismissed under the "emergency purposes" exemption
of the TCPA.  In enacting the TCPA, Congress provided an express
exemption for calls "made for emergency purposes." Discovery in
this case indicates that some of the calls to class members (and
those of the class representatives) were made for the purpose of
notifying consumers of potential fraudulent activity on their bank
accounts.  Had this case proceeded to summary judgment, Chase
would vigorously argue that these calls are exempt from any
liability, even when made to a person other than a Chase customer.

Chase also contended that it maintained robust safeguards to
ensure compliance with the TCPA. While Chase vehemently disputes
any liability, to the extent any violations did occur, Chase would
argue that any violation of the TCPA was unintentional and would
not support increased statutory damages.

Plaintiffs faced significant risks in obtaining class
certification.  In particular, because Chase necessarily does not
have the name and address of each person it called at the wrong
number (but does have the cellular telephone numbers it dialed),
Chase would argue that the class is not ascertainable.  Chase also
would argue that individualized issues predominate (such as
whether a call was made for an emergency purpose, whether class
members suffered "concrete" harm to confer Article III standing,
and whether a call truly reached a wrong number), and that a
litigation class should not be certified for a host of additional
reasons.  Indeed, several courts in this Circuit have refused to
certify TCPA class actions, making the likelihood of certification
uncertain.

The settlement resolves this litigation on a nationwide basis. The
settlement provides for a non-reversionary common fund of $3.75
million and direct mail notice to all known class members.

The Agreement defines the class as follows: All persons in the
United States who received calls from Chase between January 1,
2014 and March 22, 2016 that (a) were directed to a phone number
assigned to a cellular telephone service, (b) were wrong number
calls -- in that the subscriber or customary user of the phone
number called was different from the party that Chase was trying
to reach, (c) were placed using an automatic telephone dialing
system, and (d) were directed to a phone number associated with a
Chase deposit account according to Chase's records.

Participating class members will receive a pro-rata share of the
$3.75 million settlement fund, after expenses are deducted. Thus,
the common fund equates to more than $5.55 for each potential
class member.  And, while the exact per-class-member recovery will
not be known until class members are provided with an opportunity
to submit claims, given historical claims rates in TCPA cases
(approximately 4-6%), each participating class member is likely to
receive between $45 and $75, after deducting notice and
administration costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive
awards for the class representatives.

Subject to Court approval, the costs of notice and administration,
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards for
the class representatives also will be deducted from the $3.75
million fund.  Chase agrees not to oppose incentive awards to the
class representatives of $5,000 each. Plaintiffs also will seek
the reimbursement of class counsel's expenses not to exceed
$15,000, and an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 30 percent
of the common fund.  Chase has not agreed to these attorneys' fees
and expenses and may oppose the requested attorneys' fees and
expenses in whole or in part. Moreover, the Court's approval of
such fees and expenses is not a condition of the settlement.

insideARM Perspective

This is an interesting settlement of TCPA claims where the alleged
violations are simply calls to reassigned numbers. Depending on
your perspective, there are a number of ways to look at this
result.

First, Chase was attempting to call phone numbers for its clients
that were subsequently reassigned. The record is not perfectly
clear on whether the clients provided all of the numbers, or
whether Chase had obtained the numbers through public databases.
It is also not clear from the record whether Chase had prior
express consent to call those numbers. The issue of calls to re-
assigned numbers is very challenging.

Second, the potential class was substantial.  Exposure was great.

Third, the defenses raised by Chase were thorough, relevant, and
timely.

It appears that the settlement was probably a good compromise for
all parties.


LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: 4 Securities Class Suits Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the first quarter
of 2016, four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations
of federal securities laws were filed in the California Superior
Court in San Mateo County, naming as defendants the Company, its
directors, certain officers, and the underwriters in the initial
public offering that closed on December 16, 2014 (the IPO). The
lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act) by the Company, the individual defendants and the
underwriters for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements in the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the IPO regarding, among other things, the
Company's business model, compliance with regulatory matters and
their impact on the Company's business, operations and future
results.

The Company, the selling stockholders and the underwriters have
agreed to indemnify each other against certain liabilities,
including liabilities under the Securities Act. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO
registration statement and prospectus. Plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

LendingClub Corporation (Lending Club) is an online marketplace
connecting borrowers and investors.


LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Federal Consumer Class Action Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in April 2016, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in New
York, alleging that persons received loans, through the Company's
platform, that exceeded states' usury limits in violation of state
usury and consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO statute.
The defendants, in addition to the Company, are WebBank, Steel
Partners Holdings, L.P. and the Lending Club Members Trust. The
Company has agreed to indemnify WebBank and Steel Partners
Holdings, L.P. against certain liabilities in connection with this
matter. The plaintiff seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive relief.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without
merit, and intends to defend this matter vigorously.

LendingClub Corporation (Lending Club) is an online marketplace
connecting borrowers and investors.


LICE TROOPERS: Sobrino Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT for Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN F. SOBRINO and other similarly-situated individuals v. LICE
TROOPERS INC. and ARIE HAREL, individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-
22710-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2016), is brought to recover from
the Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the
costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempt head lice
removal technician from April 18, 2016, to June 8, 2016.  The
Plaintiff worked at the Lice Treatment Centers located at Bay
Harbor, Coral Gables, Kendall, and Hollywood.  In addition, the
Plaintiff performed in house calls and school screenings.

Lice Troopers is a Florida corporation that provides head lice
removal services in several lice treatment centers, located
throughout Miami-Dade County areas.  The Company also provides in
home inspections and treatment services, as well as school and
camp screenings.  Arie Harel is the owner/partner/manager of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MARRONE BIO: Negotiating Terms of Formal Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit had participated in a mediation proceeding
and are negotiating the terms of a formal stipulation of
settlement.

On September 5, 2014, September 8, 2014, September 11, 2014,
September 15, 2014 and November 3, 2014, the Company, along with
certain of its current and former officers and directors and
others were named as defendants in putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. On February 13, 2015, these actions were
consolidated as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-
KJN. On September 2, 2015, an initial consolidated complaint was
filed on behalf of (i) all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in or
traceable to the Company's August 1, 2013 initial public offering;
(ii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded common stock directly in the Company's June 6,
2014 secondary offering; and (iii) all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock on
the open market between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014 (the
"Class Action").

In addition to the Company, the initial consolidated complaint
names certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors and the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm as defendants. The initial consolidated complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising
out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements
about the Company's business and prospects, including its
financial statements, product revenues and system of internal
controls. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the
Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. The action
includes claims for damages, fees and expenses, including an award
of attorneys' and experts' fees to the putative class. An amended
consolidated complaint was filed on January 11, 2016.

On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation between the
parties deferring action pending the outcome of a mediation
proceeding, and ordered the parties to provide a status update on
May 4, 2016. On March 15, 2016, plaintiffs moved to amend their
consolidated complaint to, among other things, assert claims on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MBII
securities on the open market between August 1, 2013 and November
10, 2015. The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion.

On May 4, 2016, plaintiffs, the Company, and certain director and
officer defendants jointly submitted a report to the Court noting
in part that on April 4, 2016, they had participated in a
mediation proceeding and are currently negotiating the terms of a
formal stipulation of settlement.

The Company currently anticipates that it will not incur a loss in
connection with settlement of this matter in light of applicable
insurance coverage. However, there can be no assurance that the
Company will reach any such settlement on acceptable terms, if at
all. The outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. makes bio-based pest management and
plant health products.


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Maxpoint Interactive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing date for the
Company's motion to dismiss has not yet been set.

The Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
investment banking firms who acted as underwriters in connection
with the Company's IPO, have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed August 31, 2015 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act by not including information regarding
customer concentration, which the complaint characterizes as a
known trend and/or significant factor required to be disclosed
under federal securities regulations. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest and other costs.

The Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff on November 18, 2015, and on
January 19, 2016 the Lead Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint that repeats the same substantive allegations included
in the initial complaint and continues to seek unspecified
damages.

On March 24, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint, which Plaintiffs have opposed. A hearing date
for the Company's motion to dismiss has not yet been set.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend this
matter vigorously. The Company cannot currently estimate a
reasonably possible range of loss for this action. Legal fees are
expensed in the period in which they are incurred.

MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. is a provider of a business
intelligence and marketing automation solution.


MAYER BROWN: Averts Class Action Over $1.5BB GM Bankruptcy Loan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Aebra Coe and Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, report
that an Illinois federal judge on June 22 tossed a consolidated
proposed class action in which 400 lenders accused Mayer Brown LLP
of legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation over a filing
error in a $1.5 billion bankruptcy loan to its client General
Motors LLC.

Granting Mayer Brown's motion to dismiss with prejudice, U.S.
District Judge Robert W. Gettleman ruled that the Oakland Police
and Fire Retirement System, the city of Oakland and the Employees'
Retirement System of the City of Montgomery failed to state a
claim because Mayer Brown didn't owe plaintiffs a duty.

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA was the administrative agent on the 2006
loan to GM and had an obligation to the syndicate of lenders to
maintain and monitor the loan collateral, court documents said.
But the lenders say that in 2008 the bank and its counsel, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, overlooked erroneous Mayer Brown documents
and filed an incorrect termination statement releasing the loan's
security interest.

The lenders claimed the value of their investment in the $1.5
billion loan was substantially lost.  Mayer Brown contended that
the suit couldn't plausibly allege that GM's main purpose in
retaining the firm was to influence or benefit the lenders or
JPMorgan as the lenders' agent.

"To the extent that plaintiffs attempt to avoid this obvious flaw
in their allegations by alleging that defendant was hired to
influence JPMorgan to approve the closing documents, instead of
the payoff itself, they are unsuccessful," the decision said.  "At
the time defendant was hired to paper the transaction, JPMorgan
had already agreed, years before, to the terms of the lease
payoff."

The suit is one of multiple proposed class actions that the
lenders filed against Mayer Brown, JPMorgan and Simpson Thacher.
The lenders said GM, JPMorgan and more than 400 lenders entered
into a $1.5 billion term loan secured by a first-priority lien on
certain assets of the automaker in November 2006, as well as a
collateral agreement.

GM contacted JPMorgan in September 2008 to pay off a "separate and
unrelated" $150 million borrowing for a synthetic lease, and the
automaker, lenders and the bank reached an agreement to terminate
the lease and underlying security interest, according to court
filings.

On Sept. 30, GM asked its counsel at Mayer Brown to prepare the
necessary documents to pay off the synthetic lease, but the firm
improperly included the $1.5 billion term loan in the closing
checklist for preparing termination statements, according to court
documents.

The checklist was emailed to GM, JPMorgan and Simpson Thacher,
which represented the bank in connection with the synthetic lease
payoff, the suit said.  Richard W. Ducker, managing director of
JPMorgan, wasn't able to open or review the documents because the
attachments were corrupted, but he never requested additional
copies, court filings said.

A Mayer Brown associate also emailed draft escrow instructions for
the closing of the synthetic lease payoff to Simpson Thacher, and
an attorney for the firm approved the documents, which were
subsequently signed, according to court papers.

The synthetic lease payoff closed on Oct. 30, 2008, at which time
the erroneous termination statement was also filed, which ended
the $1.5 billion security interest for the term loan, according to
court documents.

The Second Circuit held in January 2015 that the filing of the
termination statement ended the term loan security interest, even
though none of the term loan lenders agreed to its release, court
filings said.

The following October, the lenders voluntarily dropped their
claims against JPMorgan and Simpson Thacher.  The notice of
dismissal filed in both actions did not divulge any details of the
termination.

The decision said that even if the lenders had plausibly alleged
that Mayer Brown was hired with the primary purpose to influence
JPMorgan, the suit still lacked allegations that the firm was
hired to do it with respect to the term loan or its lenders.

"Under plaintiffs' theory of negligence liability -- that
defendant can be liable to plaintiffs for its tortious conduct
directed at JPMorgan in relation to JPMorgan's work on behalf of
any principal -- defendant would be liable to any and all of
JPMorgan's clients," Judge Gettleman said.  "This theory of
liability is too expansive."

Stephen Novack of Novack and Macey LLP, which is representing
Mayer Brown, told Law360 on June 24 they were pleased with the
decision.

The lenders are represented by Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC,
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Copeland
Franco PA, the Katriel Law Firm PC and the Law Offices of Andy
Katz.

Mayer Brown is represented by Stephen Novack --
snovack@novackmacey.com -- Timothy J. Miller --
tmiller@novackmacey.com -- Andrew P. Shelby and Amanda M.H.
Wolfman of Novack & Macey LLP.

The case is Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System et al. v.
Mayer Brown LLP, case number 1:15-cv-06742, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


MDL 2619: Twinlab to Provide Indemnity and Defense
--------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
provides indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the
claims in the case, In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales
Practice Litigation, MDL No. 2619, Case No. 1:15-cv-5070, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company is not a party to this matter, which joined in a
multidistrict litigation a number of purported class actions
arising from allegations raised by a state attorney general
claiming that DNA barcoding testing conducted on behalf the
attorney general indicated that certain herbal supplement products
did not contain the herbal ingredients stated on the label.

The Company does, however, pursuant to contractual obligations
provide indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the
claims in this litigation. The defendants in this litigation
believe that the claims alleged by the plaintiffs are meritless
and are defending this matter vigorously.

The Company and its subsidiaries manufacture and market high-
quality, science-based nutritional supplements.


MEXZICAN TAQUERIA: "Ruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ONEIDA J. RUZ, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
MEXZICAN TAQUERIA LLC, THE MEXZICAN GOURMET, LLC, ZE CARLOS
JIMENEZ, and CLAUDIA A. VARELA, individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-
22688-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2016), is brought as a collective
action to recover from the Defendants regular wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act,
on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other current and former
employees, who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more
weeks on or after February 2014, without being properly
compensated.

Mexzican Taqueria LLC, and The Mexzican Gourmet, LLC, are Florida
corporations, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are the
directors/owners/partners and managers of tje Defendant
Corporations.  The Defendants operate Mexican restaurants in at
least three locations within the area of Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Action Over Debt Interest Rate Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on June 27 allowed a class-action lawsuit against
debt collector Encore Capital Group Inc. to move forward,
declining to hear its claim that such companies should be
protected from state "usury" laws barring money-lending at
unreasonably high interest rates.

The court left in place a May 2015 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in New York that found that Encore's Midland
Funding and Midland Credit Management units were not national
banks with legal protection against state usury laws.

The class-action lawsuit was brought by a New York borrower named
Saliha Madden who objected to the 27 percent annual interest rate
she was being charged.

Debt collection companies typically buy debt from banks and other
creditors for pennies on the dollar, then try to collect higher
amounts from people who owe the debt.

Ms. Madden took issue with the interest rate that Midland sought
to impose on roughly $5,000 in debt it had bought that she had
incurred on a credit-card account opened years earlier at Bank of
America, court papers showed.

The appeals court said debt-collection companies did not deserve
protections of the federal National Bank Act, including against
claims that they violated the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

"Extending those protections to third parties would create an end-
run around usury laws for non-national bank entities that are not
acting on behalf of a national bank," the court ruled.

The appeals court decision reversed a September 2013 decision by
U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel in White Plains, New York.

The Supreme Court action came at a time of heightened concern over
interest rates that borrowers are forced to pay by some lenders.
For example, the U.S. agency charged with protecting consumers
from financial abuse announced a proposal on June 2 to limit
short-term borrowings known as "payday" loans, which can carry
annual interest rates as high as 390 percent.


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Izquierdo" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mondelez
International, Inc. The case is captioned Jose Izquierdo, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, and John Does
1-100, the Plaintiffs, v. Mondelez International, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04697 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2016).

Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, and
beverage conglomerate based in Illinois which employs about
107,000 people around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MRS BPO: Faces "Ronquillo-Griffin" Suit in C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is captioned Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRS
BPO, LLC a New Jersey limited liability company, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01540-JLS-KSC (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Janis L. Sammartino.

MRS BPO is engaged in financial services, healthcare, cable,
utilities, and telecommunication debt recovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MYDATT SERVICES: "Levin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholay Levin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, v. Mydatt Services, Inc.,
doing business as Block By Block, an Ohio Corporation, and SMS
Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. RG16812703, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03423-JCS to the proceeding.
The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Joseph C. Spero.

Mydatt is in the detective, guard, and armored car services
industry in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Glenn Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 499 4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499 4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Lewis Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C.
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (888) 474 7242
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolyn Blecha Hall, Esq.
          Gregory Clement Cheng, Esq.
          Susan Tianyang Ye, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, One Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442 4870
          E-mail: carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com
                  gregory.cheng@ogletreedeakins.com
                  susan.ye@ogletreedeakins.com


MYDATT SERVICES: "Rogers" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Rogers, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, v. Mydatt Services, Inc.,
doing business as Block By Block, an Ohio Corporation, and SMS
Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. RG16812720, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03425-JSC to the proceeding.
The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Mydatt is in the detective, guard, and armored car services
industry in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Glenn Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90012
          Telephone: (310) 499 4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499 4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolyn Blecha Hall, Esq.
          Gregory Clement Cheng, Esq.
          Susan Tianyang Ye, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, One Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 536 3458
          Facsimile: (415) 442 4870
          E-mail: carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com
                  gregory.cheng@ogletreedeakins.com
                  susan.ye@ogletree.com


NATIONAL HOSPITAL: Faces "O'Dell" Suit in N.D. W. Virg.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Hospital
Collections, L.L.C. The case is captioned Rachelle O'Dell, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
National Hospital Collections, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00127-IMK (N.D. W. Virg., June 20, 2016). The assigned
District Judge is Irene M. Keeley.

National Hospital is a third party debt collection agency
dedicating itself exclusively to the hospital industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
          Jed R. Nolan, Esq.
          Ralph C. Young, Esq.
          Steven R. Broadwater Jr., Esq.
          HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD, PLLC
          PO Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840
          Telephone: (304) 574 2727
          Facsimile: (304) 574 2727
          E-mail: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com
                  jnolan@hamiltonburgess.com
                  ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com
                  sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com


NDG COFFEE: Faces "Paida" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NDG Coffee Shop,
Inc. The case is captioned Amable Paida, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NDG
Coffee Shop, Inc., d/b/a Big Nick's Pizza Joint; Dimitrios
Galanopoulos, individually and as an employer; and Nikolaos
Galanopoulos, individually and as an employer, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04691 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2016).

NDG Coffee is a shop in New York offering pastry and coffee.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NEW YORK: Rockland County Files Class Action Over Suez Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Lieberman and Robert Brum, writing for lohud, report that
Rockland County has taken legal action in state court to try to
keep Suez New York water ratepayers from paying the cost of an
ill-fated scheme by the utility and two state agencies to build a
desalination plant on the Hudson River in Haverstraw.

The legal action claims the state Department of Public Service
didn't verify all of Suez's expenditures related to the nearly $40
million the company says it spent pursuing the plant, but instead
did merely a sample audit of the invoices.

The state Public Service Commission violated its responsibility by
finding the limited audit was adequate, according to the county's
legal papers.

Rockland County Executive Ed Day announced the legal action, filed
on June 24, at a press conference on June 27.  The plant was
rejected after six years of studies and millions of dollars in
costs.

Suez is seeking to recoup $54 million the company says it spent on
the plant, which accounts for half of the $8.17 per month rate
increase the company has requested.  The average monthly bill for
Suez customers would rise from $61.77 to $69.94, according to
Suez.

The rates, which would go into effect Feb. 1, 2017, need state
Public Service Commission approval.

"Rockland County is being asked to pay millions for a desalination
plant that will never be built," Mr. Day said.

Mr. Day noted the state PSC rejected the plant in 2014 as
unnecessary and then denied Suez reimbursement of its costs,
saying one reason was no construction had commenced.  But in
February during a rehearing, the PSC found Suez was eligible to
recover expenses after Suez submitted 9,532 pages of schedules and
heavily redacted invoices for legal and non-legal costs, according
to the county's legal action.

Suez sought the reimbursement after the PSC told the water company
to abandon the desalination plant in December.  The agency then
approved $39 million the company wants customers to reimburse for
the scratched Haverstraw Water Treatment Supply. The PSC is
reviewing another $15 million, according to the company.

The Public Service Commission was supposed to be the watchdog for
the consumer, making sure that the water company acted
responsibly," Mr. Day said.  "Suez did not act responsibly. The
costs they are looking to have us pay are not just and reasonable.

"The PSC acted like the fox watching the hen house." he said.

Suez claims its right to recover costs, and the PSC's order of
Feb. 25, 2016, are "legally sound" and believes the county's
lawsuit "is without merit," company spokesman William Madden said
in a statement on June 27.

"The record is unmistakably clear that the County of Rockland
strongly advocated for the expedited development of a long-term
water supply project in the company's 2006 and 2010 rate cases,"
the statement said.  "To suggest otherwise is unfair and not
supported by the facts."

Rockland legal action

Suez argued its rate filing features a conservation plan, a new
rate structure that will lower bills for 20 percent of our
customers and $150 million in infrastructure improvements over the
next five years.

The legal action seeks an order declaring a class action involving
Suez customers; a state audit of all Suez expenses on the project;
a declaration the PSC violated its responsibilities in the
rehearing order; a ruling there will be no recovery charges for
Suez; and the annulment of the PSC's February order.

Mr. Day said if the PSC wants Suez New York reimbursed for its
costs, the agency should petition state government to pay the
bills, not county taxpayers.

"The Public Service Commission stood by and did nothing as Suez,
our water company, spent $54 million on a plant that was never
built," Mr. Day said.  "In short, Rockland ratepayers are being
hosed."

PSC spokesman James Denn said the agency has not been served with
the legal action.

He said the state agency concluded Suez was not imprudent in
pursuing the desalination project, but alternative water supply
management measures could provide reasonable assurance that the
company can meet projected demand for the next decade.

The PSC's review of the desalination project invoices extended
well beyond a sample and resulted in millions of dollars being
excluded from rates, Mr. Denn said.

Dan Duthie, an attorney for the Rockland Municipal Consortium, a
group which is opposing the rate increase, has said Suez wants to
amortize the $54 million associated with the desalination plant
over a 20-year period, which he said would add up to a cost of
more than $100 million for ratepayers.  He said about $30 million
to $40 million of those charges are still being contested.

The consortium includes Orangetown, Town of Ramapo, Village of
West Haverstraw and the Rockland Solid Waste Authority with other
towns, villages and school districts also currently considering
joining.

Mr. Madden has said it is too soon to estimate the cost of the
amortization.

Suez serves roughly 300,000 residents in Rockland.  Its last rate
increase was in June 2015.


NO. 1 CHINESE RESTAURANT: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZHEN GUANG LIU, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. NO. 1 CHINESE RESTRUANT I INC, d/b/a NO. 1
CHINESE RESTAURANT, JIAN HAO ZHENG, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03543 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2016), alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, arising from the Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and practices.

Mr. Liu, on behalf of himself and a class of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of the Defendants, seeks to
recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime wages, (2)
reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of the trade (3)
liquidated damages, (4) prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

No. 1 Chinese Restaurant I, Inc., doing business as No. 1 Chinese
Restaurant, owns and operates a Chinese restaurant in Brooklyn,
New York.  Defendant Jian Hao Zheng is the owner, officer,
director or managing agent of No. 1 Chinese Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY: Appeals Ruling From "Chambers" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patsy Chambers and Robert Gehrking filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Patsy Chambers, et al. v. North
American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Case No. 4:11-cv-
00579-JAJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa - Des Moines.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 31,
2011, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case
accuses North American Company for Life and Health Insurance of
defrauding the elderly with illegal business and marketing tactics
to unjustly enrich itself and its sales agents.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/26/HealthRICO.pdf

The appellate case is captioned as Patsy Chambers, et al. v. North
American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Case No. 16-8010,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Petitioners Patsy Chambers and Robert Gehrking are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 West Lake Street, Suite 400
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          John Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net

Respondent North American Company for Life and Health Insurance is
represented by:

          Michael A. Dee, Esq.
          Brian McCormac, Esq.
          BROWN & WINICK
          Suite 2000, Ruin Center
          666 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50309-2510
          Telephone: (515) 242-2400
          E-mail: dee@brownwinick.com
                  mccormac@brownwinick.com

               - and -

          Terence N. Hawley, Esq.
          William Hayden Higgins, Esq.
          Robert D. Phillips, Jr.
          REED & SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: (415) 659-4786
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: thawley@reedsmith.com
                  whiggins@reedsmith.com
                  rphillips@reedsmith.com

               - and -


          Michael S. Leib, Esq.
          Henry Pietrkowski, Esq.
          David Z. Smith, Esq.
          REED & SMITH LLP
          10 S. Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-3928
          Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
          E-mail: mleib@reedsmith.com
                  hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com


P & H 49: Faces "Robles" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES CASALES ROBLES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. P & H 49 CORP. (d/b/a BAGELS ON
THE SQUARE), HYUN PAK and JANE DOE PAK, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
04885-RJS (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2016), was brought seeking to
recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and "overtime
wage order" respectively codified at New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a bagel restaurant/deli.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     The Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


PEPSICO INC: "Sciortino" Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STACY SCIORTINO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PEPSICO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-00478-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen granted the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of their settlement.  The judge also granted
the parties' joint stipulation to amend the plaintiff's complaint
to extend the settlement class to a nationwide class.

Mary Hall brought the class action based on PepsiCo's alleged
failure to warn consumers that its Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, and Pepsi
One soft drinks contained elevated levels of 4-Methylimidazole (4-
MeI), in violation of California consumer protection statutes and
common law.  4-MeI is a compound formed during the manufacturing
of caramel coloring, and is recognized by California as a chemical
known to cause cancer.  The plaintiffs' suit was on behalf of all
individuals residing in California who purchased Pepsi products.

The settlement does not involve any monetary payment; instead, it
consists of "mandatory, non-opt-out, nationwide injunctive relief
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) by way of
modification of the ingredients for the Products as set forth in
this Settlement Agreement."  Primarily, PepsiCo agreed to require
its caramel coloring suppliers to meet certain 4-MeI levels in
products shipped for sale in the United States, ensuring the 4-MeI
concentration levels will not exceed the level of 100 parts per
billion, and to test the covered products pursuant to an agreed
protocol.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's June 28, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/itq0SL from Leagle.com.

Stacy Sciortino, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Lawrence Godino
-- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Kiley
Lynn Grombacher, Marlin & Saltzman LLP, Marcus Joseph Bradley,
Schwartz, Daniels & Bradley, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & William Anthony Baird, Marlin & Saltzman LLP.

Arielle Weinstock, Plaintiff, represented by Kiley Lynn
Grombacher, Marlin & Saltzman LLP, Marcus Joseph Bradley,
Schwartz, Daniels & Bradley, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & William Anthony Baird, Marlin & Saltzman LLP.

Mary Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw --
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Alexander
Robert Safyan -- asafyan@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Bobby Pouya -- bpouya@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon &
Warshaw, LLP & Melissa Weiner Wolchansky --
wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen And Associates.

Regina Langley, Plaintiff, represented by Azra Z. Mehdi , The
Mehdi Firm PC.

Souzan Aourout, Plaintiff, represented by Bassma Zebib --
bassma@zebiblaw.com -- Law Office of Bassma Zebib, Jonathan Shub -
- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. & Nick Suciu,
III -- nicksuciu@bmslawyeres.com -- Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC.

Thamar Santisteban Cortina, Plaintiff, represented by Courtland W.
Creekmore, The Weston Firm, John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, The Law
Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Matthew R. Bainer --
mbainer@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates & Scott Edward Cole
-- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC.

Williamson Granados, Plaintiff, represented by Jon A. Tostrud --
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C..

Kent Ibusuki, Plaintiff, represented by Amir David Benakote --
adb@kirtlandpackard.com -- Kirtland and Packard, Behram Viraf
Parekh, Kirtland & Packard LLP, Heather Baker Dobbs, Kirtland &
Packard, LLP & Michael Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP.

Pepsico, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Santo Tulumello
-- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Lauren Margaret Blas -- lblas@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Sarah Esmaili --
sarah.esmaili@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP & Trenton Herbert
Norris -- trent.norris@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP.

Paul R. Riva, Danielle Ardagna, Interested Parties, represented by
Roy Arie Katriel -- rak@katriellaw.com -- The Katriel Law Firm.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Ami Files Suit Alleging Securities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ami - Government Employees Provident Fund Management Company LTD,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Joseph C. Papa and Perrigo Company PLC, Case no. 1:16-cv-04752
(S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2016), is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired Perrigo common stock between
April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016, both dates inclusive.

Perrigo, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes over-the-counter consumer goods and
pharmaceutical products worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             mgorrie@pomlaw.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: July 11 Hearing on Bid to Appeal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the hearing on
Perrigo's motion to appeal the decision to certify the class
action is scheduled for July 11, 2016.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by our
subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included
our subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product,
and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services
as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight
applications were consolidated into one application. The
applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version
of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally
alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May
17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining
respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, Perrigo submitted a motion for permission to
appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court
together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action
until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. Perrigo
has filed its statement of defense to the underlying proceedings
and the underlying proceedings have been stayed pending a decision
on the motion to appeal. The hearing on Perrigo's motion to appeal
the decision to certify the class action is scheduled for July 11,
2016. At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome or
the liability, if any, associated with these claims.

Perrigo Company plc is a global over-the-counter ("OTC") consumer
goods and specialty pharmaceutical company, offering patients and
customers high quality products at affordable prices.


PREMIUM NUTRACEUTICALS: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Matus" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Matus filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Robert Matus v. Premium Nutraceuticals, LLC, et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01851-DDP-DTB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Matus v. Premium
Nutraceuticals, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-55910, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Matus, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP, APC
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: rferrell@trialnewport.com
                  sferrell@trialnewport.com

Defendant-Appellee Premium Nutraceuticals, LLC, is represented by:

          Daniel F. Crowley, Esq.
          DANIEL CROWLEY & ASSOCIATES
          37 Old Courthouse Square
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404
          Telephone: (707) 525-8999
          Facsimile: (707) 542-4752
          E-mail: dcrowley@dcalaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Francis Peil, Esq.
          CHARLES T. HUGGINS, JR., PC
          7013 Evans Town Center Boulevard
          Evans, GA 30809
          Telephone: (706) 210-9063
          Facsimile: (706) 210-9282


QUALITY BUILT: Gates Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to D. S. Car.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gates at Williams-Brice Condominium Association, and Katharine
Swinson individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Quality Built, LLC and Coast to Coast
Engineering Services, Inc., doing business as Criterium Engineers,
the Defendants, Case No. 2013-CP-40-07729, was removed from the
Richland County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina (Columbia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:16-cv-02022-CMC to the proceeding. The assigned Judge
is Hon. Cameron McGowan Currie.

Quality Built provides third-party inspections, quality assurance
software, and inspection management solutions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq.
          Stephanie D Drawdy, Esq.
          Justin O'Toole Lucey Law Firm
          PO Box 806
          Mt Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 849 8400
          Facsimile: (843) 849 8406
          E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com
                  sdrawdy@lucey-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          H. Freeman Belser, Esq.
          Michael J. Polk, Esq.
          BELSER AND BELSER
          PO Box 96
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 929 0096
          Facsimile: (803) 929 0196
          E-mail: freeman@belserpa.com
                  mike@belserpa.com


QL WHOLESOME: "Mendez" Suit Claims FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR CASTELLANOS MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QL WHOLESOME FOOD INC. (d/b/a
QUANTUM LEAP), TALLGRASS BURGER COMPANY INC. (d/b/a TALLGRASS
BURGER), and KEVIN QUI HUYNH), Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-04872
(S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2016), seeks alleged unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law
and "overtime wage order" respectively codified at the New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations, and the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor codified at the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control two restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


RASH CURTIS: Faces "McMillion" Suit in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Rash Curtis & Associates. The
case is captioned Sandra McMillion, Jessica Adekoya, and Ignacio
Perez, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Rash Curtis & Associates, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal, June 17, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

Rash Curtis is a full service collection agency specializing in
healthcare debt recovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          BURSOR FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com
                  apersinger@bursor.com


RAYMOND JAMES: Brink Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jyll Brink filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Jyll Brink v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-60334-WPD, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 3, 2015, Ms.
Brink, on her own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly
situated sued Raymond James seeking to stop the Defendant's
alleged practice of charging unauthorized and unreasonable
processing fee.

Raymond James is a full service broker-dealer which maintains its
principal place of business in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County,
Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Jyll Brink v. Raymond James &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 16-14144, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Jyll Brink is represented by:

          Darren Craig Blum, Esq.
          BLUM LAW GROUP
          110 E Broward Blvd., Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 255-8181
          E-mail: blum@stockattorneys.com

               - and -

          Sara Elizabeth Hanley, Esq.
          Randall Charles Place, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PLACE AND HANLEY PLLC
          1415 Panther Ln
          Naples, FL 34109-7874
          Telephone: (239) 455-1242
          Facsimile: (888) 876-6450
          E-mail: sara_hanley@placeandhanley.com
                  randall_place@placeandhanley.com

               - and -

          Lyle E. Shapiro, Esq.
          HERSKOWITZ SHAPIRO, PLLC
          One Datran Center
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 908
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 423-1988
          E-mail: lyle@hslawfl.com

               - and -

          Eric Mathew Sodhi, Esq.
          Joshua L. Spoont, Esq.
          RICHMAN GREER, P.A.
          396 Alhambra Circle
          North Tower, 14th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 373-4000
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4099
          E-mail: esodhi@richmangreer.com
                  jspoont@richmangreer.com

Defendant-Appellee Raymond James & Associates, Inc., is
represented by:

          Samuel Wayne Braver, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant Street, 20th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
          Telephone: (412) 562-8800
          Facsimile: (412) 562-1041
          E-mail: samuel.braver@bipc.com

               - and -

          G. Calvin Hayes, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602-5236
          Telephone: (813) 222-8180
          Facsimile: (813) 222-8189
          E-mail: calvin.hayes@bipc.com


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Appeals Court to Review ZIP Code Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that California's
high court will review the right of unnamed class members to
appeal class action judgments (Hernandez v. Muller, Cal., No.
S233983, review granted 6/22/16).

A state appeals court held in March that an objector in a
California consumer credit case over a retailer's use of ZIP codes
doesn't have standing to appeal the $36.4 million judgment (17
CLASS 292, 3/25/16).

Unnamed class member Francesca Muller didn't take issue with the
amount sought by class counsel -- $9.1 million -- only with the
fact that class members weren't given notice of the attorneys' fee
application.

The California Supreme Court announced June 22 that it would
review the ruling.

Ms. Muller is represented by Lawrence W. Schonbrun of Berkeley,
Calif., who told Bloomberg BNA in March that the appeals court's
decision is an example of the "blowback against objectors and
objecting" in the California courts recently.

He also represents an objector to an employment law class
settlement who argues that the percentage-of-the-fund method for
calculating attorneys' fees is forbidden by California law.  He
argued the case to the California Supreme Court in May (17 CLASS
594, 6/10/16).

Patterson Law Group and Stonebarger Law represented the class.

Morrison & Foerster appeared for Restoration Hardware.


RIGHTSCORP INC: Parties to Revise Settlement
--------------------------------------------
Rightscorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, ohn Blaha
v. Rightscorp, Inc ., C.D. Cal. (Original Complaint Filed November
21, 2014; First Amended Complaint Filed March 9, 2015), the
Parties are in the process of meeting and conferring to implement
the Court's suggested revisions related to a settlement agreement
and will notify the Court when the materials are ready to be
resubmitted.

Nature of Matter: This matter seeks relief for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227). The
action is brought on behalf of the individual named plaintiff as
well as on behalf of a putative nationwide classes.

Progress of Matter to Date: This matter was previously captioned
with Karen J. Reif and Isaac Nesmith as lead plaintiffs. On March
9, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint replacing the
lead plaintiffs, dropping their second and third causes of action
for Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq.) and Violations of the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1788 et seq.)
(and dropping associated putative class claims), and naming BMG
Rights Management (US) LLC and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. as
additional defendants.

The First Amended Complaint also contained a cause of action for
Abuse of Process. In response to the Abuse of Process claim,
defendants brought a special motion to strike the claim under
California's anti-SLAPP statute. Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion was
granted on May 8, 2015. Pursuant to the Court's May 8, 2015 Order,
the Abuse of Process claim (and associated putative class claim)
was stricken from the case and plaintiff was ordered to pay
defendants' attorney's fees incurred in bringing the anti-SLAPP
motion.

Following the dismissal of Plaintiff's Abuse of Process claim, the
parties agreed to mediate the dispute and reached a settlement in
principal. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement was heard on February 8, 2016, before the Hon.
Dale S. Fischer. The Court reviewed the proposed settlement and
offered the parties its comments regarding the submitted
documents. The Parties are now in the process of meeting and
conferring to implement the Court's suggested revisions and will
notify the Court when the materials are ready to be resubmitted.
Once the motion is resubmitted, a new hearing date convenient for
the Court will be selected, at which time Rightscorp anticipates
the Court will rule on the motion. The Company has recorded a
reserve for the estimated settlement of $200,000 related to this,
which is net of expected insurance proceeds of $250,000.

Rightscorp Inc. has developed products and intellectual property
rights relating to providing data and analytics regarding
copyright infringement on the Internet.


RIZEN FLEET: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO MANUEL MORALES CARACAS, DOMINGO BURGOS, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs.
RIZEN FLEET LOGISTICS, INC., and EDUARDO F RODRIGUEZ, SR.,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-22421-JAL (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2016), was
filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

RIZEN FLEET LOGISTICS, INC. is in the transportation business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


ROBERT BLACK: Agrees to Suspend Fine Policies on Minor Crimes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rainey, writing for NOLA.com, reports that a Bogalusa
judge accused of running a "modern-day debtors' prison" agreed on
June 27 to temporarily quit jailing people unable to pay court
costs or fines for minor crimes.  City Judge Robert Black said he
would also suspend his practice of charging defendants $50 for
extensions on their payment deadlines.

"It is the court's understanding that the collection of these or
similar costs is utilized by other courts in Louisiana," Black
said in a statement.  "Nevertheless, the court at this time has
suspended this practice pending further review."

The Southern Poverty Law Center had sued Black, calling his
policies unconstitutional.  The advocacy group is representing
four defendants fearful of doing jail time because they can't
afford to pay fines associated with traffic violations or other
misdemeanors.

Judge Black's decision has launched settlement talks with the SPLC
and the cancellation of two hearings scheduled for July in federal
court.

Judge Black agreed not to jail people over unpaid fines or court
costs for the next 75 days, according to court records.  He also
told the SPLC that he would provide access to his office's
financial records and weekly copies of the Bogalusa jail logs as
negotiations proceed.

The SPLC accused Black of seeking to extract fines from
impoverished defendants for financial reasons: The payments cover
nearly a fifth of the city court's annual operating budget.

Judge Black said he "almost always" imposes a fine or a sentence
of community service when someone pleads guilty or is convicted,
although the SPLC complained in its suit that Black doesn't use
community service as an alternative to money or jail.

In suing Judge Black to halt his payment policies, SPLC also
sought to gain class-action status.

Should negotiations surpass the agreed-upon 75 days, the SPLC
could restart its lawsuit or ask U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle
for an extension, said SPLC attorney Micah West.

The case illustrates a larger concern where small town courts
across Louisiana often try to fill gaps in their budgets by fining
poor defendants.

"What we're seeing in Bogalusa is a reflection of larger policy
choices made across the state of Louisiana not to fully fund its
court system," Mr. West said, adding that the law center plans to
continue pursuing similar cases "to see a shift on how those
courts are funded so they are not funded off the backs of the
poor."


ROCK CREEK: Baldwin Filed Voluntary Dismissal
---------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the matter
where Howard T. Baldwin filed a putative claim against the
Company, the parties in April 2016, executed a Confidential
Settlement and Release for an amount not deemed material to the
overall financial statements. Plaintiffs filed with the Court an
Amended Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of the lawsuit
with prejudice which was entered by the Court and effective April
22, 2016.

On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a purported class
action naming the Company, RCP Development (its subsidiary), and
GNC Holding, Inc. ("GNC") as defendants. The case was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Generally, the complaint alleged that claims made for
the Company's Anatabloc (R) product have not been proven and that
individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements
regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended
purposes of the product. The complaint purported to allege claims
for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express
and implied warranties and unjust enrichment. The Company agreed
to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the
purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent
with that commitment, the Company agreed to assume the defense of
this matter on its behalf as well as on behalf of GNC. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 24,
2014. On January 13, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing
the complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

On February 10, 2015, Mr. Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint
against the Company, RCP Development and GNC (collectively,
"Defendants"). The Amended Complaint also includes an additional
named plaintiff, Jerry Van Norman, who alleges that he is a
citizen of Parkville, Missouri. The Amended Complaint requests
certification of an "Illinois Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons
who paid, in whole or in part, for Anatabloc (R) dietary
supplement in Illinois between August 1, 2011 and the present for
personal, family or household uses," and a "Missouri Class"
consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole or in part, for
Anatabloc (R) dietary supplement in Missouri between August 1,
2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses." The
Amended Complaint is pleaded in seven counts: (1) violation of the
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act of Illinois;
(2) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act; (3)
breach of express warranty under Illinois law; (4) breach of
express warranty under Missouri law; (5) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability under Illinois law; (6) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability under Missouri law; and (7)
unjust enrichment.

Like the original complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Anatabloc(R) , a
dietary supplement purportedly derived from an anatabine alkaloid,
and promoted Anatabloc(R) as a "wonder drug" with a number of
medical benefits and uses, from treating excessive inflammation
(associated with arthritis) to Alzheimer's disease, traumatic
brain injury (or concussions), diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have never proven any of these
claims in clinical trials or received FDA approval for
Anatabloc(R) , and that Anatabloc(R) "was never the 'wonder drug'
it claimed to be." Plaintiffs allege that they purchased
Anatabloc(R) based upon claims that it provides "anti-inflammatory
support." Mr. Baldwin alleges that he purchased Anatabloc(R) to
"reduce inflammation and pain in his joints," and Mr. Van Norman
alleges that he "suffers back and knee problems, as well as
arthritis, and expected Anatabloc(R) to be effective in treating
these symptoms and purchased Anatabloc(R) to help alleviate his
symptoms." Both plaintiffs alleged that Anatabloc(R) did not
provide the relief promised by the Defendants.

Although the Amended Complaint does not include claims based on
the consumer protection laws and breach of warranty laws of
several additional states like the original complaint, on February
10, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs also served a "Notice pursuant
to: Alabama Code Sec. 8-19-10(e); Alaska Statutes Sec.45.50.535;
California Civil Code Sec. 1782; Georgia Code Sec. 10-1-399;
Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5,
Sec. 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3);
Texas Business & Commercial Code Sec. 17.505; West Virginia Code
Sec. 46A-6-106(b); and Wyoming Statutes Sec. 40-12-109 as well as
state warranty statutes," which purports to give notice to
Defendants on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a "class of
similarly situated individuals" that Defendants have "violated
state warranty statutes and engaged in consumer fraud and
deceptive practices in connection with its sale of Anatabloc
(R) ," and demands that "Defendants correct or otherwise rectify
the damage caused by such unfair trade practices and warranty
breaches and return all monies paid by putative class members."

The Defendants timely moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
March 10, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the
motion to dismiss on April 9, 2015, and Defendants filed their
reply memorandum on April 22, 2015.  On April 28, 2015, the Court
entered an order lifting the stay of discovery that had been in
place in the case. The Plaintiffs served discovery requests on May
18, 2015, to which the Defendants responded on June 17, 2015. The
Company continued to produce responsive documents to the
Plaintiffs on a rolling basis. On February 2, 2016, the Court
entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint and dismissing all claims alleged in
the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs' claims under Illinois and
Missouri law for breach of express and implied warranty were
dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed
without prejudice. The Court allowed Plaintiffs 28 days to file a
Second Amended Complaint and upon motion granted additional time
to respond. The next status hearing before the Court was scheduled
for March 22, 2016 but was postponed and a new status hearing was
not set.

In April 2016, the parties executed a Confidential Settlement and
Release for an amount not deemed material to the overall financial
statements. Plaintiffs filed with the Court an Amended Joint
Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice
which was entered by the Court and effective April 22, 2016.

Rock Creek is a pharmaceutical development company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for
chronic inflammatory disease and neurologic disorders utilizing
its proprietary compounds.


RUSSELL BRANDS: Faces False Advertising Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed against the makers of a basketball
alleging it loses air pressure and is falsely advertised.

Jaish Markos filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on June 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Russell Brands LLC alleging violation
of New York business law and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
deceived into purchasing a basketball that was advertised as
NEVERFLAT.  The plaintiff holds Russell Brands LLC responsible
because the defendant allegedly made false claims about the
marketing and labeling of its products.  The suit states that the
defendant used the term NEVERFLAT on its basketballs and
advertises that they are guaranteed to stay fully inflated for at
least one year, but upon testing the basketballs allegedly
significantly lost air pressure over the course of 12 months.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks preliminary and
injunctive relief against the defendant, monetary damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, all court costs and any further relief
the court grants.  He is represented by Jason P. Sultzer and
Joseph Lipari of The Sultzer Law Group PC in Poughkeepsie,
New York; Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP in New York and Melissa W.
Wolchansky of Halunen Law in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 7:16-cv-04362-CS


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: "Mladinich" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rick Mladinich, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff. v. Safeguard Properties, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. RG16815229, was removed from the Alameda
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03414-WHA to the proceeding.
The assigned Judge is Hon. William Alsup.

Safeguard is a turn-key resource center for all aspects of
property management in the mortgage field services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Ellsworth Davis, Esq.
          Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
          Robert Stephen Arns, Esq.
          Robert C. Foss, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom St 3FL
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495 7888
          E-mail: jed@arnslaw.com
                  kmo@arnslaw.com
                  ddl@arnslaw.com
                  rcf@arnslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820 8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
          E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
                  sshadi@bakerlaw.com


SANTA FE: Faces "Cole" Suit Over Deceptive Ads, Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------
JASON COLE and RACHAEL KING, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY,
INC. and REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., Case 1:16-cv-00687-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C., June 21, 2016), alleges that the Plaintiffs were misled
by the deceptive labeling and advertising of Natural American
Spirit cigarettes.

Defendants sell Natural American Spirit cigarettes in health food
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
     RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Phone: (910) 772-9960
     Fax: (910) 772-9062
     E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Balint" Suit in W.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SOUTHWEST CREDIT
SYSTEMS, L.P. The case is captioned BILLIE JEAN BALINT, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00901-AJS (W.D. Penn., June 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
Arthur J. Schwab.

Southwest Credit is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicki A. Piontek, Esq.
          PIONTEK LAW OFFICE
          951 Allentown Road
          Lansdale, PA 19446
          Telephone: (717) 533 7472
          Facsimile: (866) 408 6735
          E-mail: palaw@justice.com


SQM US: Faces "Ewing" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
Anton Ewing, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. SQM US, INC., an Idaho Corporation,
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, a
California Corporation DOES 1-100, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100,
Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-01609-CAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 23, 2016),
accuses Defendants of negligently or intentionally contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dante T. Pride, Esq.
     THE PRIDE LAW FIRM
     2831 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 104
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: 619-516-8166
     Fax: 619-785-3414
     E-mail: dpride@pridelawfirm.com


ST. NICHOLAS FISH: Faces "Galindo" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against St. Nicholas Fish Market, Inc.
The case is styled Moises Gutierrez Galindo, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. St.
Nicholas Fish Market, Inc., Kai Fish Market, Inc., Mao Kai Zheng,
and Khi Li, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-04614 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016).

St. Nicholas is located in the Washington Heights neighborhood of
Manhattan and serves Seafood, Latin American, Puerto Rican, and
Dominican cuisine. It offers delivery and takeout order.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


THERANOS INC: Keller Rohrback Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. on June 27 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California against Theranos, Inc. and
Walgreens Boot Alliance alleging that Theranos's "tiny blood
test," that used its proprietary technology "Edison," did not
work.  Theranos and Walgreens advertised that the Theranos test
could conduct hundreds of blood tests with just a few drops of
blood and produce fast results with the highest level of accuracy.
But the Theranos tests did not work, often required more than a
finger prick of blood, and produced inaccurate results, placing
tens of thousands of customers at risk for inaccurate medical
diagnosis and/or testing.  Theranos tests were available from
Theranos or through Theranos Wellness Centers located inside
Walgreens primarily in Arizona but also in a few locations in
California.

In May, Theranos conceded that its Edison technology was faulty
and voided the results from blood-tests it performed from 2014 and
2015.  Theranos issued corrected reports -- nullifying some
results and revising others -- to tens of thousands of patients
who may have been given incorrect blood-test results.

"Theranos promised three simple things: a less invasive blood
test, fast turnaround, and accurate results.  The Theranos tests
didn't deliver on any of the three promises," David Copley, a
partner with Keller Rohrback, stated.

If you purchased a Theranos lab or blood panel directly from
Theranos or at any Walgreens location, please call attorneys David
Copley, Mark Samson or Chris Graver at (800) 776-6044 or via email
at info@kellerrohrback.com to discuss our investigation and your
potential claims against Theranos, Inc. and/or Walgreens Boot
Alliance.  Additional information is available at
www.krcomplexlit.com

Keller Rohrback, with offices in New York, Seattle, Phoenix,
Oakland, Ronan and Santa Barbara, serves as lead and co-lead
counsel in class actions throughout the country.
Contacts


TOMORROW PCS: Faces "Blank" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSAY BLANK, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated v. TOMORROW PCS, LLC and JONG PARK, Case 2:16-cv-11092
(E.D. La., June 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TPCS is in the business of selling cell phones and cell phone
service plans as a Metro PCS authorized dealer. TPCS has several
stores in the Greater New Orleans area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 483-8008
     E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

        - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


TOP GUARD: Faces "Aranguren" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMAURY CASTRO ARANGUREN and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. TOP GUARD PROFESSIONALS, INC., YOLANDA GARCIA and
ANTONIO RUIZ RODRIGUEZ, SR., Case 1:16-cv-22357-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
June 21, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TOP GUARD PROFESSIONALS, INC. offers security guard, private
investigation, and surveillance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


TOTAL CARD: Dismissal of "Genova" Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
Rocco Genova, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in his
lawsuit entitled Rocco Genova, Jr. v. Total Card, Inc., Case No.
2-16-cv-01260, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 23, 2016, Judge
William H. Walls granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  A full-text copy of Judge Walls' June 8, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/HFAiO7 from Leagle.com.

In the putative class action, Mr. Genova alleged that the
Defendants violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by sending him a debt collection notice containing
false, deceptive, or misleading statements about the legal status
of his debt.

Judge Walls, however, found that Genova's complaint fails to
adequately allege either (a) that the defendant, Total Card, Inc.
(TCI), misrepresented the amount, character, or legal status of
Genova's debt to Merrick Bank Corporation (MBC) at the time TCI
sent the collection letter or (b) that TCI misrepresented or
failed to inform Genova of the effect that his partial settlement
payments would have on the legal status of his debt with MBC.

The appellate case is captioned as Rocco Genova, Jr. v. Total
Card, Inc., Case No. 16-2935, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Rocco Genova, Jr., is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
                  yzelman@marcuszelman.com

Defendant-Appellee Total Card Inc. is represented by:

          Concepcion A. Montoya, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6228
          E-mail: cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com


TURTLE BEACH: Appeal in Nevada Supreme Court Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal before the
Nevada Supreme Court in a shareholders class action remains
pending.

On August 5, 2013, VTBH and the Company (f/k/a Parametric)
announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant
to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership
interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately
20% ownership interest in the combined company. Following the
announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in
California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs
in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a Merger that allegedly undervalued the Company.

VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits
under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's
Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties.
The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited
to participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.

The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court, which held
a hearing on the Company's petition for review on September 1,
2015.

After the hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court requested supplemental
briefing, which the parties completed on October 13, 2015. The
Nevada Supreme Court also invited the Business Law Section of the
Nevada State Bar to submit an amicus brief by December 3, 2015 and
briefing was completed on February 23, 2016.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are
without merit.

Turtle Beach is a worldwide leading provider of feature-rich
headset solutions for use across multiple platforms, including
video game and entertainment consoles, handheld consoles, personal
computers, tablets and mobile devices.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Renew Push to Halt Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump have denied seeking
a "re-do" in moving to decertify one of the class actions filed
over his Trump University real estate seminars.

In a filing on June 24, Mr. Trump's lawyers, who unsuccessfully
challenged the certification of classes in San Diego federal court
in 2014, argued circumstances had changed since then.


TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Provides Indemnity and Defense in "Mathews"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
provides indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the
claims in the case, Amy Mathews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-
Mart Stores Arkansas LLC, Case No. CV-2015-0294, in the Circuit
Court of Independence County, Arkansas, Civil Division.

This purported class action alleges a violation of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the same allegations of the
state attorney general that serve as the basis for the claims in
the Herbal Supplements multidistrict litigation referenced above,
and seeks certification of a class of Arkansas residents
purportedly impacted by the allegations. The Company is not a
party to this litigation but provides indemnity and defense with
respect to certain of the claims in this litigation.

The Company and its subsidiaries manufacture and market high-
quality, science-based nutritional supplements.


UNCLE TOM'S: Faces "Alaman" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ALAMAN and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. UNCLE TOM'S BBQ PALM AVENUE, INC. and ARIEL
RODRIGUEZ, individually Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-22419-RNS (S.D.
Fla., June 23, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Uncle Toms BBQ is Miami's oldest restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


UNITED STATES: Child Deportation Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Carter, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that several
thousand children facing possible deportation in the Western
United States will be swept into a class-action lawsuit filed by
immigration-rights advocates seeking to force the government to
provide attorneys for children in immigration courts.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly on June 24 certified a class in
the lawsuit, filed in 2014 by a coalition of immigration-rights
groups, that officials say could impact thousands of immigrant
children awaiting deportation hearings.

Judge Zilly ordered the class of immigrants swept into the lawsuit
to include all children under the age of 18 residing in the 9th
Judicial Circuit who are facing so-called "removal proceedings"
after June 24. It also includes those children who don't currently
have an attorney and can't otherwise afford one, and who may be
eligible for asylum or protection under the United Nation's
Convention Against Torture, which forbids countries from returning
people to any country where there is reason to believe they will
be tortured.

"This ruling means that thousands of children will now have a
fighting chance at getting a fair day in immigration court," said
Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties
Union's Immigrant Rights Project in Los Angeles.

"The Obama administration should stop defending its draconian
practice of conducting deportation hearings against unrepresented
children," he said.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Nicole Navas, contacted in
Washington D.C., said the department would not comment on pending
litigation.

The DOJ had asked Judge Zilly to dismiss the lawsuit, alleging
that children fleeing oppression or seeking to join their parents
who are already in the U.S. do not need to be given an attorney to
ensure their hearings are fair, or understand what is happening to
them.

Providing a lawyer to every child facing "removal" from the U.S.
would cause the entire immigration system to collapse, argued Leon
Fresco, a deputy assistant U.S. attorney general from Washington,
D.C., who argued the case earlier this year.

"There is no money for it," Mr. Fresco has said.

The lawsuit caused a furor nationally when a senior immigration
judge, Jack Weil, said in a deposition in the lawsuit that he had
"taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds"
who were facing deportation.

Evidence has shown that many of the children travel thousands of
miles alone, fleeing persecution or trying to join up with family
in the U.S.

"It takes a lot of patience," said Mr. Weil, who is in charge of
instructing immigration judges throughout the country.  "They get
it," he said.

Mr. Weil's comments generated a firestorm of controversy over a
system that does not currently require that children be
represented by a lawyer during deportation hearings, but does call
for a "full and fair hearing" before an immigration judge.

Mr. Fresco has acknowledged that the topic of child immigration is
"delicate," and that many of the plaintiffs are sympathetic.  He
said the hope is that Congress will address the issue.

"This is a purely legal issue," he said.

Judge Zilly has been skeptical of a scenario that pits a child
against a career prosecutor and an immigration judge, even if it
is an administrative hearing, noting at a hearing in March that
"we have a Constitution here."

Testimony and court documents indicate that many of the children
involved have traveled from countries such as El Salvador and
Guatemala, where they have faced persecution.  Two of the
plaintiffs -- all of whom are identified in the lawsuit only by
initials -- claim they fled to the U.S. after their father was
murdered and their mother raped.

The class includes immigrant children living in the states of
Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana,
Alaska, Hawaii and the federal territories of Guam and the
Northern Marianas Islands.


UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Court Appeal Filed in "Keepseagle" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
All Plaintiffs and Donivon Craig Tingle filed an appeal seeking
review of a decision by the District Court in the lawsuit titled
Marilyn Keepseagle, et al. v. Thomas Vilsack, Case No. 1:99-cv-
03119-EGS, in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.

Thomas Vilsack is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 16,
2016, some overdue support and payback are on the way for Native
American farmers and ranchers.  A $380 million settlement, issued
by a federal judge this April, will create a Native American-run
$265 million endowed trust for nonprofit organizations working on
Indian lands.  It will also pay other money to families who sued
the U.S. Department of Agriculture for discrimination.

The settlement stems from a 1999 class-action lawsuit, filed by
Marilyn and George Keepseagle, ranchers from the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe in North Dakota.  The case claimed the USDA Farm Loan
Program illegally discriminated against thousands of Native
American farmers and ranchers during the previous two decades,
denying them opportunities to receive farm loans, technical
assistance and other services routinely offered to white farmers
and ranchers.  Since many tribal farmers have only partial, or
fractionated, shares of parcels due to 20th-century Indian land
policies, families often lack land equity and struggle to get
loans or credit access for farming -- even without facing
discriminatory practices.  The Obama administration originally
settled Keepseagle v. Vilsack in 2010, agreeing to pay $680
million to class action claimants.

The appellate case is captioned as Marilyn Keepseagle, et al. v.
Thomas Vilsack, Case No. 16-5189, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Marilyn Keepseagle is represented by:

          Stewart Douglas Fried, Esq.
          Marshall Matz, Esq.
          OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ PC
          600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 789-1212
          Facsimile: (202) 234-3550
          E-mail: sfried@ofwlaw.com
                  mmatz@ofwlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants All Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joseph Marc Sellers, Esq.
          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  cwebber@cohenmilstein.com

Defendant-Appellee Thomas J. Vilsack is represented by:

          DOJ APPELLATE COUNSEL
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

Interested Party-Appellant Donivon Craig Tingle is represented by:

          Donivon Craig Tingle, Esq.
          THE TINGLE LAW FIRM
          1008 Airport Road, Suite E
          Destin, FL 32541
          Telephone: (850) 650-8138
          Facsimile: (850) 650-0365
          E-mail: tingleandassociatespa@embarqmail.com


UTILITY TREE: "Torres" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Torres and Ruben S. Hermosillo, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Utility Tree
Service, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
115CV286314, was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
District of California (San Jose). The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-03424-HRL to the proceeding. The
assigned Magistrate Judge is Howard R. Lloyd.

Utility Tree provides line clearance and vegetation management
services.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael D. Thomas, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Market Plaza
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442 4870
          E-mail: michael.thomas@ogletreedeakins.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Price Tag Raised to $15 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan Katz and John Lippert, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that Volkswagen AG's price tag to settle lawsuits in the U.S. over
its rigging of diesel emissions tests has jumped to more than $15
billion -- $5 billion more than previously reported -- on the eve
of a settlement to be filed on June 28 in a San Francisco court.

Under the deal, VW will set aside up to $10.03 billion to cover
costs including buying back vehicles at pre-scandal values and
compensating drivers as much as $10,000 per car for their
troubles, two people familiar with the negotiations said.  Those
figures could rise if VW misses certain deadlines.

In addition, Volkswagen will pay $2.7 billion in fines that will
go to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Air Resources Board and invest $2 billion in clean-emissions
technology, one of the people said.  The carmaker is also expected
to announce a settlement with states, including New York, for
about $400 million, another person said.

That total far exceeds any previous U.S. civil settlement with an
automaker, and it brings VW closer to the 16.2 billion euros
($17.85 billion) it has set aside to cover the costs of the
scandal.  But it won't put an end to VW's legal troubles spanning
three continents as the company still faces civil and criminal
actions in other jurisdictions.

The total economic impact of the scandal on VW was estimated at
$55 billion euros by Richard Hilgert, an analyst at Morningstar
Equity Research.  That includes government fines, dealer
remuneration, repair costs, vehicle repurchases, plus the
litigation costs and damages awarded plaintiffs from class action
lawsuits filed by shareholders and consumers, he said in a
June 17 report.

Buy-Back Target

The compensation figure jumped over the past few days, these
people said, as the parties changed their estimates on what it
would take to get some 85 percent of owners to trade in their
vehicles under the settlement.  Another person familiar with the
matter didn't dispute the final amount but said it had remained
constant since a preliminary agreement was reached in April.
VW, whose brands include Audi and Porsche, has admitted to
systematically rigging environmental tests since 2009 to hide that
its diesel vehicles were emitting far more pollutants than allowed
under U.S. and California law.

Wyn Hornbuckle of the Justice Department, Jeannine Ginivan of
Volkswagen and Nick Conger of the EPA declined to comment.

The agreements between VW and the U.S. Department of Justice, EPA
and CARB were set to be filed with U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer by noon San Francisco time on June 28.  Judge Breyer is
overseeing more than 800 lawsuits over the rigged vehicles.  The
$2.7 billion to be paid to regulators will be placed in a trust to
fund pollution-reduction projects.

In order to participate in the settlement plan, if approved by the
judge, owners will have to surrender their cars or agree to have
them retrofitted to meet emissions standards.  No fix for the
vehicles has been approved by environmental regulators, people
familiar with the talks have said.  VW has until the end of 2018
to come up with a viable update, one of the people said. The
$10.03 billion buy-back amount was a maximum and could be less if
more owners opt to fix rather than sell their cars back to VW, one
of the people said.

The Volkswagen settlement would be one of the largest in corporate
history, exceeded by the $246 billion agreement between the
tobacco industry and U.S. states in 1998 and the multiple payments
to private parties and governments over the 2010 BP Plc oil spill.
BP's final bill isn't yet known, but it includes agreements to pay
more than $25 billion to the U.S. and states and at least $12.9
billion for claims of private property and economic loss.

Rising Expenses

The rising cost of the U.S. settlement raises the question of
whether VW has set aside enough money to put the scandal behind
it.  Maryann Keller, an independent auto industry consultant in
Stamford, Connecticut, said the answer depends on how non-U.S.
consumers and governments react.

"The bigger problem is if people in other countries and other
governments want a similar deal," Ms. Keller said.  "If they do, I
don't think $18 billion will cut it."

Indeed, European governments and consumer groups are pressing VW
to provide compensation similar to the amounts expected for U.S.
car owners for the roughly 8.5 million owners of VW diesel models
on the road there, raising the possibility that VW's expenses
related to the scandal will rise further still.

The U.S. settlement is expected to make up the lion's share of
VW's overall cost for the scandal, but other legal action is still
pending.  For example, the company still faces criminal
investigations in the U.S., Germany and South Korea.

Auto dealers and resellers have sued VW in class actions alleging
fraud and false advertising.  While few of Volkswagen's authorized
dealers have sued over lost sales, they may be looking to the June
28 plan to determine whether to abide by the company's approach or
take an adversarial stance.

Opting Out

The plan may also not resolve what will be done if owners refuse
to give up their cars.  That would prolong the environmental
effects.

"I'll probably just keep driving it," Marcus Frye, a mechanic from
Redwood City, California, said of his 2010 VW Jetta diesel model.
Mr. Frye recently tried to sell the car on Craigslist for $11,500,
or about three-quarters of what he paid a year earlier.
But after he noticed that the Kelley Blue Book value had dropped
to $6,000 because of the emissions scandal, he pulled the ad. "If
the value of the car is basically junk, why would I give it away
to anyone?"

Investors in the U.S. and Germany are suing VW for what they
describe as massive losses in the days following the Sept. 18
disclosure that the company had installed a so-called defeat
device on 11 million vehicles to beat emissions tests in the U.S.
and Europe.  Holders of American Depository Receipts, whose claims
also won't be covered in the June 28 agreement, contend that the
drop cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.  The company's
shares have lost 35 percent of their value since the disclosure.

'Tip of the Iceberg'

The announcement on June 23 that South Korean prosecutors had
arrested a VW executive there may be "the tip of the iceberg,"
said Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John's University in
New York who specializes in complex litigation.  More prosecutors
or regulators worldwide may pursue additional actions following
the settlement with the U.S., he said.

"There are plenty of public-minded, or just ambitious, politicians
and bureaucrats who'll be ringing up VW: 'You gave the Americans
this, we want some,'" Mr. Sabino said.

The agreement with the U.S. will also put Volkswagen under an
international microscope through a consent decree that will
probably include federal monitoring of its compliance, Mr. Sabino
said.  "The U.S. will be watching their every move," he said.
As part of the automaker's rebound effort, Chief Executive Officer
Matthias Mueller has mapped out a sweeping strategy overhaul
focused on electric cars, automated driving and services such as
ride-hailing.

The shift will entail more than $11.2 billion in investments by
2025, which will be financed in part by cost-cutting at the
namesake Volkswagen brand and bundling together its fragmented
parts operations, the company said in June.

The case is In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2672, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Ford" Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Voxx International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended February 29, 2016, that a motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit,
Brian Ford v. VOXX International Corporation et. al., was filed
against us and two of our present executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  On July 16,
2015, the judge approved the designation of the lead plaintiffs
and counsel for the plaintiffs.  On September 28, 2015, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint which alleges the same claims
as the original complaint (that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements which
artificially inflated the price of our stock and that purchasers
of our stock during the relevant period were damaged when the
stock price later declined) under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act but expands the class period by five
months, from January 9, 2013 through May 14, 2014.  According to
the allegations contained in the amended complaint, the defendants
knew or should have known, by virtue of their roles and positions,
that their statements were false and misleading and said
defendants were purportedly motivated because their conduct
enabled Company insiders to sell VOXX stock at inflated prices.
We believe that we have meritorious legal positions and defenses
and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this
matter. On November 25, 2015, the Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The motion to
dismiss is presently pending before the Court."

In January 2016, a Memorandum in Opposition re Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim was filed by Asbestos Workers
Philadelphia Pension Fund, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, Plumbers
Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund.

In March 2016, the Defendants filed a Reply in Support re Motion
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

Defendant VOXX International Corporation is represented by:

          John A. Neuwirth, Esq.
          Wil, Gotshal & Manges
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Tel: (212) 310-8000
          Fax: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: john.neuwirth@weil.com

               - and -

          Caroline Jane Hickey, Esq.
          Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue, Apt 3d
          New York, NY 10153
          Tel: (212) 310-8527
          Fax: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: caroline.zalka@weil.com


WARNER CHAPPELL: Donahue Fitzgerald Attorneys Wrap Up Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donahue Fitzgerald Attorneys on June 27 disclosed that it's
official! Sing it loud, sing it proud, and sing it for free,
knowing that you won't get hit up for royalties.  The world's most
famous song, "Happy Birthday to You," is now in the public domain
thanks in large part to Donahue Fitzgerald LLP Partners Andrew
MacKay and Daniel Schacht.  Judge George H. King of the Central
District of California gave final approval on June 27 to the
settlement in Good Morning to You Productions Corp. et al. v.
Warner/Chappell Music Inc., et al.  The settlement includes the
repayment of $14 million in royalties collected by Warner/Chappell
and a court order placing the song in the public domain.

"This is a huge victory for the public, and for the artists who
want to use Happy Birthday to You in their videos and music.
Everyone who has a birthday can celebrate!" said Mr. Schacht.
"Strong copyright protection is important for artists and content
creators, but it must have limits.  This landmark ruling
recognizes the value of the public domain."

"I have handled some important copyright and trademark cases in
the past," said Mr. MacKay, "but nothing has resonated with the
public as much as this case.  It was wrong for Warner/Chappell to
collect royalties for a song they didn't own, and I'm proud to
have helped achieve this victory."

Filed as a class action, the lawsuit sought to represent anyone
who had paid to license the song, such as musicians, film makers,
and television producers.  Of the four class plaintiffs, which
included Good Morning to You Productions Corp., Robert Siegel and
Majar Productions, LLC, Donahue Fitzgerald's client Rupa Marya is
the only musician. Marya's involvement in the case stemmed from
her performance of "Happy Birthday to You" at a concert on her
birthday in 2013.  She paid Warner/Chappell $455 to include the
live rendition of "Happy Birthday to You" on her album Live at the
Independent.

Warner/Chappell alleged that their rights to the "Happy Birthday
to You" song came from their 1988 acquisition of the Summy Company
and the copyright would not expire until 2030.  In
Sept. 2015, Judge King granted partial summary judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs, ruling that Warner/Chappell did not own the
copyright to the lyrics of the song.  The defendants agreed to
settle the matter thereafter.

One of many high-profile intellectual property lawsuits that
Donahue Fitzgerald has brought on behalf of content creators,
Partners MacKay and Schacht contributed their experience in
copyright and music law to the case.  In addition to the Donahue
Fitzgerald team, plaintiffs were represented by Mark Rifkin,
Randall Newman and Betsy Manifold of class action firm Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, and Marc Godino --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- and Kara Wolke --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, also a
class action firm.

                 About Donahue Fitzgerald LLP.

Donahue Fitzgerald LLP is a full-service, business-focused law
firm leveraging the talents of more than 50 attorneys in three Bay
Area offices located in Oakland, Walnut Creek, and Marin.  The
firm provides civil legal services including advice, transactional
matters, and litigation across a broad spectrum of practices,
including intellectual property, business and corporate
transactions, trusts and estates, employment and real estate, as
well as other complementary business areas.


WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses "Chambers" Suit
--------------------------------------------
Judge Jerome B. Simandle granted the defendants' motion and
dismissed, with prejudice, the case captioned JAMES L. CHAMBERS,
Jr., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORPORATION a/k/a FREDDIE MAC; REED SMITH, LLP; and
FLEMING L. WARE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-6976 (JBS/JS)
(D.N.J.).

James L. Chambers, Jr. sought to enforce rescission of his home
mortgage pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).  Chambers
contended that Wells Fargo Bank violated certain notice provisions
of TILA during the execution of a modification to his mortgage and
that neither Wells Fargo nor the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation have acknowledged his lawful notice of rescission of
the loan.  Chambers sought to enforce return of the loan note
marked cancelled, the original mortgage, and all money he has
paid, and record satisfaction of his mortgage.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, principally arguing
that Chambers' claims are barred by a foreclosure action brought
by Wells Fargo in the Superior Court of New Jersey, in which the
state court found that Chambers had defaulted on his mortgage and
that Wells Fargo had standing to foreclose on the property.  The
defendants also argued that Chambers has failed to state a claim
because TILA does not permit rescission of purchase money
mortgages and the attorney defendants are immune from liability.

A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's June 28, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/IdoxpX from Leagle.com.

WELLS FARGO, N.A., FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, REED
SMITH LLP, FLEMING L WARE, Defendants, represented by DIANE A.
BETTINO -- dbettino@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH, LLP & LAURA
KATERI CONROY -- lconroy@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP.


ZTB II: "Palma" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
Oscar Palma, Individually, and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ZTB II, LLC, ZAK The Baker, LLC,
and Stern H. Zachary, the Defendants, Case No. 16-012232-CA-01,
was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-
Dade, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-22315-DPG to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is
Darrin P. Gayles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arlene Karin Kline, Esq.
          AKEMAN LLP
          777 South Flagler Drive
          Suite 1100 West Tower
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 653 5000
          Facsimile: (561) 659 6313
          E-mail: arlene.kline@akerman.com




                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *