CAR_Public/160714.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 140




                            Headlines


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in "Wyche" Action
AMADEUS IT: Case Conference Slated for July 26
AMERICAN FAMILY: AmFam Mutual Dropped From "Anderson"
AMERICAN GREETINGS: "Smith" Case Settlement Has Final Approval
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Ackerman Voluntarily Dismissed TCPA Suit

AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Charleston Suit Remanded to State Court
ANTHEM: Faces Class Action Over Prescription Drug Prices
APIGEE CORPORATION: Defending Suit Related to April 2015 IPO
ARIZONA CARDINALS: NFL Teams Must Face Painkiller Suit
ASCENA RETAIL: Settlement in Justice Pricing Litigation Pending

AUDUBON FIELD: Faces "Beard" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
AVIS RENT A CAR: "Schwartz" & "Klein" Settlements Win Final Okay
BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Fund Alleges Price Fixing of SSA Bonds
BARRETT BUSINESS: Reply to Objection to Dismissal Bid Due July 25
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Sued Over False Advertising in Time Shares

CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Suit Against Jail Physicians
CALIFORNIA: Court Reduces Costs Assessed Against Jeffries
CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of "Lopez" Suit v. Ndoh Recommended
CAMPBELL-EWALD: Ruling Leaves Two Unanswered Questions
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Plaintiffs Awarded $2.679MM in Class Action

CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend "Ackerman" Suit in California
CHRISTIANMINGLE: Gay Singles Can Join Dating Site for First Time
CITIBANK NA: Frontpoint Sues Over SIBOR, SOR Price Inclusion
CITY NATIONAL BANK: Sued Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA: Rental Fee Suit Obtains Class Action Status

CSRA INC: Motion for Class Certification Due "Strauch" Action
DOLLAR GENERAL: EEOC's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Pending
DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Certification Bid Due to October 17
DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denied Motion to Transfer "Pleasant" Case
DOLLAR GENERAL: Trial in "Sullivan" Case to Begin October 31

DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Defends Suits Over Private-Label Motor Oil
EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Homebuilders' Class Action
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Ferguson" Suit Over Faulty Dishwasher
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Appeal in "Davis" Class Action Pending
EMERY WILSON: "Meinders" Case Wins Class Certification

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Dismisses "Alston" FCRA Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Plaintiffs Win More Time to Respond to Discovery
FACEBOOK INC: Must Defend Against "Marfeo" Privacy Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Continues Fight Against Biometrics Law Amid Suit
FERGUSON, MO: Insurer Won't Defend City Over Traffic Tickets Suit

FIDELITY BANK: NCVA Allowed to Partially Amend Complaint
FORCE FACTOR: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit Over Test X180
FORD CANADA: Calif. Judge Revives Antitrust Claims
FOXTONS: Faces Class Action Over Tenant Fees
GOOGLE INC: Faces "Singh" Lawsuit in Cali. Over AdWords Program

GOOGLE INC: Nov. 10 Hearing Set on Age Discrimination Case Motion
GREEN HORIZON: Faces "Arias" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws
GROUPON INC: "Keena" Class Suit Sent to Arbitration
HG STAFFING: "Reader" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
INVENSENSE INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit

J. C. PENNEY: Securities Class Action Still Pending
J. C. PENNEY: ERISA Case Settlement Subject to Court Approval
J. C. PENNEY: Tschudy et al. Appeal Class Action Ruling
J. C. PENNEY: Aug. 25 Fairness Hearing Set in Pricing Class Suit
J.L. Hawes: Faces "Heydrick" Lawsuit Under FLSA, SC Wages Act

JAPAN: Comfort Women's Claim Dismissed
KANE'S FURNITURE: Sued for Allegedly Selling Defective Products
KEMET CORPORATION: Reply Briefs Not Yet Filed
KLX ENERGY: Faces "Barrientes" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
LANDRY'S INC: Court Dismisses "Craig" Wage and Hour Suit

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Degelman" Suit
LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Lawsuits Over Water Crisis Pending
LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Disputes Fraudulent Billing Allegations
M1 AUTO: Wants Class of Workers in OT Wage Case Decertified
MACY'S: Judge Rules Against In-Store Civil Recovery Practice

MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER: Soccer Club Sues Under Sherman, Clayton Acts
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces "Burke" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
MCDONALD'S: Judge Allows Payroll Card Case to Proceed
MDL 1566: Discovery Rift Pending in Natural Gas Antitrust Case
MERCK: 3rd Cir. Appeal Underway in Suit Over Femur Fractures

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Faces Suit Over Toll Road Users' Rights
MICROSOFT CORP: Addresses Problems Over Windows 10 Update
MICROSOFT INC: Class Action Mulled Over Windows 10 Upgrade
MONSANTO COMPANY: Must Face Cancer Claims in Hawaii Case
MURRAY HILL: Sued in Fla. Over Unpaid Service Payment

NAVIENT CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Omissions
NESTLE PURINA: Beneful Pet Food Class Action in Canada Dismissed
NETFLIX: Faces Class Action Over Subscription Fee Hike
NEW YORK: Reinstates Bearded Muslim Officer Following Suit
NEW YORK: Court Sends Transgender-Care Exclusion Case to Trial

NISSI CLEANERS: Faces "Arriaga" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
NUPLEXA GROUP: "Rosenblatt" Remanded to Superior Court
PATROON OPERATING: Rodriquez Seeks minimum wages Under FLSA
PEPSICO INC: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminarily Approval
PERFETTO ENTERPRISES: Faces "Greco" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages

PHILADELPHIA: "Brennan" Overtime Suit Goes to Trial
PRODEC FINISHES: Faces "Bavis" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Jane Doe" Suit Dismissed
QLOGIC CORPORATION: Court Dismissed "Hull" Class Action
RAY MORGAN: Sued Over Refusal to Reimburse Business Expenses

RED BULL: "Rosado-Acha" Suit Dismissed
RLCS INC.: "Fields" Suit Seeks Penalties Under Labor Code
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Court Conditionally Certifies "Riva"
SEARS HOLDINGS: Suits Over Seritage Spinoff Remain Pending
SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Faces "Egbers" Suit Over Employee Contributions

SHARP HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Patient Recordings
SIRIUS XM: 11th Cir. Seeks Input from Florida Supreme Court
SONOCO PROTECTIVE: Ortiz Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
SONY PICTURES: $18 Million Deal with Animators Wins Initial OK
STUDENT LOAN ASSISTANCE: Sued Over Robo-Spam Text Messages

TEXAS: Intellectually-Disabled People's Class Action Can Proceed
TILE SHOP: Court Won't Reconsider Subpoena Order vs Gotham
TITEFLEX CORP: "Roy" Suit Remanded to Circuit Court
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 3.37 Million Cars Over Air Bags, Emissions
TRACY, CA: Police Sergeant Files Class Action Over OT Wages

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Still Fight Release of Video Depositions
TYSON FOODS: Seeks New Trial in Workers' OT Wage Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Withholds Approval of Settlement
UNITED STATES: Deal Okayed in Suit Against Immigration Dept.
UNITED STATES: Ordered to Unseal Evidence in Immigration Case

UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Rules in Suit Over Undocumented Minors
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: "Mikhak" Suit Sent to Arbitration
V.K. MECHANICAL: Faces "Burch" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
VALVE: TmarTn Mum on Suit Over CS:GO Skin Betting Site
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Must Face Union Suit Over AlphaSector Funds

VISA AND MASTERCARD: 2nd Cir. Vacates $7.2-Bil. Antitrust Deal
VITTORIO AUTO: Faces "Fuentres" Lawsuit Over FLSA Violation
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Diminishes Dealers' Leverage
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Korean Consumer Rights Agency to Seek Redress
VOLKSWAGEN: Won't Offer Generous Compensation to U.S. Consumers

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Awaits Ruling on $15.3BB Emissions Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN AG: U.S. Settlement Prompts Damages Debate in Korea
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Still No Compensation for European Consumers
WAL-MART STORES: Del. Court Tossed Consolidated Derivative Suit
WARNER MUSIC: Judge Okays $14MM Deal Over "Happy Birthday" Song

WEATHER MARK: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
WESLEY FINANCIAL: Faces "Burgess" Suit Over FLSA Violation
WHITE HOUSE BLACK: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Altman" Action

* Silicosis Class Action Certification to Spur More Cases
* Supreme Court Rulings Bring Little Relief for Businesses
* Companies' Online Agreements Spark Consumer Class Actions


                            *********


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in "Wyche" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that an amended
complaint has been filed in a putative stockholder class action.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-
05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, naming the Company, along with
Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

An amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2016. The amended
complaint alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from July 25, 2014 through March 29,
2016, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and will vigorously defend against these allegations, but
litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of
this matter is not predictable with assurance. While it is
reasonably possible that this matter ultimately could be decided
unfavorably to the Company, the Company is currently unable to
estimate the range of the possible losses, but they could be
material.


AMADEUS IT: Case Conference Slated for July 26
----------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that travelers on nine major airlines can sue tech firms they say
charged billions in inflated fees annually to give travel agents
flight schedules and prices, a federal judge ruled.

Consumers filed a class action in Southern New York Federal Court
in June 2015 on behalf of those who have bought plane tickets from
nine major carriers in the past 10 years.

The defendants are global distribution systems, or GDSs --
technology providers through which airlines provide fare and
schedule information to travel agents.

They include Amadeus IT Group S.A., Amadeus North America Inc.,
Amadeus Americas Inc., Sabre Corp., Sabre Holdings Corp., Sabre
GLBL Inc., Sabre Travel International Limited, Travelport
Worldwide Limited and Travelport LP.

Airlines must pay these firms a fee each time a consumer books a
flight segment from a travel agent using such a system, according
to the consumers' complaint.  Those fees add up to about $2.4
billion a year, the consumers say.

Concerned in 2006 about airlines' content and service concessions
to favor low cost, new market entrants, the GDSs allegedly
conspired to stifle the growing competition.

Sabre and Amadeus promised to supply each other with any content
that airlines provided to only one of them, while all the
defendants demanded "substantively identical terms on a take-it-
or-leave-it basis" during their 2006 contract negotiations,
according to the complaint.

The terms -- an "abrupt and radical departure" from the past --
barred airlines from offering different content or lower prices
through other distribution channels, the consumers say.

The GDSs allegedly kept pursuing their collusive strategy in 2009,
2010 and 2011.  They charged inflated fees, which in turn raised
fares for all travelers, the consumers say. Plus, the defendants
gave kickbacks to corporate travel agencies, the complaint states.

The class-action lawsuit asserts violations of various federal and
state antitrust and state consumer protection laws, including the
Sherman Act.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, preemption,
and untimeliness.

But U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla partially denied the
motion July 6.  The judge upheld the federal antitrust claim,
finding that the consumers alleged a direct path to their own harm
from the defendants' anticompetitive behavior.

"Notably, while the alleged violations caused harm to the airlines
by restricting their bargaining power with GDSs, the contractual
restraint preventing airlines from offering lower fares through
alternate platforms would seem to most directly harm consumers:
Airlines themselves pay nothing to any GDS when they offer an
airfare directly from their own website, but consumers
nevertheless allegedly pay more for that fare," Failla wrote.

The judge added, "As defendants highlight, the majority of the
plaintiffs in the instant case are precisely those sort of direct-
from-the-airline purchasers, who were forced to pay GDS fees on
their tickets even though the airline did not pay GDS fees for
those particular tickets."

The consumers have standing to bring their federal injunctive
claim, even though "there might perhaps be other motivated
parties," the ruling states.

But the judge rejected the state-law claims, finding that although
the airlines no longer own the defendants, the state-law claims
are necessarily "related to" ticket prices and services, so they
are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

In dismissing the state-law claims, Failla dismissed all of the
consumers' claims for damages. Their federal antitrust claim is
for injunctive relief only.

The consumers' lead attorneys, James Anderson, Vincent Esades, Ian
McFarland, and Renae Steiner with Heins Mills & Olson in
Minneapolis, did not return a request for comment July 6.

One of Amadeus' attorneys, M. Roy Goldberg with Steptoe & Johnson
in Washington, D.C., said he will provide a press release once
issued.

A conference to discuss next steps in the case is slated for July
26, according to the ruling.

The case captioned, DANIEL GORDON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMADEUS
IT GROUP, S.A., et al., Defendants., Case No. 15 Civ. 5457
(KPF)(S.D.N.Y.).


AMERICAN FAMILY: AmFam Mutual Dropped From "Anderson"
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GARTH ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:15-CV-475 (MTT) (M.D.
Ga.), Judge Marc T. Treadwell granted in part and denied, in part,
the motion filed by American Family Insurance Company (AFIC) and
American Family Mutual Insurance Company (AmFam Mutual) to dismiss
Garth Anderson's claims against them for breach of contract and
declaratory judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Anderson sought relief on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated for the defendants' alleged refusal to assess and pay
damages for diminished value when claims are made under their
homeowners insurance policies.  Anderson alleged he "timely
reported a claim for direct physical loss to his home resulting
from water damage" but "Defendants breached their insurance
contract with [him] by (1) failing to assess [his] property for
diminution in value resulting from the water damage and (2)
failing to pay [him] for such diminution in value."

Specifically, Anderson alleged AFIC "adjusted [his] claim arising
out of the loss, authorized repairs to [his] home [which he made],
and subsequently paid certain repair costs," but "took no action
to assess any diminution in the fair market value of [his]
property."

Judge Treadwell held that the claims against AFIC will go forward,
but the claims against AmFam Mutual were dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Treadwell's June 29, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/rTNPqO from Leagle.com.

GARTH ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Adam P. Princenthal --
adam@princemay.com -- Princenthal & May, LLC, C. COOPER KNOWLES ,
Law Office of C. Cooper Knowles, LLC, CLINTON W. SITTON , JAMES C.
BRADLEY -- jbradley@rpwb.com -- MICHAEL J. BRICKMAN --
mbrickman@rpwb.com -- NINA FIELDS BRITT -- nfields@rpwb.com -- and
RICHARD KOPELMAN .

AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by COLLIER WEST
MCKENZIE, HEATHER CARSON PERKINS -- heather.perkins@faegrebd.com
-- L. RHYDDID WATKINS -- rhyddid.watkins@faegrebd.com -- MICHAEL
S. MCCARTHY -- michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com -- ROBERT C. NORMAN,
Jr. -- bob.norman@jonescork.com.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: "Smith" Case Settlement Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended February 29, 2016, that a court has granted
final approval of the class action settlement in the case, Al
Smith et al. v. American Greetings Corporation.

On June 4, 2014, Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixture
installation crew members for special projects, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a putative class
action lawsuit against American Greetings Corporation in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation violated
certain rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
law, including the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders. For themselves and the proposed classes,
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and special
damages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed upon
wages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutory
penalties (including penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest). In addition,
plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the Corporation
acquired by means of any act or practice that constitutes unfair
competition and restoration of such funds to the plaintiffs and
the proposed classes. On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint to add claims for reimbursement of
business expenses and failure to provide meal periods in violation
of California Law and on December 12, 2014, amended their PAGA
notice to include the newly added claims.

On January 20, 2015, the parties reached a settlement in principle
that, once approved by the Court, would fully and finally resolve
the claims brought by Smith and Hourcade, as well as the classes
they sought to represent. The settlement was a product of
extensive negotiations and a private mediation, which was
finalized and memorialized in a Stipulation and Class Action
Settlement Agreement signed March 30, 2015. On March 31, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and on July 23, 2015, the Court entered its Order
Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On
August 24, 2015, the claims administrator commenced mailing of
notice and claim forms to class members and the claims closed
October 24, 2015. On October 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion
for final approval of the class settlement, together with their
motion for approval of incentive payments to the Named Plaintiffs
and attorneys' fees. The Court held a final approval hearing on
December 17, 2015. On May 19, 2016, the Court entered an Order
Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement;
Granting in Part Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Class
Representatives' Service Payments.

The Court-approved settlement establishes a settlement fund of
$4,000 to pay claims from current and former employees who worked
at least one day for American Greetings Corporation and/or certain
of its subsidiaries in any hourly non-exempt position in
California between June 4, 2010 and July 23, 2015. American
Greetings will fund the settlement within 20 days after passage of
all appeal periods. Thereafter, the settlement funds will be
disbursed as provided in the settlement agreement and the Court's
final approval order.

Founded in 1906, American Greetings designs, manufactures and/or
distributes social expression products.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Ackerman Voluntarily Dismissed TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ackerman on June 23, 2016, filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the case, Michael Ackerman v. American Greetings
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01656 (D.N.J.).  On June 29,
Judge Madeline C. Arleo entered an order dismissing the case
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the FederalRules of Civil
Procedure, with prejudice and without costs.

American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended February 29, 2016, that plaintiff Michael
Ackerman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
filed on March 6, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court of New Jersey alleging violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by American
Greetings Corporation and its subsidiary, AG Interactive, Inc. The
plaintiff claims that defendants (1) sent plaintiff an unsolicited
text message notifying plaintiff that he had received an ecard;
and (2) knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA, which
prohibits unsolicited automated or prerecorded telephone calls,
including faxes and text messages, sent to cellular telephones.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class based on unsolicited
text messages sent by defendants during the period February 8,
2011 through February 8, 2015. The plaintiff seeks damages in the
statutory amount of $500 for each and every violation of the TCPA
and $1,500 for each and every willful violation of the TCPA.

The Corporation believes the plaintiff's allegations in this
lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend the action
vigorously.

With respect to the Ackerman case, management is unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses as (i) the
aggregate damages have not been specified, (ii) the proceeding is
in the early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome
of pending and anticipated motions, and/or (iv) there are
significant factual issues to be resolved. However, management
does not believe, based on currently available information, that
the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect
on the Corporation's business, consolidated financial position or
results of operations, although the outcome could be material to
the Corporation's operating results for any particular period,
depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Founded in 1906, American Greetings designs, manufactures and/or
distributes social expression products.


AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Charleston Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA, a
West Virginia Municipal Corporation; KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST
VIRGINIA; THE KANAWHA COUNTY COMMISSION; THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION
BUREAU; and THE KANAWHA-CHARLESTON BOARD OF HEALTH, Plaintiffs, v.
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, a West Virginia Corporation;
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., a New Jersey
Corporation; EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation;
GARY SOUTHERN, and DENNIS FARRELL, Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:16-01531 (S.D.W.Va.), Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the
plaintiffs' motion to remand the case, but denied the plaintiffs'
request for an award of costs.

The plaintiffs instituted the action in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County on January 8, 2016.  The complaint sought damages,
equitable remedies, and statutory relief relating to the spill of
a coal processing chemical mixture into the Elk River from a site
operated by Freedom Industries, which resulted in the interruption
of the water supply to approximately 300,000 individuals in West
Virginia beginning on January 9, 2014.

The plaintiffs are the City of Charleston, a municipal
corporation; Kanawha County and the Kanawha County Commission; the
Charleston Convention and Visitors Bureau; and the Kanawha-
Charleston Board of Health.  Each of these governmental entities
alleged that it "suffered economic losses, property losses, damage
to tax revenues, harm to reputation, general damages, and other
losses or injuries as a result of the Elk River spill."  The 15-
count complaint contains claims for negligence, gross negligence,
prima facie negligence, breach of express and implied warranties,
violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection
Act, strict products liability, strict liability for ultra-
hazardous activities, public nuisance, medical monitoring,
punitive damages, and the equitable remedy of piercing the
corporate veil.

The defendants are American Water Works Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; American Water Works Service Company, Inc., a New
Jersey corporation; West Virginia-American Water Company, a West
Virginia corporation; Eastman Chemical Company, a Delaware
corporation, and individuals Gary Southern and Dennis Farrell,
both former executives of Freedom Industries.

On February 12, 2016, Eastman removed asserting that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
at Charleston has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d).
In their motion to remand, the plaintiffs argued that they have
not pled a class action as defined by CAFA, making that statute
inapplicable as a basis for jurisdiction.  In addition to remand,
the plaintiffs requested an award of costs incurred due to
removal.

A full-text copy of Judge Copenhaver's June 21, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/HtQS5e from
Leagle.com.

The City of Charleston West Virginia, Kanawha County, West
Virginia, The Kanawha County Commission, The Charleston Convention
and Visitors Bureau, The Kanawha-Charleston Board of Health,
Plaintiffs, represented by J. Timothy DiPiero, DITRAPANO BARRETT &
DIPIERO, Robert M. Bastress, III, DITRAPANO BARRETT & DIPIERO,
Sean P. McGinley, DITRAPANO BARRETT & DIPIERO, W. Jesse Forbes,
FORBES LAW OFFICES & William C. Forbes, FORBES LAW OFFICES.

West Virginia-American Water Company, American Water Works
Company, Inc., Amercian Water Works Service Company, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Benjamin B. Ware --
bbw@goodwingoodwin.com -- GOODWIN & GOODWIN & Carte P. Goodwin --
cpg@goodwingoodwin.com -- GOODWIN & GOODWIN.

Eastman Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Marc E.
Williams -- marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS
RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Melissa Foster Bird --
melissa.fosterbird@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH & Robert L. Massie -- bob.massie@nelsonmullins.com --
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH.


ANTHEM: Faces Class Action Over Prescription Drug Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Appleby, writing for Kaiser Health News, reports that Anthem
and its pharmacy manager Express Scripts overcharged patients with
job-based insurance for prescription drugs, alleges a lawsuit that
seeks class action status for what could be tens of thousands of
Americans.

It's the latest wrinkle in a battle that has already pitted the
major national insurer and its pharmacy benefit manager (PBM)
against each other in dueling legal actions -- and further
illustrates the complicated set of factors that determine what
consumers pay for prescription medications.

The case alleges that insured workers paid too much because
Express Scripts charged "above competitive pricing levels" and
Anthem, in effect, allowed those higher prices as part of a
10-year contract deal with the pharmacy management firm.  Those
actions, it alleges, violate the firms' responsibilities under a
1974 federal benefits law called the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

"This action seeks to recover losses suffered by the plaintiffs .
. . who overpaid and continue to overpay for the portions of the
costs of prescription drugs . . . they are responsible for paying
as plan participants," says the lawsuit, filed as Burnett v.
Express Scripts and Anthem.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 24.

Express Scripts spokesman David Whitrap said the firm denies "the
allegations and will defend ourselves vigorously."

Anthem, too, denied the allegations and said it would fight the
charges.

"Multi-year contracts with pharmaceutical benefit managers are a
standard strategy used by insurers to assist in making premiums
more affordable," said Lori McLaughlin, corporate communications
director.  "Anthem provides a suite of medical and pharmacy
services that is competitive overall."

'A Complicated Web'

Most employers and health insurers hire PBMs such as Express
Scripts to manage pharmacy claims, create networks of pharmacies,
draw up lists of covered drugs and negotiate prices with drug
companies for medications.  Using a variety of methods, including
smaller networks of pharmacies, financial incentives to steer
patients to lower-cost generics and managing high-cost specialty
medications, the industry's trade group estimates savings of $654
billion for clients between now and 2025.

But PBMs have also come under scrutiny.

Recently, some independent pharmacists have complained that some
PBMs are charging insured consumers more than the cash price for
some generic drugs.

And for years, questions have been raised about whether the
industry fully discloses how much it is actually saving insurer
and employer clients -- and what portion of those savings are
actually passed along to consumers.

"It's such a complicated web of intermediaries that stand between
consumers and the prices they pay," said Erin Fuse Brown, an
assistant professor of law at Georgia State University College of
Law.  "As a result, no one knows if they're getting ripped off."

Plaintiffs Seek To Recover Losses

Because insured patients were required by their health benefit
packages to pay a percentage of the cost of their drugs, any
overcharging on the part of Anthem and Express Scripts meant that
the workers' share was also proportionately too high, the
complaint alleges.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of people with
ERISA-governed insurance plans for whom Anthem provided drug
benefits through an agreement with Express Scripts after Dec. 1,
2009, to the present.  The court has not yet decided if the suit
will have class action status.

Anthem is one of the nation's largest health insurers with more
than 38 million members.  Express Scripts handled more than 175
million claims for Anthem in 2015 alone, according to the
complaint.

The allegations echo those in Anthem's March lawsuit against
Express Scripts, and counterclaims filed shortly thereafter by
Express Scripts against Anthem.  Both of those cases are also in
the Southern District of New York.

Anthem's lawsuit aims to end its contract with the PBM and seeks
$15 billion in damages for what it alleges was the PBM's failure
to renegotiate lower prices for prescriptions. Anthem used to run
its own PBM, but sold it to Express Scripts in 2009 as part of the
contract deal, court documents show.

In its counterclaims, Express Scripts said the insurer rejected
several proposals to renegotiate prices.  In addition, Express
Scripts' legal document says Anthem was offered a choice of "less
money up front but lower pricing" or a bigger upfront payment
"with higher pricing for Express Scripts' services."  It chose the
higher prices over the course of the contract in exchange $4.6
billion more in upfront fees, according to the PBM's counterclaim.
That money, Express Scripts' documents allege, was then used by
Anthem to buy back its own stock, rather than passing it along to
health plan members.  The stock buyback "applied upward pressure
to Anthem's stock price, thereby enriching shareholders and
management," the filing alleges.


APIGEE CORPORATION: Defending Suit Related to April 2015 IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Apigee Corporation continues to face shareholder class action
lawsuits in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, four purported
shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, our directors, certain of our executive officers, the
underwriters of our IPO and other defendants. The lawsuits were
brought by purported stockholders of ours seeking to represent a
class consisting of all purchasers of our stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with our April 2015 IPO. These complaints allege claims
under federal securities laws that such Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained false and/or misleading statements or
omissions. These complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously."

The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of these
matters or to reasonably estimate a range of loss related to these
lawsuits, if any. If these lawsuits result in a material loss to
the Company, this may have an impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


ARIZONA CARDINALS: NFL Teams Must Face Painkiller Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco has refused to dismiss a
class action claiming National Football League teams pumped
injured players with painkillers to get them back on the field.

Lead plaintiff Etopia Evans, widow of the late Charles "Chuck"
Evans, who played for the Minnesota Vikings and Baltimore Ravens,
sued all 32 NFL teams in May 2015. It was transferred from
Maryland to Northern California in March.

Evans et al. claim NFL teams conspired since at least 1964 to have
trainers dole out unprescribed pills and injections, sometimes
mixing them in "dangerous cocktails," to get players back into
games without warning them of the long-term side effects.

Chuck Evans died alone in a jail cell in 2008 two days after he
was imprisoned for failing to pay child support. His widow says he
spent his money on painkillers, to which he became addicted while
playing professional football.

An attorney for the NFL clubs urged U.S. District Judge William
Alsup to dismiss the lawsuit at a June hearing, saying the claims
were no different than those alleged in another class action, Dent
v. NFL, which Alsup dismissed in 2014.

In Dent, Alsup found the NFL had no duty to "intervene or stop
mistreatment" by the league's clubs and that the claims were
governed by collective bargaining agreements subject to
arbitration. That ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit last
year.

On July 1, Alsup found two major differences between Evans and
Dent. Evans sued individual NFL teams, not the NFL, and alleges
intentional, rather than negligent, conduct.

Alsup was not persuaded by the teams' argument that players'
claims are governed by collective bargaining agreements and
subject to arbitration. He found that no labor agreement could
sanction intentional violation of federal drug laws, so an
interpretation of such agreements would be irrelevant.

He also rejected the teams' contention that the claims were time-
barred.

Though the complaint was not filed within Maryland's three-year
statute of limitations for conduct that allegedly occurred until
2010, Alsup found "the nature of at least some of the injuries was
latent and slow in developing."

So the statute of limitations clock did not start ticking until
the plaintiffs became aware of their injuries.

"It is not possible to say as a matter of law on this record that
the statute of limitations categorically bars plaintiffs' claims,"
Alsup wrote in the 8-page ruling.

The NFL teams' attorney Gregg Levy and class attorney Philip
Closius did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment
July 5, afternoon.

Defeating the motion to dismiss opens up the next stage of
litigation -- discovery, giving the retired players a chance to
seek records from NFL teams.

With 13 named plaintiffs, Evans seeks to certify a class of all
retired NFL players who were given painkillers by team doctors and
trainers without a valid prescription, examination, diagnosis or
warning, from the early 1960s until June 6.

The case captioned, ETOPIA EVANS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARIZONA
CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, et al., Defendants., No. C 16-01030
WHA (N.D. Cal.).


ASCENA RETAIL: Settlement in Justice Pricing Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 23, 2016, that the settlement in the
Justice Pricing Litigation remains subject to considerations of
class members' objections at the final approval hearing scheduled
by the Court for May 20, 2016.

The Company is a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits
that allege that Justice's promotional practices violated state
comparative pricing laws in connection with advertisements
promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further allege false
advertising, violation of state consumer protection statutes,
breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unfair benefit
to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's allegedly
unlawful practice, and obtain damages for Justice's customers in
the named states. They also seek interest and legal fees.

In July 2015, an agreement was reached with the plaintiffs in the
Rougvie case to settle the lawsuits on a class basis with all
Justice customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012 and
February 28, 2015 for approximately $50 million, including
payments to members of the class, payment of legal fees and
expenses of settlement administration. As a result, the Company
established a reserve for approximately $50 million during Fiscal
2015.

The proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
preliminary approval on September 24, 2015, and received
preliminary approval by the court on October 27, 2015.

The Company paid approximately $50 million representing the agreed
settlement amount into an escrow account on November 16, 2015.
Formal notice of settlement was sent to the class members on
December 1, 2015.

The Company continues to believe that the previously accrued
amount of approximately $50 million reflects a liability that is
both probable and reasonably estimable.

The settlement remains subject to considerations of class members'
objections at the final approval hearing scheduled by the Court
for May 20, 2016. Once final non-appealable approval is granted,
it will resolve all claims in all of the outstanding class actions
on behalf of customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012
and February 28, 2015, and any claims for purchases outside that
time frame.

                           *     *     *

The Settlement will provide certain Settlement Benefits to settle
claims of individuals who purchased products from Justice, by in-
store purchase or by direct order (internet or phone), from
January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2015 (the "Class Members" or
"Settlement Class"). There are Two Options.

All eligible Class Members will have a choice from

     Option One: 1) a cash recovery (as set forth below based on
state of residence); or 2) a Justice voucher for a purchase from
Justice (as set forth below based on state of residence).

     Alternatively, under Option Two, certain Class Members who,
from January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2015 made: 1) more than
five (5) purchases; and/or 2) one or more purchases each totaling
$105 or greater can submit proofs of purchase and choose either:
1) a check for 14% of their total purchases; or 2) a Justice
voucher for 20% of their total purchases.

The cash Settlement totals $50,800,000.  That amount provides
$27,800,000 to pay the cash award to Class Members who choose a
cash award, $8,000,000 for administration of the class Settlement,
$15,000,000 for the lawyers for the Plaintiffs and the Class. If
money remains after all class members' cash claims, and all fees
and costs are paid, the money will be returned to Justice.

Additional information on the case is available at:

              https://www.justiceclassaction.com/en

Epiq Systems, Inc., serves as settlement administrator.


AUDUBON FIELD: Faces "Beard" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BEARD, Plaintiff v. AUDUBON FIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case 2:16-cv-12354 (E.D. La., July 1, 2016), was filed pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Audubon as a Paint & Coatings Inspector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Zaunbrecher, Esq.
     413 Travis Street, Suite 200
     Post Office Drawer 51367
     Lafayette, LA 70505-1367
     Phone: (337) 237-4070
     Fax: (337) 233-8719


AVIS RENT A CAR: "Schwartz" & "Klein" Settlements Win Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned EDWARD SCHWARTZ, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM,
LLC, and AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Defendants. DANIEL KLEIN and
STEPHANIE KLEIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC. and AVIS
BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 11-4052
(JLL), 12-7300 (JLL) (D.N.J.), Judge Jose L. Linares granted in
full the plaintiffs' motions for final approval of a class action
settlement of the cases, approval of incentive awards to class
members, and approval of an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Judge Linares granted the plaintiffs' counsels' motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $3,050.00.
The judge also granted the requested incentive award of $5,000 to
Edward Schwartz, and a $5,000 award to be split between Daniel and
Stephanie Klein on their terms.

A full-text copy of Judge Linares' June 21, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/S66GeZ from Leagle.com.

The cases involve allegations of breach of contract and violations
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act against Avis Rent A Car
System, LLC, Avis Budget Group., Inc., Budget Rent A Car System,
Inc., and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC.  Specifically, Schwartz,
who filed his lawsuit against Avis in July 2011, and the Kleins,
who filed their suit against Budget in November 2012, alleged that
the defendants misrepresented and intentionally concealed charges
from their customers who rented vehicles online through their
websites and accepted the defendants' offer of frequent-flyer
miles in connection with those rentals.

Mark Ray, represented by JANET L. GOLD, EISENBERG GOLD CETTEI &
AGRAWAL, P.C..

EDWARD SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG
-- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Defendant, represented by AARON VAN
NOSTRAND -- vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP,
PHILIP R. SELLINGER -- sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG,
LLP & TODD LAWRENCE SCHLEIFSTEIN -- schleifsteint@gtlaw.com --
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP.

AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by PHILIP R.
SELLINGER, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP.

Todd Payne, Interested Party, represented by CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL
PLACITELLA, COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, PC & MICHAEL COREN, Cohen,
Placitella & Roth, P.C..


BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Fund Alleges Price Fixing of SSA Bonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASBESTOS WORKERS PHILADELPHIA WELFARE AND PENSION FUND, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; BANK OF
AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL LTD.; CR DIT AGRICOLE
CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG; CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; NOMURA
INTERNATIONAL PLC; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HIREN
GUDKA; AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU; SHAILEN PAU; and BHARDEEP SINGH HEER,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-05269 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2016), was
brought on behalf of itself and a proposed Class of all persons or
entities who, from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 (the Class
Period), entered into sub-sovereign, and agency bond transactions
directly with Defendants.  The complaint asserts the Defendants'
alleged combination and conspiracy to restrain trade in Supra-
sovereign, Sub-sovereign and Agency bonds ("SSAs").

Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a federally chartered national
banking association with its principal place of business in
Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
     Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net
             mdellangelo@bm.net


BARRETT BUSINESS: Reply to Objection to Dismissal Bid Due July 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Arciaga et al v. Barrett Business Services, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05884 (W.D. Wash.), Plaintiffs Bakers Local
No. 433 Pension Fund, Painters & Allied Trades District Council
No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds, filed a response to the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, and requested oral argument requested.

Barrett Business Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that any reply is due
July 25, 2016, to the plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against BBSI, Michael L. Elich, BBSI's Chief Executive
Officer, and James D. Miller, BBSI's then Chief Financial Officer.
The action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all
Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities
laws. The claims arose from the decline in the market price for
BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased
workers compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit sought
compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial),
plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and
expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserted similar
claims for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserted
similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three
cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject
matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The
consolidated cases were recaptioned as In re Barrett Business
Services Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the
Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and
Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. Discovery has not been
undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a
consolidated amended complaint, naming BBSI, Elich and Miller as
defendants. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.

On November 23, 2015, before the court had ruled on the motion to
dismiss, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint,
naming the same defendants. The first amended consolidated
complaint included new allegations relating to disclosures in
BBSI's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 9, 2015.

On February 16, 2016, BBSI filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended consolidated complaint. That same day, Messrs. Elich and
Miller, through separate counsel, also filed motions to dismiss
the first amended consolidated complaint, adopting BBSI's motion
in its entirety.

On March 21, 2016, before the court had ruled on the motion to
dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, plaintiffs filed
a second amended consolidated complaint, naming the same
defendants. The second amended consolidated complaint dropped
certain allegations from the first amended complaint and added new
allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed on March 9, 2016. Among other disclosures, BBSI
reported that (1) previously issued financial statements could not
be relied on, (2) Mr. Miller had reported making unsupported
journal entries, (3) Mr. Miller's employment had been terminated,
and (4) BBSI was in the process of engaging a Big Four accounting
firm to conduct an independent forensic accounting investigation.

BBSI responded to the second amended consolidated complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2016. Messrs. Elich and
Miller joined in that motion. Under the current briefing schedule
ordered by the court, plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to
dismiss was due June 27, 2016, and any reply is due July 25, 2016.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., is a provider of business
management solutions for small and mid-sized companies.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Sued Over False Advertising in Time Shares
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a $5 million federal class
action in Fresno, Calif. accuses Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited of
deceptive trade and false advertising in time shares.


CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Suit Against Jail Physicians
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RODERICK BRYAN RUSSELL, Plaintiff, v. DR. K.
TOOR, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00255-SAB-PC (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Stanley A. Boone dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

The plaintiff, Roderick Bryan Russell, formerly incarcerated at
Valley State Prison, brought the action against Dr. Toor, Dr.
Woodward, Dr. Malakkla, an Dr. Shwe, physicians employed by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Valley
State Prison.

Judge Boone found that, in his second amended complaint, Russell
failed to cure the defects identified by the court in the order
dismissing the first amended complaint.

"Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal
standard and the deficiencies in his pleading, and despite
guidance from the Court, Plaintiff's second amended complaint is
more vague than the first amended complaint. For the reasons
stated, the second amended complaint should therefore be dismissed
for Plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff a final opportunity to
file a third amended complaint that clearly sets out his claims,
and the factual allegations in support of claims." Judge Boone
stated.

A full-text copy of Judge Boone's June 29, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/lFkMyi from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Court Reduces Costs Assessed Against Jeffries
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Raisa
Jeffries' motion to disallow certain costs as unrecoverable under
the law.  The defendants were awarded costs against Jeffries in
the amount of $3,525.49.

The case was filed as a putative class action in 2003.  Jeffries
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,
Jeffries, Shelly Adcock, and Lisa 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 Jeffries.  On March 28, 2016, the defendants filed a Bill
of Costs seeking costs of $7,607.47.  Jeffries objected and on
April 29, 2016, the Clerk reduced the recoverable costs to
$4,049.03.  Jeffries then petitioned the court to disallow certain
costs as unrecoverable under the law.

Judge Vadas found that under the circumstances, it would be
inequitable to assess costs against Jeffries 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 Jeffries only in the amount which she concedes are
attributable to her.

A full-text copy of Judge Vadas' June 28, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/to7rUF 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, Plaintiff,
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, Plaintiff,
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, Defendant, represented by
Lyn Harlan , Attorney General's Office & Christopher Michael
Young, Office of the Attorney General.


CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of "Lopez" Suit v. Ndoh Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARLOS FRANCISCO LOPEZ, Petitioner, v.
ROSEMARY NDOH, Acting Warden, Respondent, Case No. 1:16-cv-00111-
AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge Jennifer L. Thurston recommended the
granting of the respondent's motion to dismiss the habeas corpus
petition.

Carlos Lopez challenged the failure to give him the benefit of a
determination made in class action lawsuit in which, he claims,
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
failed to properly award custody credits.  Lopez asserted that he
is eligible under the class action lawsuit to greater custody
credits than CDCR is giving him.

Judge Thurston, however, found that Lopez has failed to allege any
cognizable federal habeas claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Thurston's June 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/3uwhz3 from Leagle.com.

Rosemary Ndoh, Respondent, represented by Heather M. Heckler,
Office Of The Attorney General.


CAMPBELL-EWALD: Ruling Leaves Two Unanswered Questions
------------------------------------------------------
Teeka Harrison, Esq. -- tharrison@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli
PC, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that
earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court, in Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, applied contract principles to hold that an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment did not moot an individual's
claims or class or collective actions claims.  The Court reasoned
that an unaccepted offer remained a mere proposal with no binding
effect on either party. However, the Court still has employers
guessing.

In April 2013, in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, the U.S.
Supreme Court was faced with a Rule 68 offer of judgment rejected
before the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification
in a putative FLSA collective action.  The Court assumed that the
Rule 68 offer mooted the individual's claims, and then held that,
absent a plaintiff with a live individual case (and absent any
claimants opting in), the action could not be maintained.  This
left open the question of whether a Rule 68 offer really can moot
an individual's FLSA action.  It also begged the question of what
happens in a Rule 23 class action.

The Supreme Court attempted to answer these questions in January
2016 in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez.  The court was faced with a
rejected offer of judgment in a Rule 23 class action.  The
majority applied contract principles to hold that a rejected offer
is merely a proposal with no binding effect on either party.
Therefore the parties remained adverse and the individual claims
were not mooted by the rejected offer.  Thus, the class could also
proceed.

The Court in Gomez left open two critical questions.

Would the result be different if a defendant deposits the full
amount of a plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to
the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the
plaintiff in that amount?

If the individual's claims were so mooted, what about Rule 23
class claims?

Since Gomez, employers have tried a number of different ways to
moot individual claims, and thereby moot Rule 23 claims.  Such
efforts have included requesting permission under Rule 67 to
deposit the amount of an earlier Rule 68 offer into the court's
registry, delivering a certified check and making an offer to
deposit funds with the court, depositing money into an escrow
account for the plaintiff's benefit, and tendering a simple check.
District courts' reactions are all over the board.  Some have held
that these actions are still insufficient to moot even an
individual's claim because the conduct is still a mere offer or
because the plaintiff must be provided, under Gomez, "a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted."  Some,
courts, however, have mooted individual claims and even expanded
Genesis to moot Rule 23 actions.

Employers seeking to utilize Rule 68 to moot claims should survey
cases in the applicable jurisdiction, but they still may be left
guessing about the appropriate procedure and outcome.  Cutting off
putative class and collective actions early through Rule 68 is not
as clear as it used to be, if it ever was, in many jurisdictions.
The future of Rule 68 offers may very well depend on the future
composition of our Supreme Court bench.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Plaintiffs Awarded $2.679MM in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Fric, Esq. -- lfric@osler.com -- and Lauren Tomasich, Esq. -
- ltomasich@osler.com -- at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an
article for Lexology, report that Justice Strathy, now the Chief
Justice of Ontario, recently awarded plaintiffs more than $2.679
million in costs for their motion for certification and leave
under section 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act.  While the
plaintiffs likely consider the award a big win, the decision has
the potential to increase costs awards in the future for
defendants and plaintiffs alike.

In Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Justice Strathy
sat as a judge ex officio of the Superior Court of Justice as he
had heard some of the earlier proceedings before he was elevated
to the Court of Appeal.

The Certification and Leave Motion

To recap, Justice Strathy heard the plaintiffs' motion in 2012 and
dismissed it as time-barred because leave to commence an action
had not been obtained prior to the expiry of the limitation
period.  The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, and held that
the statutory cause of action could be certified. That decision
was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.  The costs
of the certification and leave motion were sent back to Justice
Strathy for determination.

Plaintiffs Awarded Entire Amount Sought

The amount sought by the plaintiffs was comprised of fees of
$1,505,418.72 and disbursements of $932,123.14 -- Justice Strathy
awarded them the entire amount sought.  A significant portion of
the disbursements was the cost of expert reports.  The plaintiffs
said that they had discounted their fees by 10% in recognition of
the fact that they would have the ongoing benefit of some of the
work on the certification motion in the common issues trial.

Costs Principles in Class Proceedings

Justice Strathy placed significant weight on access to justice
considerations.  His rationale was that class counsel would not
accept the risk of significant costs if they could not recoup such
costs if successful.  He stated that "[t]he efficacy of the
statutory remedy depends on incentivizing class counsel to take
these formidable risks".

The decision also reviews the relevant principles in determining
costs in a class proceeding, namely (1) costs should reflect the
fair and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party; (2) to
the extent possible, the award should be consistent with those
made in comparable cases, recognizing that comparisons will rarely
provide clear guidance; and (3) the cost award must give effect to
the principles underlying the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Justice Strathy also made the following holdings in response to
the defendant's arguments: (a) costs on a certification motion
should not be payable in the cause; (b) expert reports were
necessary and reasonable and there was no basis to find or assume
that they would have ongoing utility in the common issues trial;
(c) success was not divided as the plaintiffs obtained
certification and leave; (d) the case was more demanding and
significant than Fairview Donut, in which Justice Strathy
previously awarded $1.85 million to the successful defendant and
described as "off the chart" in complexity, the amount at issue
and the work required of counsel; and (e) 10% was a reasonable
discount for the ongoing value of the work.

Reasonable Expectations?

In refuting the defendant's position that this significant cost
award went against reasonable expectations, Justice Strathy stated
that "there is absolutely no doubt that the defendants would be
seeking costs at least as substantial to those claimed by the
plaintiffs and probably more substantial".  Moreover, Justice
Strathy posited that "had the defendants been successful the
litigation would be over and they would normally have expected to
recover all their cost of the proceeding".

Notably however, the costs payable by defendants are routinely
discounted on certification motions on the basis of, among other
things, the principles underlying the CPA and the plaintiffs'
reasonable expectations. One wonders if the playing field might be
levelling out in view of these comments?

While the decision represents a significant costs award in the
context of a certification motion, it may not just be a win for
the plaintiffs.  Arguably, the award has the potential to change
the "reasonable expectations" on costs of certification motions
for all litigants.  Justice Strathy found that the defendants
would have sought the same amount, if not more, and would have
expected to recover it if successful.  Perhaps this is a signal on
what can now be considered reasonable expectations on costs in the
case of high dollar value, hotly contested certification motions.


CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend "Ackerman" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the
quarter ended April 30, 2016, that in June 2015, the Company was
named as a defendant in a putative representative Private Attorney
General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc.  The Complaint
attempts to allege numerous violations of California law related
to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure
to reimburse business expenses, among other things. The Company
denies the material allegations of the Complaint and filed its
Answer on July 27, 2015. The Company believes that the case is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a result, the
Company does not believe that the case should have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition
or results of operations.


CHRISTIANMINGLE: Gay Singles Can Join Dating Site for First Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Siebert, writing for Dailymail.com, reports that owner of
dating site ChristianMingle agrees to open doors to gay singles in
judge-approved settlement following class action anti-
discrimination lawsuit.

Gay Christians will soon be able to look for love on dating site
ChristianMingle for the first time after being ordered to remove
restrictions limiting users to heterosexual matches.

The news, reported by Wall Street Journal, follows a class-action
lawsuit that was settled in California courts, resulting in the
site's parent company, Spark Network, agreeing to open doors to
gay singles on their websites.

Currently ChristianMingle only allows users to identify themselves
as a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man.

These options will soon be changed to only asking if the user if a
"man" or a "woman".

After trying to use the site and finding that it violated
California's anti-discrimination law, two gay men filed the class
action in 2013.

The law, known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, requires any
business to offer "full and equal accommodations" to anyone of any
sexual orientation.

Judge Jane Johnson ruled that Spark Network will have two years to
change their search and profile features to accommodate same-sex
matching.

The ruling is a leap forward for members of the LGBT community,
who also consider themselves to be people of faith.

While some organizations in the Christian church maintain anti-gay
leanings, plenty have also grown to be inclusive of LGBT people.

"I am gratified that we were able to work with Spark to help
ensure that people can fully participate in all the diverse market
places that make our country so special, regardless of their
sexual orientation," said Vineet Dubey, one of the men's lawyers,
in a statement.

And the settlement doesn't only affect ChristianMingle, but also
other Spark Network sites including SilverSingles.com,
BlackSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, and LDSSingles.com.

However, another one of the company's sites, JDate.com, was not a
part of the lawsuit.

In addition to agreeing to the terms, Spark Network paid each of
the plaintiffs $9,000, as well as $450,000 in legal fees to their
lawyers -- but they avoided admitting legal wrongdoing.


CITIBANK NA: Frontpoint Sues Over SIBOR, SOR Price Inclusion
------------------------------------------------------------
FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., and SONTERRA CAPITAL
MASTER FUND, LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A., CITIGROUP INC.,
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE
& CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC,
THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, RBS SECURITIES JAPAN
LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS SECURITIES JAPAN CO. LTD., ING GROEP N.V.,
ING BANK N.V., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., BNP PARIBAS PRIME BROKERAGE, INC.,
OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS
BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE
CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A., CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD
CHARTERED BANK, STANDARD CHARTERED PLC, DBS BANK LTD., DBS GROUP
HOLDINGS LTD., DBS VICKERS SECURITIES (USA) INC., UNITED OVERSEAS
BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE
BANK OF TOKYOMITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI
BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC HOLDINGS
PLC, HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC., HSBC USA INC., MACQUARIE
BANK LTD., MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES
NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-05263 (S.D.N.Y., July 1,
2016), alleges that Defendants are involved in a massive
conspiracy to rig the prices of financial derivatives that
incorporate Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and/or Singapore Swap
Offer Rate as a component of price.

Citibank N.A., the consumer banking arm of US financial services
giant Citigroup Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
     Vincent Briganti, Esq.
     Peter St. Phillip, Esq.
     Raymond Girnys, Esq.
     Christian P. Levis, Esq.
     LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
     One North Broadway
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 997-0500
     Fax: (914) 997-0035
     E-mail: ghorn@lowey.com
             vbriganti@lowey.com
             pstphilip@lowey.com
             rgirnys@lowey.com
             clevis@lowey.com


CITY NATIONAL BANK: Sued Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
court-appointed receiver sued City National Bank and a senior vice
president and branch manager, claiming he oversaw one of one of
the biggest Ponzi schemes in California history and eased out of
it before the $400 million scheme collapsed.

From the late 1990s until 2014, Nationwide Automated Systems
pulled off a massive con, promising investors 20 percent annual
returns for buying ATM machines at $12,000 to $19,000 apiece. The
company claimed more than 31,000 machines had been purchased,
generating millions each month, though only about 250 were ever
bought.

The only real income came from new investors and after the scheme
collapsed, Joel Gillis and Edward Wishner, who ran NASI, were sent
to federal prison: Gillis, 75, for 10 years and Wisher, 77, for
nine years. They also were ordered to pay nearly $125 million in
restitution.

On June 22, the court-appointed receiver for the NASI scam sued
City National Bank, its corporate parent the Royal Bank of Canada,
and Patrick Fitzwilliam, a senior vice president and manager of
its Woodland Hills branch. Receiver William J. Hoffman also sued
Fitzwilliam's wife, wife Betty Saleh Fitzwilliam, in Superior
Court.

The 39-page lawsuit claims that among other things, Fitzwilliam
soothed investors' fears and deterred internal investigation.
Hoffman claims in the nine-count complaint:
That Fitzwilliam wrote a recommendation letter for NASI, stating
that it maintained a balance of more than $4 million, when it did
not.

That in the spring of 2009, NASI told a concerned investor to
speak with Fitzwilliam, who told the investor that NASI was
receiving nearly $1 million each month from the thousands of
machines it owned, though it did not.

That in 2013, when NASI was short of money, he tried to get the
company on the stock exchange in London using GXG Markets, a stock
exchange known for underwriting fraudulent securities. Fitzwilliam
wrote a letter to the president of GXG Markets, saying: "To date,
we have never experienced any issues or problems with any of their
accounts and enjoy having their relationship here at City National
Bank."

That Fitzwilliam hid problems from auditors. For instance, when
City National Bank's compliance department asked for the number,
location and ownership of the ATMs, he made it up.  That he hid
bounced checks from being detected and delayed doing anything to
stop the problems, even after the SEC began investigating.

Fitzwilliam and his wife put $360,000 of their own money into the
Ponzi, Hoffman says, to boost NASI's coffers when it was running
low. They cashed out in 2009, getting $240,000 back out after a
similar Ponzi scheme involving ATMs was uncovered in Manhattan and
the two men behind it faced nine federal counts of wire fraud.
Before the NASI con fell apart in 2014, Fitzwilliam and Saleh got
their remaining $120,00 back as well, according to the complaint.
Hoffman says the fraud should have been easy for the bank to
recognize. Deposits from investors came in the same amounts,
typically $12,000, but sometimes $19,000, while deposits from
legitimate ATM service providers were lacking. Despite this,
thousands of "rent" checks were going out to investors each month.
"Even a cursory review of the account history readily revealed
that legitimate ATM transaction revenue represented only a tiny
fraction -- less than 2 percent -- of NASI's actual revenue," the
complaint states.

The bank failed to act even after the SEC filed an enforcement
action against NASI and others for the Ponzi scheme and placed CNB
on notice on Sept. 18, 2014, Hoffman says. Not only did the bank
fail to investigate, it didn't discipline Fitzwilliam either.
"This was fraud, plain and simple," said Debora Vrana, City
National Bank's senior vice president for media relations.
"Investors were misled, and so were we. Beyond that we do not
comment on pending litigation."

Fitzwilliam and his wife, who "is a sophisticated violator of
investment law in her own right," have a history, the complaint
states. Saleh was a licensed investment adviser, starting in 1991
at UBS Paine Webber before making a few jumps and winding up at
Wedbush Morgan Securities, where she lost her license for
falsifying and destroying documents, along with other securities
laws violations. To evade the impending civil judgments, Saleh and
her husband fraudulently transferred assets to her father, Hoffman
says.

The couple have other legal problems. A similar class action suit,
filed on March 18 in Los Angeles Federal Court, includes charges
of financial elder abuse. Those plaintiffs estimate the class has
1,700 members.

Neither Fitzwilliam nor Saleh could be reached for comment.
Hoffman seeks at least $125 million in damages for negligence,
aiding and abetting fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and conversion.

He is represented by Michael Newhouse of the Newhouse Law Group
and Thomas Girardi with Girardi Keese. Neither replied to emails
seeking comment.

City National Bank is represented by J. Michael Hennigan with
McKool Smith.


COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA: Rental Fee Suit Obtains Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dar Danielson, writing for Radioiowa, reports that the Iowa Court
of Appeals says a lawsuit in Council Bluffs over a property
registration fee should be given class action status.

Carla Limmer filed suit against the city of Council Bluffs in
January of 2015, saying the property registration fee of 15
dollars for each rental unit exceeded the reasonable cost to
operate the program.

Ms. Limmer asked that the suit be certified as a class action so
it would include all 2,600 property owners.  The city opposed the
class action status, saying the result of Ms. Limmer's suit would
benefit all rental owners whether or not it was a class action.
The district court ruled for the city.

The Iowa Court of Appeals overturned that ruling, saying
Ms. Limmer's legal fees for pursuing the issue could be more than
her individual damages.  It says in cases where the cost of
litigation is large in comparison to the damages that could be
recovered by each individual, certifying a class action makes it
more likely the action will be fully litigated.


CSRA INC: Motion for Class Certification Due "Strauch" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
CSRA, INc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
April 1, 2016, that a motion for class certification was due June
2016 in the Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the
FLSA and that CSC, therefore, owes them overtime wages and
associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes,
including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No.
4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act. CSC's
Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in February 2015. On September
25, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added
claims under Missouri and North Carolina wage and hour laws. The
relief sought by Plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in
the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil
penalties. If a liability is ultimately incurred as a result of
these claims, CSRA would pay a portion to CSC pursuant to an
indemnity obligation. CSC and CSRA both maintain the position that
system administrators have the job duties, responsibilities, and
salaries of exempt employees and are properly classified as exempt
from overtime compensation requirements.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The conditionally certified FLSA and
putative classes include approximately 1,285 system
administrators, of whom 407 are employed by CSRA and the remainder
employed by CSC. Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in
determining whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the
FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the
Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that
proposed class members are similarly situated, the class is
conditionally certified. Potential class members are then notified
and given an opportunity to opt-in to the action. The second step
of the class certification analysis occurs upon completion of
discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all evidence then
in the record to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to
conclude that the proposed class members are similarly situated.
If it is determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial;
if it is determined they are not, the class is decertified and
only the individual claims of the purported class representatives
proceed. CSRA's and CSC's position in this litigation continues to
be that the employees identified as belonging to the conditional
class were paid in accordance with the FLSA and applicable state
laws.

The parties have been conducting discussions through a mediator to
explore potential settlement scenarios. The next stage in the
litigation will be a motion for class certification, which is
currently due from plaintiffs in June 2016.

Additional information on the case is available at:

                    http://www.csclawsuit.com/

Counsel to the Plaintiffs are:

         Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
         Jahan C Sagafi, Esq.
         Michael J Scimone, Esq.
         Elizabeth V. Stork, Esq.
         Outten & Golden LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212-245-1000
         E-mail: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com
                 jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                 mscimone@outtengolden.com
                 estork@outtengolden.com

              - and -

         Genevieve Casey, Esq.
         Todd Jackson, Esq.
         Darin Ranahan, Esq.
         Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP
         383 4th Street, Suite 201
         Oakland, CA 94697
         Tel: 510-269-7998
         E-mail: genevieve@feinbergjackson.com
                 todd@feinbergjackson.com
                 darin@feinbergjackson.com

              - and -

         Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
         Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
         Michael Levin Gesundheit, Esq.
         Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Tel: 415-956-1000
         E-mail: lchan@lchb.com
                 kdermody@lchb.com
                 mlevin-gesundheit@lchb.com
                 dhutchinson@lchb.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: EEOC's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the EEOC's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment relating to two of the Company's defenses
challenging the sufficiency of the Commission's conciliation
efforts and the scope of its investigation remains pending.

In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or
"Commission") notified the Company of a cause finding related to
the Company's criminal background check policy.  The cause finding
alleges that the Company's criminal background check policy, which
excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal
convictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact on
African-American candidates and employees in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII").

The Company and the EEOC engaged in the statutorily required
conciliation process, and despite the Company's good faith efforts
to resolve the matter, the Commission notified the Company on July
26, 2012 of its view that conciliation had failed.

On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled
Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar
General in which the Commission alleges that the Company's
criminal background check policy has a disparate impact on "Black
Applicants" in violation of Title VII and seeks to recover
monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of
"Black Applicants."  The Company filed its answer to the complaint
on August 9, 2013.

The Court has bifurcated the issues of liability and damages for
purposes of discovery and trial.  Fact discovery related to
liability is to be completed on or before November 16, 2016. In
response to various discovery motions, the court has entered
orders requiring the Company's production of documents,
information and electronic data for the period 2004 to present.

Currently pending is the EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment relating to two of the Company's defenses challenging the
sufficiency of the Commission's conciliation efforts and the scope
of its investigation. The Company has opposed this motion as
prematurely-filed in light of the status of various discovery
issues.

The Company believes that its criminal background check process is
both lawful and necessary to a safe environment for its employees
and customers and the protection of its assets and shareholders'
investments.  The Company also does not believe that this matter
is amenable to class or similar treatment.  However, at this time,
it is not possible to predict whether the action will ultimately
be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the
size of any putative class.  Likewise, at this time, it is not
possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no
assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its
defense of this action on the merits or otherwise.  For these
reasons, the Company cannot estimate the potential exposure or
range of potential loss.  If the matter were to proceed
successfully as a class or similar action or the Company is
unsuccessful in its defense efforts as to the merits of the
action, the resolution of this matter could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements
as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Certification Bid Due to October 17
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is due to be filed on or before October 17,
2016.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 50 ("Varela") was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside.  In the original complaint, the Varela plaintiff
alleges that he and other "key carriers" were not provided with
meal and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential
damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys'
fees and costs and seeks to represent a putative class of
California "key carriers" as to these claims.  The Varela
plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and
seeks to proceed under California's Private Attorney General Act
(the "PAGA").

On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended
complaint to add Victoria Lee Dinger Main as a named plaintiff and
to add putative class claims on behalf of "key carriers" for
alleged inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide
appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California law.

The Company filed answers to both the complaint and amended
complaint.  A court-ordered mediation held in November 2015 was
unsuccessful.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due to be filed on
or before October 17, 2016.  The Company's response is due to be
filed on or before December 9, 2016.  Plaintiffs' reply brief is
due to be filed on January 20, 2017.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denied Motion to Transfer "Pleasant" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a court has denied the
plaintiff's motion to transfer the case, Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar
General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC.

On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar
General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50
("Pleasant") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino in which the plaintiff
seeks to proceed under the PAGA for various alleged violations of
California's Labor Code.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that
she and other similarly situated non-exempt California store-level
employees were not paid for all time worked, provided meal and
rest breaks, reimbursed for necessary work related expenses, and
provided with accurate wage statements and seeks to recover unpaid
wages, civil and statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

On March 12, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer asking the court
to stay all proceedings in the Pleasant matter pending an issuance
of a final judgment in the Varela matter.  The court granted the
Company's demurrer and stayed proceedings until resolution of the
Varela matter. Subsequently, the Pleasant plaintiff moved to
transfer this matter to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside where the Varela matter is
pending, which the Company opposed.  The court denied the Pleasant
plaintiff's motion to transfer.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Trial in "Sullivan" Case to Begin October 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that trial in the case by
Julie Sullivan has been set for trial on October 31, 2016.

On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 100 ("Sullivan") was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other
similarly situated Dollar General Market store managers in the
State of California were improperly classified as exempt employees
and were not provided with meal and rest breaks and accurate wage
statements in violation of California law.  The Sullivan plaintiff
also alleges that she and other California store employees were
not provided with printed wage statements, purportedly in
violation of California law.  The plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid wages, including overtime pay, civil and statutory
penalties, interest, injunctive relief, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 8, 2015, the Company removed this matter to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California and
filed its answer on the same date.  On April 29, 2015, the
Sullivan plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under the
PAGA.  The Company's response to the amended complaint was filed
on May 14, 2015.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on March
12, 2016.  Plaintiff has since conceded that her allegation that
she and other Dollar General Market store managers in the State of
California are improperly classified as exempt employees is not
amenable to class certification.  Plaintiff continues to pursue
her individual misclassification claim and class certification of
her wage statement claim.

Also currently pending is the Company's motion for summary
judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims.

No ruling has been issued on either plaintiff's class
certification motion or the Company's motion for summary judgment.
The matter has been set for trial on October 31, 2016.  A
mediation conducted in early March 2016 was unsuccessful.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Defends Suits Over Private-Label Motor Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend the lawsuits relating to the labeling, marketing and
sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil.

In December 2015, the Company was notified of seven lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs allege violation of state consumer protection
laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar
General private-label motor oil.  Six of these lawsuits were filed
in various federal district courts of the United States: Bradford
Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Southern District of Florida on December 18, 2015) ("Barfoot");
Milton M. Cooke, Jr. v. Dollar General Corporation (filed in the
Southern District of Texas on December 21, 2015) ("Cooke");
William Flinn v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for
New Jersey on December 17, 2015) ("Flinn"); John J. McCormick, III
v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court of Maryland on
December 23, 2015) ("McCormick"); David Sanchez v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Central District of California on December 17, 2015)
("Sanchez"); and Will Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Northern District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2015) ("Sisemore").

The seventh matter, Chuck Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC ("Hill"), was
filed in Orleans County Superior Court in Vermont on December 22,
2015, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Vermont on February 8, 2016.

In February, March and May 2016, the Company was notified of
fourteen additional lawsuits alleging similar claims concerning
Dollar General private-label motor oil. All of these lawsuits were
filed in various federal district courts of the United States:
Allen Brown v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC
(filed in the District of Colorado on February 10, 2016)
("Brown"); Miriam Fruhling v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Ohio on
February 10, 2016) ("Fruhling"); John Foppe v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of
Kentucky on February 10, 2016) ("Foppe"); Kevin Gadson v.
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of New York on
February 8, 2016) ("Gadson"); Bruce Gooel v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on February 8, 2016)
("Gooel");  Janine Harvey v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for Nebraska on
February 10, 2016) ("Harvey"); Nicholas Meyer v. Dollar General
Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Kansas on
February 9, 2016) ("Meyer"); Robert Oren v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of
Missouri on February 8, 2016) ("Oren"); Scott Sheehy v. Dollar
General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District
Court for Minnesota on February 9, 2016) ("Sheehy"); Gerardo Solis
v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2016) ("Solis");
Roberto Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of
California on February 8, 2016) ("Vega"); Matthew Wait v. Dollar
General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC, (filed in the Western
District of Arkansas on February 16, 2016) ("Wait"); James
Taschner v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed
in the Eastern District of Missouri on March 15, 2016)
("Taschner"); and Jason Wood and Roger Barrows v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Northern District of
New York on May 9, 2016) ("Wood").

The plaintiffs in the Taschner, Vega and Sanchez matters seek to
proceed on a nationwide and statewide class basis, while the
plaintiffs in the other matters seek to proceed only on a
statewide class basis.  Each plaintiff seeks, for himself or
herself and the putative class he or she seeks to represent, some
or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive
relief prohibiting the sale of the products at issue and requiring
the dissemination of corrective advertising, certain statutory
damages (including treble damages), punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

On February 1, 2016, the Sanchez plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
his complaint without prejudice.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss and motions to strike
class allegations in the following matters: Barfoot; Brown; Cooke;
Flinn; Foppe; Fruhling; Gooel; Hill; McCormick; Meyer; Oren;
Sheehy; Sisemore; Solis; Wait; and Vega. The Company's responsive
pleading in the Wood matter was due on July 9, 2016.

On March 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
requesting that all cases be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, or, in the
alternative to the Western District of Missouri or the Southern
District of Florida, for consolidated pretrial proceedings
("Motion to Transfer").  The hearing on the Company's Motion to
Transfer was scheduled for May 26, 2016.

The following cases have been stayed pending the JPML's decision
on the Motion to Transfer: Barfoot; Foppe; Fruhling; Gadsen;
Harvey; Meyer; and Taschner. The courts in the Sheehy and Solis
matters have stayed discovery only pending a transfer decision by
the JPML.

The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its
private-label motor oil complies with applicable federal and state
requirements and is not misleading.  The Company further believes
that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar
treatment.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these
actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict
whether any of these cases will be permitted to proceed as a class
or the size of any putative class.

Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value
of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the
Company will be successful in its defense of these actions on the
merits or otherwise.  For these reasons, the Company is unable to
estimate the potential loss or range of loss in these matters;
however if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts,
the resolution of any of these actions could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements
as a whole.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Homebuilders' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that a group of homebuilders filed on
March 17, 2015, a complaint against the defendants, including
American Gypsum, based upon the same conduct alleged in the
consolidated class action complaints.  On March 24, 2015, the JPML
transferred this action to the multidistrict litigation already
pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Following the
transfer, the homebuilder plaintiffs filed two amended complaints,
on December 14, 2015 and March 25, 2016.  Discovery in this
lawsuit is ongoing.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Ferguson" Suit Over Faulty Dishwasher
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FERGUSON and CHERYL FERGUSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX HOME
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case: 1:16-cv-00737-SJD (S.D. Ohio,
July 6, 2016), alleges that dishwashers designed and manufactured
by Electrolux are dangerously defective in that their electrical
systems overheat and catch fire in violation of well-established
contract, tort, and consumer protection laws of Illinois and
various other states.

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. is an appliance maker.  It sells
under a variety of brand names in the United States, including
under its popular Frigidaire brand.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Drew Legando, Esq.
     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
     1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-522-9000
     Fax: 216-522-9007
     E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
             jack@lgmlegal.com

        - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: 865-247-0080
     Fax: 865-522-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

        - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     Adam Prom, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222

        - and -

     Drew Legando, Esq.
     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
     1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-522-9000
     Fax: 216-522-9007
     E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
             jack@lgmlegal.com

        - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: 865-247-0080
     Fax: 865-522-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

        - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     Adam Prom, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Appeal in "Davis" Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that Michael Davis, a former NFL
running back, on July 29, 2010, filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, alleging that certain past
versions of Madden NFL included the images of certain retired NFL
players without their permission. In March 2012, the trial court
denied the Company's request to dismiss the complaint on First
Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial court decision was
affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was
remanded back to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, where the case is pending.


EMERY WILSON: "Meinders" Case Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle granted the plaintiff's amended motion for
class certification in the case captioned DR. ROBERT L. MEINDERS
D.C., LTD, Individually and as the Representative of a Class of
Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. EMERY WILSON CORPORATION
d/b/a STERLING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-596-
SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).

Dr. Robert L. Meinders D.C., LTD. filed a two-count class action
complaint, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, against Emery Wilson Corporation d/b/a Sterling
Management Systems and John Does 1-12 alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and common law conversion.

Judge Yandle certified the following class pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

     All persons in Defendant's central file' or dead file
     databases who were successfully sent one or more facsimiles
     in the four years prior to April 3, 2014, from Defendant The
     Emery Wilson Corporation, d/b/a Sterling Management Systems
     advertising its goods and services.

Dr. Meinders was appointed as class representative.  Phillip Bock,
Christopher Tourek, James Smith, Jonathan Piper and the law firm
Bock & Hatch, LLC were appointed as Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's June 21, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/5bmEqF from Leagle.com.

Dr. Robert L. Meinders, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A. Bock
-- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC, Robert J. Sprague
-- rsprague@spragueurban.com -- Sprague & Urban, Christopher P.T.
Tourek -- christopher@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC, James
M. Smith -- jim@classlawters.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC & Jonathan
B. Piper -- jon@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC.

Emery Wilson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ana Tagvoryan
-- atagvoryan@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Eric M. Roberts --
eric.roberts@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, Joshua Briones,
Blank Rome LLP, Jeffrey N. Rosenthal -- rosenthal-j@blankrome.com
-- Blank Rome LLP, Stephen W. Heil -- swh@crayhuber.com -- Cray,
Huber, et al & Zachary G. Shook -- zgs@crayhuber.com -- Cray,
Huber, et al.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Dismisses "Alston" FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TRACY ARTHUR ALSTON, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Civil Action No. DKC 15-3806 (D. Md.),
Judge Deborah K. Chasanow granted Equifax Information Services,
LLC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Chasanow's June 29, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/RVndnz from Leagle.com.

Tracy Arthur Alston, proceeding pro se, filed a putative class
action complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
on November 5, 2015, and the defendants timely removed the action
to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
On December 21, Equifax filed a motion to dismiss and to strike
the class allegations.  On January 12, 2016, Alston filed an
amended complaint asserting one count under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act for "willful noncompliance with the requirements of
15 U.S.C. section 1681g(a)."  Although the amended complaint
mooted Equifax's motion to dismiss, the court dismissed Alston's
class allegations because a pro se plaintiff may not act as a
class representative.  On January 29, Equifax moved to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Sandy David Baron -- sbaron@shulmanrogers.com -- Shulman Rogers
Gandal Pordy and Ecker PA.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Nathan Daniel Adler -- nda@nqgrg.com -- Neuberger Quinn Gielen
Rubin and Gibber PA.


EXXON MOBIL: Plaintiffs Win More Time to Respond to Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TONGA NOLAN, ET AL., v. EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION, ET AL., Civil Action No. 13-439-JJB-EWD (M.D. La.),
Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes has granted the intervenors and the
plaintiffs an extension of 45 days from the date their discovery
responses would otherwise be due to respond to Exxon Mobil
Corporation's discovery requests.

Although Judge Wilder-Doomes granted the 45-day extension, the
judge ordered the intervenors and plaintiffs to respond to the
discovery requests on a rolling basis as responses are completed
for each plaintiff or intervenor.

A scheduling conference was set for July 26, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. and
the parties were ordered to submit a joint status report on or
before July 8, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Wilder-Doomes' June 21, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/CHnv6j from Leagle.com.

On or about June 13, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Class Action
Petition for Damages in state court.  The action was subsequently
removed to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana on the basis of 28 USC section 1332 and the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  The plaintiffs alleged that the
ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Facility repeatedly failed to meet
regulatory standards resulting in numerous leaks causing personal
injury and property damage.

On May 13, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class.  Thereafter, the court granted the plaintiffs leave
to file a Third Supplemental and Amending Petition adding more
than 100 new plaintiffs11 and granted leave to 20 proposed
intervenors to intervene in these proceedings.

Lawrence J. Alexander, Mary T. George, Preston A. George, Sr.,
Joseph B. Eaglin, Flora H. Dupree, Plaintiffs, represented by
Ashley M. Liuzza, Smith Stag, L.L.C., Michael G. Stag, Smith Stag,
LLC, Donna Unkel Grodner, Grodner and Associates, APLC, Robert D.
McMillin, Smith Stag, LLC, Sean Seton Cassidy, SmithStag, LLC,
Stephen Wussow, Smith Stag, LLC & Stuart Housel Smith, Smith Stag,
LLC.

Gussie Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley M. Liuzza, Smith
Stag, L.L.C. & Donna Unkel Grodner, Grodner and Associates, APLC,
Robert D. McMillin, Smith Stag, LLC,  Stephen Wussow, Smith Stag,
LLC & Stuart Housel Smith, Smith Stag, LLC,

Gussie Johnson, Individually and on behalf of her minor children
real party in interest Reginald Kelly, Jr. real party in interest
Journey Richard, Plaintiff, represented by Michael G. Stag, Smith
Stag, LLC,  Sean Seton Cassidy, SmithStag, LLC.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, ExxonMobil
Catalyst Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by James Conner
Percy -- jpercy@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker - B.R., Andrew G.
Phillips -- aphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro
hac vice, Angela M. Spivey -- aspivey@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Deborah Kuchler --
dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Janika D. Polk -- jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Kelly Beth Hapgood --
khapgood@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LP, pro hac vice,
Lindsey Hargrove Raspino, McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice,Ronald
G. Franklin -- rfranklin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP,
pro hac vice & William D. Lampton -- wlampton@joneswalker.com --
Jones, Walker - B.R..

Keisha L. Smith, Movant, represented by Ashley M. Liuzza, Smith
Stag, L.L.C., Stuart Housel Smith, Smith Stag, LLC, Michael G.
Stag, Smith Stag, LLC, Robert D. McMillin, Smith Stag, LLC & Sean
Seton Cassidy, SmithStag, LLC.

Keisha L. Smith, Individually and on behalf of their minor
children real party in interest Malik Smith real party in interest
Danielle Smith, Movant, represented by Stephen Wussow, Smith Stag,
LLC.

John Nixon, Movant, represented by Donna Unkel Grodner, Grodner
and Associates, APLC.

Rebecca Anderson, Elizabeth Christopher, Dawn Farmer, Michael
Franklin, Robin Gilton, Emery Jackson, Kenneth Johnson, Kevin
LeBlanc, Cynthia Lockett, Travis Martin, Shawn Moton, Eula
Ordoyne, Steven Reid, Dana Rohilliard, Sylvester Tilley, Raymond
Verrette, Cassie Wade, Leo Washington, Charles Williamis,
Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Donna Unkel Grodner, Grodner
and Associates, APLC.


FACEBOOK INC: Must Defend Against "Marfeo" Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse news Service, reported that
Facebook must face claims that it disseminated a woman's personal
information to third parties without her permission, a federal
judge in San Jose, Calif. ruled.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte allowed the case to move forward
as to plaintiff Wendy Marfeo, finding that she had suffered harm
by Facebook sharing her personal and private information despite
the tech company's many assertions it would not do so.

"The court is not convinced that plaintiffs' theory of harm is
disconnected from Facebook's alleged breach," Whyte wrote in the
13-page decision.

Facebook argued that Marfeo lacked standing to bring the case
because she did not suffer damages as a result of the alleged
contract breach. Whyte acknowledged that the case is complicated
but ultimately allowed Marfeo's claims to move forward.

However, he did grant Facebook's motion to dismiss as to the other
plaintiff in the case. Katherine Pohl had joined Marfeo in brining
the suit, attempting to convince the federal court to certify the
two of them as a class.

However, Whyte ruled Pohl never clicked on a third-party website
while logged onto Facebook during the period in question and as
such lacked standing.

"Facebook's ad-click data shows that Ms. Pohl's only ad click
during the class period directed Ms. Pohl to the advertiser's
Facebook page, rather than the advertiser's external website,"
Whyte said in the ruling. "Therefore, the referrer header
associated with Ms. Pohl's ad click would have been sent to a
Facebook server, rather than any third party advertiser's server."

The dispute revolves around "referrer headers", which is sent to
the destination website's server whenever anyone navigates to a
particular website via a link. In other words, when a person
clicks on a link to go to a website, the website is often given
information about where the user came from -- Google, Yahoo,
Facebook, Twitter or another similar website.

Marfeo and Pohl claimed that prior to July 2010 those referrer
headers contained personal and private information that was
Facebook was contractually bound to protect.

For instance, Marfeo says that when clicked on an advertisement
from Facebook and navigated to that page, the owner of that page
was given information that allowed them to personally identify her
despite Facebook's promise that her information was secure.

"Facebook acknowledges that 'in theory,' a recipient of both the
'ref=profile' string and a user ID or username would be able to
identify the Facebook user who clicked on the ad," Whyte said in
the ruling.

Facebook said that even if the facts were true, Marfeo could
produce zero evidence that a third party took the information and
kept it or used it in a manner that harmed her. Therefore, Marfeo
did not suffer any harm and lacked Article III standing, according
to the social network giant -- an argument that proved
unpersuasive at this stage in the case.

The case dates back to August 2010, when several different claims
were consolidated under the caption In re Facebook Privacy
Litigation.

The court dismissed the federal and state claims in November 2011.
But the Ninth Circuit reversed two of the eight dismissed claims,
finding plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to support breach
of contract and fraud claims.

The case was remanded back to Federal Court.

Whyte also issued a heavily redacted order denying class
certification, saying the individualized questions in the
particular case are greater than any potential common claims
between multiple users.

"We are pleased that the court ruled in our favor and determined
that the case should not proceed as a class action," a Facebook
representative said in an email.

The case captioned, IN RE: FACEBOOK PRIVACY  LITIGATION, Case No.
10-cv-02389-RMW (N.D. Cal.).


FACEBOOK INC: Continues Fight Against Biometrics Law Amid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reports that two tech
giants, confronted by nagging lawsuits over facial recognition
technology, invoked a recent Supreme Court decision and the
Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution in a fresh attempt to
smother a key biometrics law.

The legal arguments, which appear in recent court filings by
Facebook and Google, are part of an attempt by the companies to
defeat class action claims based of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, a state law that restricts activities such as facial
scanning.

The law has given rise to a spate of lawsuits that allege
companies failed to obtain consumers' consent before scanning and
storing images of their face.

In the case of Facebook, lawyers met in a California courtroom on
June 29 to discuss the next steps of the class action suit, which
could go to trial next year.  A similar case involving Google is
at an earlier stage in Illinois.

The legal fight over face-scanning is a sensitive one for the tech
giants, which depend on facial recognition software to run popular
products like Facebook Moments and Google Photos.  These pieces of
software use artificial intelligence to identify faces among
databases of millions of photos, prompting users to "tag" people
they know.

Under the Illinois law, companies that collect "biometric
identifiers" without consent can be forced to pay $1,000 or $5,000
for each violation.  Earlier this year, the online scrapbook
company Shutterfly quietly settled a case that alleged its face-
scanning violated the law.

If the class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google succeed,
they could force the companies to pay millions of dollars in
damages and, in what would likely be a greater nuisance, force
them to change their policies around how they use faces.

This threat has led Facebook and Google to act aggressively to
defeat the legal challenges.  The companies, for instance, were
reportedly behind a lobbying gambit in late May to pressure
Illinois lawmakers into rewrite the biometrics rules.

That effort came up short, and now the corporations are redoubling
their efforts in court.

An Appeal to Higher Authority

Facebook incurred a major setback in May when a federal judge
agreed that the photo scanning counted as a "biometric identifier"
under the state law, and also rejected the company's claim that
the law of California (but not Illinois) should apply.

In response, Facebook has filed a second motion to dismiss on the
basis of a recent Supreme Court decision known as Spokeo.  In that
case, the top court found there must be a "concrete" injury before
consumers could sue under a federal privacy law -- but left it
open for a lower court to decide what counts as "concrete."

Now, the Spokeo case will serve as a potential lifeline for
Facebook.  On June 29, the social network claimed that any alleged
harm from the face scanning "is far too abstract and speculative"
for consumers to claim damages.

Paul Geller, one the lawyers representing consumers in the case,
said he is ready for a long legal fight.

"We always anticipated that Facebook would dig in, and our team is
fully prepared and committed to protecting our client's privacy
rights, regardless of whether there is a relatively swift
resolution or a 15 round battle that goes to trial," said Geller
by email.

A spokesperson for Facebook declined to comment on the new filing.

Google, meanwhile, is pursuing a further legal strategy in its
effort to get the case in Illinois thrown out. According to a
court filing, the company claims the biometric law is
unconstitutional "under the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution" -- a clause that bars states from interfering with
interstate trade.

Google did not reply to a request for comment about the case.

In the broader picture, the lawsuits come at a time when facial
recognition technology is largely unregulated in the United
States, even as it is being used by more companies, including by
major retailers to catch shoplifters.

Earlier in June, consumer groups slammed industry guidelines
issued under a Commerce Department initiative, claiming they did
little to safeguard privacy.

Critics fear that facial recognition can serve as a powerful tool
to spy on or track people.  In Russia, for instance, a popular app
lets consumers use their smartphone cameras to capture the faces
of strangers, and then identify them based on images in a social
media database.  The makers of the app have marketed it in part as
a way for men to meet women.

Privacy regulators in other countries, including Canada and many
in Europe, have introduced restrictions on the use of facial
recognition technology.  But for now, it remains largely
unregulated in the United States.  A spokesperson for the Federal
Trade Commission, which is the country's de facto privacy cop,
said he could not immediately comment on the Facebook and Google
cases.


FERGUSON, MO: Insurer Won't Defend City Over Traffic Tickets Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an
insurance company sued Ferguson, Mo., saying it has no obligation
to defend the city from a class action accusing it of jailing
people who don't have the money to pay traffic tickets and other
minor fines.

The St. Louis Area Insurance Trust (SLAIT) also sued 11 class-
action plaintiffs, seeking declaratory relief in St. Louis County
Circuit Court. The 11 filed a federal class action against
Ferguson in February 2015.

Keilee Fant et al. claim Ferguson's jailing them for minor
offenses and poverty violated their right to due process. They
said Ferguson jailed them without appointing appropriate counsel,
subjected them to deplorable conditions in jail and violated other
constitutional protections.

Ferguson filed a claim seeking defense and indemnity. The
insurance trust rejected it, and sued on June 29.

"Based upon the foregoing policy language and allegations made in
the Class Action, coverage under the Insurance Policy is not
triggered because the constitutional claims asserted in the First
Amended Petition do not identify damages because of 'bodily
injury', 'personal injury' or 'acts, errors or omissions' for
purposes of the Insuring Agreement set forth in Paragraph A of
Section II of the insurance policy," the complaint states. "More
specifically, those allegations do not involve 'bodily injury',
'personal injury' or 'acts, errors or omissions caused by an
'occurrence' as those terms are defined in section I of the
insurance policy."

The insurer says even if Ferguson can argue that the class claims
can be construed as bodily injury, personal injury or acts, errors
or omissions, they are barred by other policy exclusions.

"These provisions specifically exclude coverage for damages
'expected or intended from the standpoint of any insured', 'caused
by any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act or
omission of any insured' and state that plaintiff has no
obligation 'to investigate, defend or pay any damages, judgments
loss, costs or expenses that may be awarded in a class action
against any insured because of bodily injury, . . . personal
injury, . . . errors or omissions injury,'" the complaint states.

SLAIT seeks declaratory judgment and an injunction stating that
"Ferguson and the class action claimants shall be barred forever
and enjoined from asserting any action against plaintiff SLAIT on
account of the claims and/or damages alleged by the class action
claimants in their class action."

It is represented by Martin Buckley -- MBuckley@buckleylawllc.com
-- with Buckley & Buckley in St. Louis.

The class action was filed after of the Michael Brown shooting in
August 2014. Brown, an unarmed black man, was killed by then-
Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson, who is white. The shooting
sparked months of often violent protests and brought racism and
excessive police force by police into the national conversation.

The Department of Justice declined to bring charges against
Wilson, but released a scathing report against March 2015,
accusing Ferguson police of targeting black citizens and using its
municipal court as a revenue generator.

Ferguson avoided litigation by approving a settlement with the
Justice Department in March, requiring massive overhauls in its
police department and municipal court system.


FIDELITY BANK: NCVA Allowed to Partially Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: NC & VA WARRANTY COMPANY, INC. dba
1ST CHOICE MECHANICAL, Chapter 7, BREAKDOWN COVERAGE, Debtor. NC &
VA WARRANTY COMPANY, INC. dba 1ST CHOICE MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN
COVERAGE, Plaintiff, v. THE FIDELITY BANK, Defendant, Case No. 15-
80016, Adv. Proc. No. A-15-9032 (Bankr. M.D.N.C.), Judge Benjamin
A. Kahn granted in part and denied, in part, the Amended Motion to
Amend Complaint filed by NC & VA Warranty Company, Inc. (NCVA).

The motion, filed on February 26, 2016, sought leave to amend the
complaint to assert claims against Dealers Assurance pursuant to
Rule 15 Fed. R. Civ. P., made applicable to the adversary
proceeding by Bankruptcy Rule 7015.

Judge Kahn granted the motion in part with respect to the claim
for breach of contract, but denied it in part as futile with
respect to the remaining proposed claims.  NCVA was granted 14
days to amend its complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Kahn's June 29, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Qfos7L from Leagle.com.

NC & VA Warranty Company, Inc. dba 1st Choice Mechanical Breakdown
Coverage, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander S. Barrett --
abarrett@haganbarrett.com -- Hagan Barrett & Langley PLLC.

The Fidelity Bank, Defendant, represented by Holmes Harden ,
Michael S. Kolman , Newhouse, Prophater, Kolman & Hogan, LLC, D.
Wesley Newhouse, Newhouse, Prophater, Kolman & Hogan LLC.

U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by William
L. Esser, IV -- willesser@parkerpoe.com -- Parker Poe Adams &
Bernstein, L.L.P..

Dealers Assurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Alan F. Berliner -- alan.berliner@thompsonhine.com -- Thompson
Hine, LLP, John Paul H. Cournoyer -- jpc@nbfirm.com -- Northen
Blue, LLP, Michael L. Dillard -- michael.dillard@thompsonhine.com
-- Thompson Hine, LLP, Andrew L. Turscak, Jr. --
andrew.turscak@thompsonhine.com -- Thompson Hine, LLP.


FORCE FACTOR: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit Over Test X180
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Camey and Raymond Alvandi, plaintiffs in "DANIEL CAMEY and
RAYMOND ALVANDI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORCE FACTOR, LLC, GENERAL
NUTRITION CORPORATION, GENERAL NUTRITION CENTERS, INC., GNC
CORPORATION, S&G PROPERTIES, LLC, GENCOR NUTRIENTS, INC., GENCOR
PACIFIC INC., and GE NUTRIENTS, INC., Defendants," Civil Action
No. 1:14-cv-14717-RWZ (D. Mass., December 23, 2014), filed an
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
from the final judgment dismissing their complaint.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' campaign to sell its Test
X180 nutritional supplement for men violates a host of federal and
state consumer protection laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
     Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 01110
     Phone: 617.398.5600
     Fax: 617.507.6020
     E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com
     E-mail: Joel@blockesq.com

        - and -

     Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
     VOZZOLO LLC
     345 Route 17 South
     Upper Saddle River, NJ 07548
     Phone: (201) 630-8820
     Fax: (201) 604-8400
     E-mail: avozzolo@avozzolo.com

        - and -

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


FORD CANADA: Calif. Judge Revives Antitrust Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Ford once again faces claims that it fixed U.S. car markets by
refusing to import cheaper Canadian versions of its vehicles,
after a federal judge in San Francisco partially overturned a
ruling in the carmaker's favor.

The July 5 ruling, issued by Judge Timothy Reardon of the
California First Appellate District Court of Appeal, held that the
San Francisco trial court hearing the case wrongfully granted
summary judgment to Ford Canada for its alleged involvement in the
purported antitrust scheme.

Reardon wrote that "the trial court excluded vast amounts of
potentially highly relevant evidence related to Ford Canada's
alleged co-conspirators on hearsay grounds."

The judge also said there is evidence Ford Canada "actually
reduced vehicle allocations, provided blacklists of known
exporters to its dealers, circulated best practices, imposed
chargebacks, and initiated dealer termination proceedings" in
response to the importation issue.

Other carmakers had instituted similar measures during the early
2000s to contend with the price differential between similar cars
sold in the United States and Canada, Reardon noted.
However, the judge upheld the dismissal of charges involving Ford
U.S., finding that consumers had not mounted a strong enough case.

"[T]here is simply no evidence, or even inference, from which a
reasonable jury could concluded that Ford U.S. agreed with any
other alleged co-conspirator to do something together about the
export problem or that it even understood the goals of the alleged
conspiracy and actively participated in it," Reardon wrote in the
63-page ruling.

In the underlying 2003 complaint, car purchasers accused Ford and
other major automakers of conspiring to prohibit the importation
of cheaper, nearly identical cars from Canada into the United
States, which allegedly resulted in higher car prices in
California.

Apparently, the issue was particularly thorny for Ford when it
came to their line of Thunderbirds, which were considered "high-
profile, high-margin" cars.

Dozens of those lawsuits were consolidated into a single $1
billion class-action antitrust case, which accused the carmakers
of charging California car dealers as much as 30 percent more than
they charged Canadian dealers for the same make and model
vehicles.

In some cases, the manufacturers allegedly included clauses
prohibiting Canadian dealers from exporting their cheaper
vehicles.

In the early part of the trial, allegations against overseas
carmakers like Honda and Volkswagen were dismissed due to court
jurisdiction. General Motors and DaimlerChrysler later evaded the
lawsuit because of bankruptcy filings in 2009, though GM's
Canadian counterpart settled in 2011.

Ford remained one of the last defendants in the case, and had
argued that its U.S. company had not "conspired with anyone in
Canada to do anything," court records show.

The trial court agreed, finding in early 2012 that neither Ford
U.S. nor Ford Canada had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy.

The trial court rejected much of the consumers' evidence of a
conspiracy, including a deposition from Toyota Canada general
counsel Pierre Millette.

Reardon disagreed with that decision July 5, finding that
Millette's statements -- in which he recalled a 2001 meeting
during which other automaker executives supported the concept of
prohibiting Canadian imports -- were merely impressions from a
meeting.

"This is not hearsay, and the trial court erred in concluding that
it was," Reardon wrote, noting also that Millette's testimony
might have "tipped the balance in the plaintiffs' favor."

Reardon similarly wrote that a meeting with other automakers could
have been evidence of a conspiracy.

"Agreeing to meet extensively on the sole topic of how best to
restrict exports as an industry certainly raises a plausible
inference that the alleged co-conspirators had all previously
agreed to hold the line together on export sales, were thus
willing to explore together in detail the most effective means of
implementing that anti-competitive pact," the judge wrote.

In upholding the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Ford
U.S., however, Reardon wrote that the consumers' evidence of
emails from Ford U.S. executive Bill Glick regarding "industry-
wide solutions" to the export issue did not constitute viable
evidence of anything more than initial contact with competitors,
and not of a consummated conspiracy.

Reardon was joined in the opinion by Judges Ignazio Ruvolo and
Maria Rivera.

"We are very pleased with the decision and look forward to
vigorously litigating the case and preparing for trial against
Ford Canada," said plaintiffs' attorney Craig Corbett of Zelle
LLP.

Lead counsel for Ford did not immediately respond to a request for
comment July 6.

The case captioned, In re AUTOMOBILE ANTITRUST CASES I and II,
pending before the Court of Appeal of the State of California
First Appellate District Division Four.


FOXTONS: Faces Class Action Over Tenant Fees
--------------------------------------------
Josh Hall, writing for Simply Business, reports that Foxtons, the
estate agent giant especially popular in London, is the subject of
fresh controversy following the launch of a new class action
lawsuit against the company.

The case, to be brought by legal firm CaseHub, alleges that the
Foxtons' tenant fees are illegal, citing the Consumer Rights Act
and the earlier Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Tenants and landlords paying over the odds?

CaseHub spokesperson Michael Green told the Guardian: "Letting
agents are the gatekeepers to property, especially in London, but
are abusing their position.  We have ended up with the ridiculous
situation whereby tenants are paying hundreds of pounds for a
five-minute template contract, or for a credit check which is
available on the market for GBP20."

The case follows a similar class action suit launched in February,
that time by landlords.  In that case, a group of 55 landlords are
responding to what they claim are 'hidden fees' charged by
Foxtons, catalyzed by an instance in which the agent charged a
London landlord GBP616 for changing a lightbulb.

Foxtons claim their fees are fair

Foxtons have rejected both claims, insisting that their fees are
fair and transparent.  Responding to the most recent lawsuit, in a
statement it said: "Foxtons employs an open and transparent
approach when it comes to fees.  Our tenancy administration fees
are fixed and charged per tenancy (not per individual tenant) and
include the cost of chauffeured viewings, negotiating the tenancy,
verifying identification, obtaining references, and drawing up the
tenancy agreement."

In response to the February landlord case, it said its charges are
"transparent and properly communicated," and maintains that the
case is without merit.

English law is comparatively lax when it comes to agency fees,
especially in comparison with Scotland, which legislated in 2012
to ban any charges other than rent and a refundable deposit.


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Singh" Lawsuit in Cali. Over AdWords Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
GURMINDER SINGH, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE, INC., Defendants, Case 5:16-cv-
03734-HRL (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2016), alleges that Google Display
Network advertisements were being fraudulently manipulated,
resulting to billions of dollars in additional profits for Google
on an annual basis.

Google's AdWords Program is a pay-per-click advertising program
offered by Google to advertisers who wish to have Google display
their ads on the Internet.

Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Google promises that fewer than 10 percent of hits on its pay-per-
click AdWords Program are invalid or fraudulent, though nearly
half are, bringing Google billions of dollars in unjust profits
each year, an advertiser claims in San Jose class action.

AdWords is a pay-per-click program based on keywords. Ads that get
more clicks get better placement in search results. Advertisers
pay Google only when a user clicks on the ad.

In AdWords, website publishers get 51 percent of the revenue
recognized by Google, and Google keeps 49 percent, Singh says. In
a similar Google program, AdSense, on the Google Display Network,
website publishers get 68 percent of the revenue and Google keeps
32 percent.

But the multibillion-dollar Internet ad market is riddled with
click fraud.

"In December 2014, AdWeek reported that digital advertising would
take in $43.8 billion during the 2015 calendar year, and estimated
that $6.3 billion of that would be based solely upon fraudulent
activity," Singh says in the complaint.

That comes to 14.4 percent.

Singh says that "Google promises to protect consumers from
fraudulent clicks, including clicks originating from click bots,
click farms, and other improper click methods."

"Although Google acknowledges that click fraud does occur, it
assures users, like plaintiff, that '[t]he vast majority of all
invalid clicks on AdWords ads are caught by our online filters.
These filters are constantly being updated and react to a wide
variety of traffic patterns and indications of click fraud
attacks. On average, invalid clicks account for less than 10
percent of all clicks on AdWords ads.'"

Singh says that's not true, and he proved it by experiment. After
paying Google for an AdWords account for eight years, he says, he
"conducted a series of experiments to determine whether his Google
Display Network advertisements were being fraudulently
manipulated, and if so to calculate the extent of such fraud."

"Upon completion, plaintiff's experiments revealed rampant,
widespread invalid click activity on ads within plaintiff's
advertising campaign, at a rate between forty (40) and forty-eight
(48) percent of total clicks on the Google Display Network, for
each of which Google collects 32 percent of the total advertising
proceeds. Across the entirety of AdWords' United States user base,
these invalid clicks result in billions of dollars in additional
profits for Google on

Singh ran the experiments to determine if his advertisements were
being manipulated by fraudulent clicks. He ran four ads- two pairs
of "standard" and "experimental" ads that he monitored.

Singh said he conducted his experiment by running ads with normal
and nonsensical text and comparing the results. He found a
fraudulent click rate of 40 percent and 48 percent respectively.
The experiment, he says, shows "the large-scale impact of click
bots, click farms, and other improper click methods employed by
third-party publishers and website owners on AdWords and AdSense."
He seeks class certification, disgorgement of unjust profits,
restitution, damages and costs o suit.

Google's AdSense has been the subject of similar litigation,
including other class actions.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Google's appeal of
a similar class action, and allowed the class to proceed with
claims that the company misled advertisers about the placement of
their ads.  And in May, a federal judge in San Jose sided with
plaintiffs and refused to dismiss several of four AdSense
advertisers' claims against Google.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
     Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7000
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
             kbates@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
     Michael C. McKay, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: (480) 428-0141
     Fax: (866) 505-8036
     E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     John F. Edgar, Esq.
     Boyce N. Richardson, Esq.
     EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
     1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 531-0033
     Fax: (816) 531-3322
     E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
             bnr@edgarlawfirm.com


GOOGLE INC: Nov. 10 Hearing Set on Age Discrimination Case Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FoxNews.com reports that an age-discrimination lawsuit filed by
two people who interviewed unsuccessfully for jobs at Google could
expand to encompass other individuals if a motion is successful.

The motion for conditional certification of collective action
status was filed in a San Jose federal court on June 29.
Computerworld reports that the motion, which is similar to a class
action, aims to include "all individuals who interviewed in-person
for any software engineer, site reliability engineer, or systems
engineer position with Google in the United States in the time
period from August 13, 2010 through the present; were age 40 or
older at the time of interview; and were refused employment by
Google."

The motion seeks to make the case "opt-in", giving other parties
the option to join an age-discrimination lawsuit filed against
Google last year.

The anti-discrimination suit was filed last year by Robert Heath
and alleges that Google "engaged in a systematic pattern and
practice of discriminating against individuals (including
Mr. Heath) who are age 40 and older in hiring, compensation, and
other employment decisions."

In February 2011 Google did not hire Mr. Heath, who was then 60,
for a software engineer position he had applied and interviewed
for, according to the suit.  "Heath had highly-pertinent
qualifications and experience, and a Google recruiter even deemed
him a 'great candidate'," it added.  Mr. Heath had a "technical
phone interview" with Google for the role.

Last year programmer Cheryl Fillekes joined Heath's suit.
Ms. Fillekes, who is in her 50s, was invited for in-person Google
interviews on four separate occasions but was not hired for any of
the positions.

Ms. Fillekes, who filed the motion, has a doctoral degree in
computational geophysics from the University of Chicago and has
undertaken postdoctoral work at Harvard.

Washington D.C.-based law firm Kotchen & Low is representing
Ms. Fillekes in the case.  "We think that there are a whole host
of folks who are qualified and did not receive a position at
Google because of their age," Daniel Kotchen --
dkotchen@kotchen.com -- a partner at the law firm, told
FoxNews.com.

If the court approves the motion, Google would be required to
provide names and contact details for every applicant over 40 who
had in-person interviews for software engineer, site reliability
engineer or systems engineer jobs.  The individuals would then be
contacted and given the option to join the lawsuit, according to
Mr. Kotchen.

Ms. Fillekes' motion identifies a number of other job applicants
by initials, Computerworld reports.

The motion will be heard in court on Nov. 10.

Citing data from compensation research specialist Payscale,
Heath's lawsuit claims that in 2013 the median age for a Google
employee was 29.

Heath is represented by San Francisco law firm Smith Patten. Dow
Patten, a partner at the firm, told from FoxNews.com that Heath is
seeking to join the motion for conditional certification, with a
change to its scope.  "It will expand the scope beyond those that
were screened out during in-person interviews to include those who
were screened out during telephonic technical interviews," he
said.

Heath's initial lawsuit will go to trial in July 2017.

The median age for a computer programmer in the U.S. is 43,
according to 2015 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A Google spokeswoman told FoxNews.com that the company doesn't
comment on pending litigation.

This is not the first time that a Silicon Valley heavweight has
been accused of age discrimination.

In 2011 an age discrimination lawsuit filed by former Google
executive Brian Reid was settled for undisclosed damages.

Former Twitter employee Peter Taylor filed a lawsuit against the
San Francisco-based firm in 2014, alleging that he was fired for
being too old.  The case was settled last year.


GREEN HORIZON: Faces "Arias" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Arias, individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Green Horizon
Landscaping, L.L.C.., and Kurt Vogt, Individually, Defendants,
Case: 1:16-cv-06963 (N.D. Ill., July 5, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Green Horizon is a commercial landscape maintenance company based
in Escondido, CA. It offers professional arbor care, landscape
construction & landscape management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Susan J. Best, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1263
     E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com


GROUPON INC: "Keena" Class Suit Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Graham C. Mullen granted Groupon Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration of the case captioned ERIN KEENA, Plaintiffs, v.
GROUPON, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-00520-GCM
(W.D.N.C.).  The civil action is stayed pending the arbitrator's
decision.

Groupon is a web-based company that partners with retail
businesses and offers the businesses' products and services for a
discounted price if purchased from Groupon's website.  On February
1, 2015, Erin Keena purchased a voucher for massage services
through Groupon's website to be rendered by the company Mutatio
Wellness.  However, Keena was unable to contact Mutatio Wellness
to schedule the massage.  Keena requested a refund from Groupon,
and Groupon refunded Keena's purchase by crediting her account
with "Groupon Bucks," which can only be used to make purchases on
Groupon's website.

Before purchasing the massage voucher through Groupon's website,
Keena acknowledged and accepted Groupon's Terms of Use, including
its arbitration provision, on two separate occasions.

Keena filed a suit on October 29, 2015, alleging breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud and deceit, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade
practices, fraudulent inducement, and negligence.

"The Court finds that the arbitration provision in the Terms of
Use binds the parties to settle their current dispute through
arbitration.  Although the Terms of Use establish that Illinois
law governs any disputes, the Federal Arbitration Act favors
strict enforcement of arbitration provisions and preempts state
laws that interfere with arbitration.  While Plaintiff contends
the arbitration provision should not be enforced because it is
unconscionable and illusory, Plaintiff has failed to substantiate
these arguments.  Additionally, Plaintiff's policy arguments
regarding the unfairness of arbitration provisions are matters for
Congress to decide.  Therefore, the Court will follow the Federal
Arbitration Act purpose of "ensur[ing] that private arbitration
agreements are enforced according to their terms, "Concepcion, 563
U.S. at 344, and compel the parties to arbitrate their dispute,"
Judge Mullen said.

A full-text copy of Judge Mullen's June 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/26SNZf from Leagle.com.

Erin Keena, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Chappell Flint, Law
Offices of Daniel C. Flint, PC, pro hac vice & Daniel Kraviec,
Sr., The Law Office of Daniel Kraviec, PLLC.

Groupon, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory Thomas Fouts,
Morgan -- gregory.fouts@morganlewis.com -- Lewis & Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice, Jason B. James -- jjames@belldavispitt.com -- Bell,
Davis & Pitt, P.A., Joshua Blake Durham --
jdurham@belldavispitt.com -- Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., Michael D.
Phillips -- mphillips@belldavispitt.com -- Bell, Davis & Pitt,
P.A. & Scott Thomas Schutte -- scott.schutte@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.


HG STAFFING: "Reader" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
SARA READER (formerly LARSON), PAUL ALLEN, WENDY BASALLO, JUSTINE
BRADLEY, ALEXIS BRYANT, TIFFANY CARRERA, SHENNA CORRAL,
KATHERINE DOWLING, SHELLEY FAUST, CAITLIN GUNN, LIZ HEERAN,
BRIDGETTE HINES, IMOGEN HOLT, STEPHANIE KNAUSS, JUSTINE LANG,
MARK LARSON, GEORGE LOPES II, SANDRA MARTINEZ, MALCOLM MCCASKILL,
JOSEPH MCKEE, MARIA MCKENZIE, CALLIE MIANO, TONY MORAN, JENNIFER
NICHOLS, KAROLINA OLECH, NATALIE ORDAS, ARLENE OSORMAN, KATHRYN
OWEN, STEVE PIERCE, ROXANNE PRIMUS, LAWRENCE RIORDAN SR., GAY
ROBERTS, MELISSA ROSINA, MISTY SHELBY, BRANDI SMITH, KRYSTA
STEIGLER, DELLENA THOMPSON, and ROBERT TRANCHIDA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. HG STAFFING, LLC, MEI-GSR, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00387-HDM-WGC (D. Nev., June 28, 2016), was filed pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants allegedly required Plaintiff S. Reader and all
employees who worked as cocktail servers and baristas to change
into and out of their uniforms on the GSR premises and without
compensation for such changing activities.

The complaint says extracting unpaid work from S. Reader and all
other Plaintiffs was achieved by either rounding hours so that
employees who were technically "on the clock" did not receive pay
for all their recorded hours worked or by having employees perform
work without being logged in to the timekeeping system. Moreover,
Defendants maintain an unlawful rounding policy whereby it rounds
the time recorded and worked by all hourly employees to the
nearest 15 minutes for purposes of calculating payment of wages
owed. Such rounding favors the employer and deprives the employees
of pay for time they actually perform work activities.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent the class defined as: "All
current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants who
were required to change into and out of uniforms on GSR premises
without compensation at any time during the relevant time period
alleged."

Hg Staffing LLC is in the Employment Agencies business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284 1500
          E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  laborlawyer@pacbell.net


INVENSENSE INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held June 29, 2016, on defendants' motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint in the case, In re InvenSense, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 3:15-cv-00084 (N.D. Cal.).

Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended April 3, 2016, that "In January and March of 2015,
purported shareholders filed five substantially similar class
action complaints in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California against the Company and two of the Company's current
and former executives ("Class Action Defendants") (Jim McMillan v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January
7, 2015; William Lendales v. InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on January 12, 2015; Plumber &
Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v. InvenSense, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on January 16, 2015; William B.
Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW,
filed on January 29, 2015; and Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology
& Communications Portfolio v. InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01134, filed on March 11, 2015)."

"On April 23, 2015, those cases were consolidated into a single
proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California and captioned In re InvenSense,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD (the
"Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as lead
plaintiff.

"On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding our business results between July
29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages along
with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On June 25, 2015, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion
seeking dismissal of the case and a hearing on that motion was
held on October 7, 2015. On March 28, 2016, the court granted the
motion to dismiss, in part with prejudice and in part with leave
to amend. On April 18, 2016, the lead plaintiff's counsel filed an
amended complaint. On May 5, 2016, the Class Action Defendants
filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case."

The Company makes sensors that combine microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS) transducers, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes,
barometers, compasses, and microphones, with proprietary
algorithms, processors and firmware that synthesize and calibrate
sensor output data.


J. C. PENNEY: Securities Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against a securities class action litigation.

JC Penney said, "The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H.
Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, Tyler Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26,
2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the
Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused
our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.  The
consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants
filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12,
2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January
25, 2016, and defendants submitted a response to the motion on
April 15, 2016."

"Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other
than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through
September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in
the Marcus lawsuit , and seeks similar relief.

"On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the
consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported
class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson
lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources."


J. C. PENNEY: ERISA Case Settlement Subject to Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the parties in the
ERISA Class Action Litigation have reached a settlement agreement,
subject to court approval.

JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of
Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by
plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July
8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated
Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1,
2011 and September 27, 2013.

Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held
Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because
defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or
omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business
prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class
certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust,
reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,
2015.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to court
approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available $4.5 million
to settle class members' claims.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of
this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Tschudy et al. Appeal Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the employment class action litigation in
California.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional
claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on
behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1,
2004 to the present.

After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois
claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled
Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory
damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company
opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in
California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue.

On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Pursuant to a motion by the
Company, the California court decertified the class on December 9,
2015. On March 30, 2016, the California court granted JCP's motion
for summary judgment, and on May 4, 2016, entered judgment for JCP
on all plaintiffs' claims.

Specifically, California Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on March 30,
2016, entered partial summary judgment (following summary
adjudication) in favor of Defendant J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
("JCP") and against Plaintiffs Raymond Tschudy, Sheila Walker, and
Kamryn Candelaria on the central issue of whether JCP's My Time
Off vacation policy complies with Cal. Labor Code Sec. 227.3.
Following a status conference with the parties on April 25, 2016,
the court instructed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor
of JCP and against Plaintiffs on all claims because the court's
determination on summary adjudication resolved all of Plaintiffs'
remaining claims.

Meanwhile, the Illinois court denied without prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for class certification pending the filing of an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the
Illinois lawsuit on April 14, 2015 and the Company has answered.
On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for
class certification, which the Illinois court granted on March 8,
2016.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we
believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.

                           *     *     *

On April 28 and May 13, 2016, Tschudy et al. filed appeals from
the California District Court's rulings to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  These appeals are Case Nos.
16-55623 and 16-55696.

In the May Appeal, Appellants Kamryn Candelaria, Raymond Tschudy
and Sheila Walker are scheduled to file their opening brief by
Aug. 22, 2016.  Appellee J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.'s answering
brief is due Sept. 20, 2016.  Appellant's optional reply brief is
due 14 days after service of the answering brief.

In the April Appeal, Appellants Candelaria et al.'s opening brief
is due Aug. 4, 2016.  J.C. Penney's answering brief is due Sept.
6, 2016.  Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

         James C. Kostas, Esq.
         Huffman & Kostas
         1441 State Street
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Tel: 619-544-0881

              - and -

         Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff
         1441 State Street
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Tel: 619-544-0881

J.C. Penney is represented by:

         Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Tel: 213-229-7822

              - and -

         Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         2100 McKinney Avenue
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Tel: 214-698-3203


J. C. PENNEY: Aug. 25 Fairness Hearing Set in Pricing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the parties in the
pricing class action litigation have reached a settlement
agreement, subject to court approval.

The Fairness Hearing is currently scheduled for August 25, 2016,
at 10:00 a.m.

Additional information on the case is available at:

                https://www.jcpenneysettlement.com/

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Spann v.
J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. filed on February 8, 2012 in the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated California's Unfair Competition Law and
related state statutes in connection with its advertising of sale
prices for private label apparel and accessories. The lawsuit
seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees
and costs.

On May 18, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for
certification of a class consisting of all people who, between
November 5, 2010 and January 31, 2012, made purchases in
California of JCP private or exclusive label apparel or
accessories advertised at a discount of at least 30% off the
stated original or regular price (excluding those who only
received such discount by using coupon(s)), and who have not
received a refund or credit for their purchases.

"The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to court
approval, and in accordance with the term of the settlement, we
have established a $50 million reserve to settle class members'
claims," the Company said.


J.L. Hawes: Faces "Heydrick" Lawsuit Under FLSA, SC Wages Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrell Ni. Heydrick, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. J.L. Hawes Inc., dba Bear E
Patch Cafe-West, John Hawes, and Susan Hawes, individually,
Defendants, 2:16-cv-02413-CWH (D.S.C., July 1, 2016), was filed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the South Carolina
Payment of Wages Act.

J.L. Hawes Inc. operates a restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
     MULLANEY LAW
     1037-D Chuck Dawley Suite 104
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone/Fax: (800) 385-8160
     E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


JAPAN: Comfort Women's Claim Dismissed
--------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that after almost a year of litigation, a federal judge in San
Francisco permanently dismissed a class action accusing Japan and
its major corporations of conspiring to force Korean women into
sexual slavery during World War II.

Hee Nam You and Kyung Soon Kim sued Japan, its prime minister and
a host of people and corporations in July 2015, accusing them of
committing or aiding in crimes against humanity.  You and Kim say
they were kidnapped from their homes in Korea in the early 1940s
and made to serve as "comfort women" for the pleasure of Japanese
soldiers.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup last year dismissed seven
companies from the lawsuit -- including Mitsubishi, Toyota and
Nissan -- finding claims against them were time-barred and
involved a non-justiciable political question that would require
the court to interpret a treaty between two foreign governments.

The women accused the companies of providing the trains, vehicles
and vessels -- or steel to make the vessels -- that took them to
comfort stations where they were held in captivity and forced to
have sex "five to 30 times a day" with Japanese soldiers.

After the plaintiffs' attorneys missed a deadline to file a second
amended complaint against those companies in December 2015, Alsup
permanently dismissed them from the suit.

Alsup also dismissed one of Japan's largest media companies,
Sankei Shimbun, from the litigation last year, finding the Tokyo-
based newspaper could not be sued in the United States.

The women accused the newspaper of defaming them by calling them
"voluntary prostitutes" in articles and editorials.

Alsup granted the plaintiffs' motion to conduct discovery on the
issue of jurisdiction, but in his June 21 ruling he said they
failed to establish jurisdiction to sue the publication in the
United States.

"Sankei's only direct presence in the United States was its
newsgathering bureaus," Alsup wrote. "This is an insufficient
basis to find that Sankei is 'essentially at home' in the United
States."

Alsup also found that because the plaintiffs never served other
defendants in the lawsuit, including the nation of Japan and its
prime minister, all remaining defendants would be dismissed.

"The Court acknowledges that our plaintiffs have suffered
regrettable and horrific acts and has patiently allowed them
numerous opportunities to overcome the bars to their claims,"
Alsup wrote in his 6-page ruling. "The law simply does not permit
this Court to serve as a forum for the adjudication of their
claims."

Alsup also entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Hume Joseph Jung of Oakland, did not
return phone calls seeking comment.

In December 2015, Japan officially apologized for its role in
forcing Korean women into sexual slavery during World War II and
pledged 1 billion yen, or $8.3 million, for survivors.

Of an estimated 200,000 women believed to have been made to serve
as sex slaves for Japanese soldiers during the war, only 46 known
Korean "comfort women" were still alive in December last year,
according to The Associated Press.

The case captioned, HE NAM YOU and KYUNG SOON KIM,
for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HIROHITO; NOBUSKE KISHI; NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI
KAISHA; NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; HITACHI,
LTD.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORPORATION; MITSUI GROUP;
OKAMOTO INDUSTRIES, INC.; and SANKEI SHIMBUN CO., LTD.,
Defendants., No. C 15-03257 WHA (N.D. Cal.).


KANE'S FURNITURE: Sued for Allegedly Selling Defective Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome R. Stockfisch and John Martin, writing for Tampa Bay Times,
report that Kane's Furniture is facing a suit.

He liked the look of the recliner couch and love seat, and noted
the "lifetime guarantee" prominently touted by Kane's Furniture.
But just six months after Cliff Brown made the $2,239.97 purchase
in 2011 for what he thought were leather pieces, the headrest on
the couch started peeling.  The surface armrests on the couch and
love seat flaked off, sticking to his shirtsleeves.  A repairman
made repeat visits, eventually telling Mr. Brown he'd have to pay
for future repairs.

"I said, 'That was a short lifetime,'" Mr. Brown said.

Mr. Brown's furniture is being stored in a law office in downtown
Tampa.  He has filed suit against the popular retailer, alleging
Kane Furniture Corp. sold defective products, failed to honor the
terms of its warranty and represented the furniture as leather
when it was not.

Kane's is well-known around Tampa Bay.  It has eight stores in the
area and its motto, "Quality so good, it's guaranteed for life,"
blares from ubiquitous TV and print advertising.

Mr. Brown's suit seeks class-action status, potentially involving
thousands of customers who bought so-called "bonded leather"
furniture built by a Mississippi manufacturer.  Kane's itself has
acknowledged receiving more than 1,000 complaints in 2013 alone,
and others have complained to the Better Business Bureau and to
consumer websites of similar cracking, peeling, flaking and
deterioration of the bonded leather.

"This is really widespread. Something should be done," Mr. Brown
said.

Kane's said customers are notified that wear and tear are not
covered under the lifetime warranty.  The company "will vigorously
defend its position, particularly given all of the steps they went
through to satisfy customers who had an issue with the product,"
said Lisa Brock, a public relations specialist representing
Kane's.

Kane's Furniture was founded in 1948 with a single store in St.
Petersburg.  Today it has 18 stores along the west coast of
Florida and Orlando, and is based in Pinellas Park.

The Kane's "guaranteed for life" tagline comes with some caveats
that may not be immediately apparent to some customers.  Brock
provided a brochure and sales order that she said is presented to
each buyer.  The brochure explains what is covered under the
"lifetime guarantee" -- furniture frames, springs, motion/sleeper
mechanisms, cushions, structural integrity and hardware.

It also contains a section titled "What's not covered."  Among 12
bullet points is the following: "Wearability, fabric fading,
wrinkling, stretching, dye lot variations, color fastness, tears,
rips, punctures, peeling/bubbling, burns, flattening and crushing
of naps, pilling, button popping, seams, shrinking, heavy soiling
or abuse."

Another bullet point reads: "Incidental or consequential damages,
and normal wear and tear."

The sales order includes a "Please read and sign" box that states,
"Kane's Furniture is not responsible for color fasting or wearing
quality of fabrics."

Nonetheless, in the interest of goodwill and customer service,
Kane attempted to assuage customers who complained about their
furniture, Brock said.  The company made repairs, even offered in-
store credits to buyers.

"Many times, I think we went overboard, but that was part of the
deal, we wanted to do that," Brock said.  "It's a judgment call.
We did try to bend over backwards to try to take care of it."

Not good enough, said Joanne Ravenscroft of Palm Harbor, who
bought two bonded leather couches from Kane's that she said are
cracking, peeling and sagging.  "I'm really upset," she said.
"It's not fair, they should stand behind what they're claiming
they do.  All I want is what they said I would get -- the
guarantee for life."

Mr. Brown and Ms. Ravenscroft both said they signed nothing
indicating that they understood the type of deterioration their
furniture eventually showed was not covered by the lifetime
warranty.  "Of course they're going to say that," Ms. Ravenscroft
said of the caveats in the guarantee.

The Better Business Bureau of West Florida lists Kane's as an
accredited business with an "A" rating, but registered 427
complaints over the past three years, a number of which address
the bonded leather issue.

What is particularly aggravating to Mr. Brown and other customers
is that Kane's recognized the problem and in 2015 sued the
manufacturer that supplied all of its bonded leather furniture,
Southern Motion Inc. of Pontotoc, Miss.  The two sides settled,
with the details sealed by a Pinellas County judge.

"They were well aware of the problem, and they got reimbursed, but
they didn't do anything for consumers," Mr. Brown said.

Kane's sued Southern Motion in Pinellas County Circuit Court in
February 2015.  At issue was furniture manufactured by Southern
Motion utilizing bonded leather, a synthetic, processed
leatherlike substance that contains less than 17 percent actual
leather.

"Southern's Bonded Leather furniture peels, flakes and
deteriorates so rapidly that Kane has been forced to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars repairing the furniture," the
Kane's lawsuit states.  "In 2013 alone, Kane received over 1,000
complaints of defects arising from Southern's Bonded Leather
furniture."

Ms. Brock said Kane's stopped carrying Southern Motion bonded
leather products when the suit was filed and no longer offers its
products.

The suit stated that Southern's bonded leather furniture "is
unmerchantable and unsuitable for sale to Florida consumers and
was unmerchantable and unsuitable at the time of sale to Kane."

Representatives of Southern Motion did not respond to requests for
comment.  News coverage of the company does not indicate there
were any other defective-product lawsuits filed against Southern
Motion.

Since the settlement of the lawsuit has been sealed, the amount
Kane's received has not been revealed.

Doug Mincer, a disabled veteran in Palm Bay, paid $2,500 to Kane's
for a couch and love seat along with some tables in 2012. When his
furniture began deteriorating, he did some digging, and learned
about Kane's suing its manufacturer and of Brown's suit.

"I'm wondering why, if they sued the manufacturer, why they're not
going to honor the guarantee on it, or why they're going to say
it's not covered," he said.  "It looks like they're just trying to
put money into their own pocket."

In 2002, the Florida Attorney General's Office filed a civil suit
against Kane's, culminating a yearlong investigation into hundreds
of consumer complaints lodged against the furniture retailer.

The state offered a settlement, including a $400,000 fine and
conditions such as an agreement to not falsely advertise sale
items.

Kane's rejected the settlement and countersued, accusing the state
of intimidation and coercion.  After extensive court-ordered
mediation, both suits were dismissed in 2004.

Mr. Brown's suit was filed on Nov. 2 in Hillsborough circuit
court. Depositions are under way, and a hearing is scheduled later
this month at which Mr. Brown's lawyers will seek documents
relating to Kane's settlement with Southern Motion.

The suit states that Kane's marketed the Southern Motion bonded
leather products as "leather furniture," and charges violations of
the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, among other
counts.

"That is based on its deceptiveness in selling bonded leather
furniture to consumers throughout the state of Florida just like
Cliff Brown who were sold a defective product when Kane's knew of
the defect at all material times," said Dan Clark, one of the
attorneys handling the lawsuit.  "They are currently unfairly
denying the lifetime guarantee to customers who bought the bonded
leather product, and we're seeking to stop that."

The suit calls for the return of the total amount that
dissatisfied customers paid for the furniture.

Ms. Brock denies Kane's marketed the furniture as true leather.
Current marketing is specific; an online description of one couch
states, for example, that it "is upholstered in premium heavy
weight top-grain leather matched with faux-leather on the
outside."

She said the retailer has attempted to satisfy every customer. "We
looked at every case on a case-by-case basis," Ms. Brock said.
"Our goal is and always has been, regardless of the warranty, to
provide excellent customer service."

Mr. Brown, a retired law enforcement officer, eventually gave up
on getting his couch and love seat repaired or replaced to his
satisfaction and took the legal route.

"We liked the look, and Southern Motion had a good reputation.
I've talked to other people that had Southern Motion," he said.
"If they would have told me it wasn't leather, I wouldn't have
bought the couch.  I was looking for something that hopefully
would last me a lifetime."


KEMET CORPORATION: Reply Briefs Not Yet Filed
---------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2016, that reply briefs concerning the motion
for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit have not yet been
filed.

KEMET Corporation and KEC, along with more than 20 other capacitor
manufacturers and subsidiaries, are defendants in a purported
antitrust class action complaint, In re: Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, filed on December 4, 2014 with
the United States District Court, Northern District of California
(the "U.S. Complaint"). The complaint alleges a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, for which it seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and money damages. On March 30, 2016, KEMET
Corporation and KEC filed a motion for summary judgement with the
District Court; response and reply briefs concerning the motion
have not yet been filed.


KLX ENERGY: Faces "Barrientes" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMALIO BARRIENTES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KLX INC.; KLX ENERGY SERVICES
LLC and OFS 2 DEAL 2, LLC f/k/a VISION OIL TOOLS, LLC, Defendants,
Case 4:16-cv-01955 (S.D. Tex., July 1, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

KLX INC. is an oilfield services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael D. West, Esq.
     WEST & WEST, LLP
     3818 Fox Meadow
     Pasadena, TX 77504
     Phone: (713) 222-9378
     Fax: (713) 222-9397

        - and -

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


LANDRY'S INC: Court Dismisses "Craig" Wage and Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Chelsey Craig, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Landry's, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-277 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Sandra S. Beckwith granted the motion filed by the
defendants, Landry's Inc. and McCormick & Schmick Restaurant
Corporation, to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Beckwith's June 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/bU2xDb from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs in this case are Chelsey Craig, Lyle Lehan,
Christian Gilliken, Anna Greve, and Julie Ullett.  The plaintiffs
were employed as servers by McCormick & Schmick at various times
between 2013 and 2016.  The plaintiffs did not specifically allege
that they were "tipped-employees" although it can be reasonably
inferred from the second amended complaint that they were.  The
plaintiffs alleged that they were servers, which logically
indicates that they were tipped employees, and they complained
that they were not properly compensated for performing non-tipped
worked.  The plaintiffs asserted three basic violations of the
federal and state minimum wage statutes.

The plaintiffs filed suit against McCormick & Schmick and
Landry's, Inc., McCormick & Schmick's parent corporation, for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Payment Act
(OPPA), and Ohio Rev. Code section 4111.14(G).  The plaintiffs
also asserted a common law unjust enrichment claim.

The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and potential
collective class of similarly-situated employees for the alleged
minimum wage act violations.  The plaintiffs also asserted a class
action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 concerning the deduction of
the credit card processing fee and for the alleged section
4111.14(G) violation.

Chelsey Craig, Kyle Lehan, Christian Gillikin, Anna Greve, Julie
Ullett, Plaintiffs, represented by Neil B. Pioch --
npioch@sommerspc.com -- One Towne Square, pro hac vice, Robert E.
DeRose, II -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish
Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP & Robi J. Baishnab --
rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

Landry's, Inc., McCormick & Schmick Restaurant, Corp., Defendants,
represented by Alex W. Karasik -- akarasik@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Christina M. Janice --
cjanice@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
-- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice &
Peter J. Wozniak -- pwozniak@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
pro hac vice.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Degelman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VERONICA DEGELMAN and ANA PAULA BARRESE,
Plaintiffs, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ADRIANA
ANDRADE, and GARY BEANE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-286 (JLL)
(SCM) (D.N.J.), Judge Jose L. Linares granted in part and denied,
in part, the motion to dismiss filed by Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company, Adriana Andrade and Gary Beane.

On December 7, 2015, Veronica Degelman and Ana Paula Barrese filed
a three-count complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County.  The defendants removed the action to the
United States District Court of New Jersey on January 15, 2016.

The defendants moved to dismiss on February 25, 2016.

Judge Linares held that Degelman's claims shall proceed against
Lincoln and Beane, but not against Andrade.  The judge dismissed
Barrese's claims without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Linares' June 21, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/c6BWXn from Leagle.com.

VERONICA DEGELMAN, ANA PAULA BARRESE, Plaintiffs, represented by
FRANK D. ANGELASTRO -- angelastrolaw@optonline.net

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ADRIANA ANDRADE, GARY
BEANE, Defendants, represented by RUTH ANN RAULS --
rrauls@saul.com -- SAUL EWING LLP & GILLIAN ASHLEY COOPER --
gcooper@saul.com -- SAUL EWING LLP.


LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Lawsuits Over Water Crisis Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detriot, reports that attorneys
in the Flint water crisis say Attorney General Bill Schuette's
recent lawsuit in Genesee County Circuit Court makes him a
powerful ally against the engineering and environmental companies
that worked for the city -- for now.

If and when the various lawsuits against Lockwood, Andrews &
Newnam Inc. and Veolia North America Inc. reach settlement talks,
however, the state and the city residents' interests may be less
aligned.

More than 315 cases are pending in various state and federal
courts, including the Schuette case filed in Genesee County.  Many
are still awaiting rulings on proper jurisdiction, but in general
the LAN and Veolia suits are expected to coalesce over time in
Genesee Circuit.  Lawsuits targeting the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, Gov. Rick Snyder, various state-appointed
emergency managers for Flint or other state employees began
landing in June at the Michigan Court of Claims, which hears cases
against state agencies.

Genesee Circuit Judge Richard Yuille is considering a request to
consolidate early discovery and procedural matters, among a
previous class-action lawsuit and various individual cases and the
Schuette suit, although that request is on hold until other issues
get addressed.  About 630 children and their families allege lead
poisoning from contamination in the water supply in the various
individual suits.

Lockwood Andrews, a Houston-based engineering services and
program-management company with an office in Flint, was hired to
oversee a refit of Flint's nearly century-old Water Treatment
Plant when the city separated from the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department in April 2014.

Veolia is a Chicago-based environmental services company that
performed an analysis of Flint's water system and reported to the
city in March 2015 that it complied with state and federal
drinking water standards.

Mark McAlpine, attorney and owner of McAlpine PC in Auburn Hills
who first brought a prospective class-action lawsuit against
Lockwood in late January, hailed Schuette's entry into the fray as
a validation of the previous negligence claims against the
engineering firms.

The state, which is suing Lockwood for professional negligence and
a public nuisance and added a fraud claim against Veolia, has
nearly identical legal theories to the other lawsuits,
Mr. McAlpine said. But since it seeks a different set of damages
than families and property owners are after -- mainly its own
costs to manage the water problem after it developed -- their
interests don't conflict while the cases are pending.

"The state's lawsuit is extremely well-founded, obviously, and
their interests are well-aligned with ours," Mr. McAlpine said.
"But the issue's going to boil down to some level of damage
allocation.

"What the state is trying to recover is the $200 million-plus the
state seems to be paying in providing relief -- short-term relief
from water bills, or expenses it incurred supplying assistance,
what it needs to pay to solve the problem.  We're looking at
injury damages, and they're looking at post-event expenses.  And
we tend to see that as a secondary class of damages."

David Shea, founding partner of Shea Aiello PC in Southfield who
has a separate prospective class action still pending in federal
court, agreed the state suit aligns with the others on liability
but parts on damages.

"The AG's office obviously has more expansive remedies to pursue.
We'll ultimately see how all these requests play out," he said.

But attorneys and experts agree that if a settlement is in the
works, Lockwood and Veolia can offer only so much money or
corrective action -- and it may fall to a court-appointed special
master to sort claims by priority.

"One big question is whether the deep pockets are there.  What
insurance, or reinsurance, is available to help the firms? And
what's the rationale for blaming the debacle on consultants?" said
Peter Jacobson, professor of health law and policy at the
University of Michigan School of Public Health and director of the
Center for Law, Ethics, and Health.

"There's also a political question: Is the state's lawsuit also a
state attempt to shift responsibility away from the state to a
private actor? And what kind of factual basis does it have to
assign that blame?"

Veolia's French parent company reported more than $29 billion in
global revenue for 2015, and has about 174,000 employees
worldwide.  Lockwood reports more than 800 employees at 31 global
locations; revenue and insurance information weren't immediately
available, but parent Leo A Daly of Nebraska ranked No. 81 in the
Engineering News-Record 2015 list of top 500 design firms by
revenue.

Veolia and Lockwood have both previously cited a report of
Snyder's Flint Advisory Task Force in March, which assigned blame
to the state, in their past responses to the Flint litigation.

Jacobson suggested the courts may eventually appoint a special
master to oversee and prioritize claims for damages, much like the
one overseeing the Madoff Victim Fund under the U.S. Department of
Justice forfeiture program for victims of convicted Ponzi-style
investment schemer Bernie Madoff, or the master overseeing claims
of toxic mold in public housing after Hurricane Sandy.

"There may be a lot to sort out, but there's no automatic
requirement that the state have any claim priority over families
or others in this setting," he said.  "The state has more
resources, but that doesn't mean the state gets there any faster
in the race to the courthouse."


LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Disputes Fraudulent Billing Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
Chriss W. Street, writing for Breitbart, reports that with the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) settling a suit last
year for over-billing customers $44 million due to shoddy work by
Pricewaterhouse Coopers implementing a billing system, the L.A.
City Attorney has now alleged that the prestigious firm accounting
also fraudulently billed DWP to pay for hookers at swanky bachelor
parties at Vegas hotels.

Senior consulting management at Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC) is
alleged to have botched a 2014 installation of a new DWP billing
system that inflated 1.6 million monthly bills for customers in
the cities of Los Angeles, LADWP, Bishop, Culver City, South
Pasadena and West Hollywood areas by $44 million.

According to DWP Chief Administrative Officer David Wright, the
nation's largest utility is prepared to settle a class-action
lawsuit from aggrieved customers.  The public power authority
claims it has already refunded and credited some of the money, but
still owes rate-payers about $36 million.

Wright believes that although the vast majority of the billing
credits and refunds have only been around $10 or less, DWP will
make all customers whole, no matter how small the amount or if
customers know they were over-billed.

The class-action settlement also requires DWP to spend $20 million
to overhaul the billing system and appoint an outside ombudsman to
monitor its progress.  Depositions in the lawsuit found that DWP
was aware that customers who called DWP about over-billing were
often put in hold "queues" for a half-hour or more.

Cleveland-based class-action attorney Jack Landskroner, who
represented large numbers of Los Angeles customers and is expected
to be awarded a big piece of the $13 million in attorneys' fees in
connection with the four lawsuits, commented that the DWP
settlement is "a home run," adding, "It's not often you get 100%
recovery for customers."

Mr. Landskroner snarled that DWP admitted responsibility for bank
charges and overdraft fees that resulted when payments for
excessive bills were automatically drawn on customer accounts. Mr.
Landskroner encouraged customers to submit claims for full
reimbursement that could push the cost to DWP much higher.

The over-billing charges also highlighted lucrative DWP union
contracts, with terms for employees far more generous than
comparable jobs elsewhere.

Moreover, what was first thought to be a lawsuit over PWC
incompetence's in misrepresenting its capability to implement the
supposedly state-of-the-arts billing system has also now
metastasized into a full scandal for prestigious accounting and
consulting firm.

According to Superior Court filings from the L.A. Attorney's
Office, PWC also billed for bogus work never performed to cover
the cost for prostitutes, lavish hotel suites and liquor for at
two bachelor parties.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has said the DWP allegations have no merit
and contends it is being scapegoated by the utility trying to
shift blame for its own business practices.


M1 AUTO: Wants Class of Workers in OT Wage Case Decertified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq. -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox
Rothschild LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that whenever a
class action is defended, the main defense is, always, too much
individual scrutiny is needed to allow a class to be formed.  This
is exactly what a group of defendants has just now urged a
California federal court to find and thus decertify a conditional
class of workers claiming they were denied overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case is entitled
Sandoval et al. v. Ali et al. and was filed in federal court in
the Northern District of California.

The workers clam that they were not paid for non-repair-related
tasks and they also claim that they were not properly compensated
for downtime; the employers claim that each of these claims has to
be assessed individually because they are not similar enough to
belong to a single class or to opt in to the conditionally
certified FLSA class.  Indeed, the defendants noted that the court
itself already compared the theories of recovery to "shifting
sands."

The defendants brief aptly noted that "each variation has been
tied to unique, individualized or specifically anecdotal scenarios
based on cases that are dissimilar to the facts of this case, but
there has not been any evidence of any class-wide policy,
procedure or practice at use [in] all shops let alone a single
shop that would warrant the FLSA conditionally certified class to
continue as a class action."

The defendants argued that the standard for conditional
certification is much lower because that kind of certification is
granted "not on the merits," but rather because, in that limited
and narrow setting, naked allegations can carry the day.  However,
the defendants cogently argued that "by contrast, [for] the
decertification of FLSA collective actions or final certification
of FLSA collective actions, the burden on plaintiffs is
substantially greater and requires a demonstration of substantial
similarity between the plaintiffs and opt-ins."  The defendants
conclude by bluntly noting that "plaintiffs cannot meet this
burden."

The Takeaway

Anything that can be espoused that will tend to show individuality
or that individual scrutiny is needed should be thrown up as a
defense.  For example, in this case, there were several FLSA class
members and a number of opt-in workers that allegedly had claims
beyond the statute of limitations period, so their circumstances
would also be different.  The employer here has cogently asserted
that decertification is mandated because proving liability under
these circumstances will necessarily default into making numerous
individual inquiries over time worked.

Plaintiffs: Rafael Sandoval and Luis Martin Calixto
Defendants: Syed Ali, Bobby A. Ali, Rick Ali, M1 Auto Collisions
Centers and M1 Colllision Care Centers, Inc.


MACY'S: Judge Rules Against In-Store Civil Recovery Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Betancourt, writing for The Guardian, reports that a
Manhattan court judge ruled in favor of a class action lawsuit
against Macy's on June 27, in a case that looks into New York's
general business and obligations laws.  The business law statute
states: "A retail establishment for the purpose of investigation
or questioning . . . as to the ownership of any merchandise . . .
shall be in defense to such action that the person is detained in
a reasonable manner."  The second statute gives retailers further
power: "An adult shall be civilly liable to the operator of the
establishment."  Penalties cannot exceed $500, and the retailer
can charge five times the amount of the stolen merchandise.

The laws are meant to shield retailers.  The opinion from Judge
Manuel Mendez states: "Macy's has combined the power it was given
under the statutes by using this power as a double-edged sword
instead of a shield."  He reasoned further that there is no
language in the statures that allows Macy's to detain an
individual once an internal investigation is complete.  The
actions the class action alleged were seen as a violation of due
process.

Two women sued New York flagship store for "civil recovery"
practice after being held in basement cells, forced to pay hefty
fines and given criminal charges.

Faruk Usar of Usar Law Group, who represents plaintiffs Cinthia
Carolina Reyes Orellana and Samya Moftah, said: "We're just
starting.  There will be discovery to see how many people have
gone through this experience.  We are seeking all the money Macy's
collected to be returned."

The court enjoined Macy's from "demanding, requesting, collecting,
receiving, or accepting any payments" that connect with the
statutes from suspected shoplifters while detained in Macy's
custody.

Jim Sluzewski, senior vice-president of corporate communications
and external affairs at Macy's, said that the practice of civil
recovery ended in fall 2015.  "The preliminary injunction relates
to in-store civil recovery, a practice that Macy's had previously
discontinued nationwide.  Given that this is a matter in active
litigation, we do not have further comment to make," he replied in
a statement.  Macy's attorneys from Palmer, Reifler and Associates
PA did not reply for comment.

For Macy's, this is the latest in a series of problematic arrests
in its New York store.  In 2014 the retailer paid New York
attorney general Eric Schneiderman $650,000 to settle more than a
dozen complaints of profiling and false detentions of minority
customers at its Herald Square store.

Mr. Usar said: "We are claiming is that this is all by design. To
accuse someone, hold them, charge them money, and then transfer
them to the criminal justice system.  Orellana and Moftah went to
the court to prove their innocence.  It's like the police pulling
you over, giving you a ticket and demanding money on the spot.  If
not worse."


MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER: Soccer Club Sues Under Sherman, Clayton Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DALLAS TEXANS SOCCER CLUB, CROSSFIRE FOUNDATION, INC., and
SOCKERS FC CHICAGO, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER
PLAYERS UNION, CLINT DEMPSEY, DEANDRE YEDLIN, MICHAEL BRADLEY, and
all those similarly situated, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00464-RC
(E.D. Tex., July 1, 2016), is an action arising under the Sherman
and Clayton Acts, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

The Major League Soccer Players Union, also referred to as MLS
Players Union or MLSPU, is the union of professional Major League
Soccer players.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David B. Koch, Esq.
     John Mongogna, Esq.
     COATS ROSE, P.C.
     14755 Preston Road, Suite 600
     Dallas, TX 75254
     Phone: (972) 788-1600
     Fax: (972) 702-0662
     E-mail: dkoch@coatsrose.com
             jmongogna@coatsrose.com

        - and -

     Lance D. Reich, Esq.
     HAN SANTOS REICH, PLLC
     1411 4th Avenue, Suite 910
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 489-2648
     Fax: (425) 374-0921
     E-mail: lance@hansantos.com


MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces "Burke" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BURKE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. MANAGEMENT &
TRAINING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case: 3:16-cv-00152-NBB-JMV
(N.D. Miss., July 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit,
and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, among other things, owns and/or
manages or has owned or managed private prison facilities in
Mississippi, including but not limited to:

-- Marshall County Correctional Facility; Holly Springs,
   Mississippi;

-- Walnut Grove Correctional Facility; Walnut Grove, Mississippi;

-- Wilkinson County Correctional Facility; Woodville,
   Mississippi;

-- East Mississippi Correctional Facility; Meridian, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ross E. Webster, Esq.
     GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC
     6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
     Memphis, TN 38119
     Phone: (901) 525-1322
     Fax: (901) 525-2389
     E-mail: rwebster@glankler.com


MCDONALD'S: Judge Allows Payroll Card Case to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------
Jerry Lynott, writing for Times Leader, reports that a judge shot
down the argument a bank wasn't deceptive when it said fast-food
workers saved money when paid with payroll cards that carried fees
for withdrawals.

The ruling came on June 29 in Luzerne County Court in the case
against Clark Summit-based franchisees of area McDonald's
restaurants and the bank that issued the cards.

Judge Thomas Burke Jr. moved the civil suit along by overruling
the preliminary objections filed by the defendants -- Albert and
Carol Mueller Limited Partnership, Albert and Carol Mueller,
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

The bank and the Muellers sought to have the case tossed, arguing
Nigel King and the other plaintiffs who brought the suit failed to
support a claim under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

The case runs along the identical lines of a class-action suit
pending in court filed by others issued payroll cards between 2010
and 2013.  The recipients said the fees associated with the cards
reduced their earnings.

In the case affected by the Burke ruling, the bank focused on the
statement of plaintiffs' attorney Michael Cefalo, of West
Pittston, that the bank said a payroll card "saves you money" even
though fees were incurred.  New York City attorney
Noah Levine, representing the bank, argued in a pleading from last
December that was not enough to show a violation under the unfair
trade law.

Mr. Levine said the plaintiffs tried to show that the fees proved
deception on the part of the bank.  The fact there were fees
didn't make the bank's statement false, he said.

"It is not unreasonable for anyone to interpret the statement that
a payroll card 'saves you money' to mean that no fees would ever
be charged -- particularly where the fee schedule appeared on the
very same page," he said.

Furthermore, the bank's attorney said it informed the cardholders
how to avoid fees, repaid the fees and tied any injury to the
Muellers.

"Rather, plaintiffs contend that Mueller compelled them to accept
their wages on payroll cards whose use might cause them to incur
fees," Mr. Levine said.

Separately, last November, the Muellers asked the court to dismiss
this case because another class action suit brought on the same
issue of the payroll cards is pending in county court.

If the court did not prohibit the "claim splitting" underway,
"there would be nothing to stop plaintiffs' counsel from filing
still more piecemeal class actions predicated on the Mueller
defendants' use of the payroll debit card," said attorney
Matthew Hank, of Philadelphia.

He offered an alternate argument for dismissal, saying there has
been nothing to show the Muellers engaged in fraudulent or
deceptive conduct.  Without supporting facts offered by the
plaintiffs, they did not have a claim under the state unfair trade
practices, Mr. Hank said.


MDL 1566: Discovery Rift Pending in Natural Gas Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
more than a decade into litigation, discovery arguments continue
to dominate a federal antitrust class action in Las Vegas that
accuses major gas wholesalers of conspiring to inflate natural gas
prices.

Parties in the Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust
litigation convened in Federal Court June 30, to argue several
motions to compel more detailed responses to interrogatories now
that discovery is closed.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen presided over the nearly two-hour
status hearing, which was scheduled after the Ninth Circuit
reversed a ruling in the wholesalers' favor and remanded to the
district court in April 2013.

The Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the federal Natural Gas Act
does not preempt state-law antitrust claims, and that the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission does not have jurisdiction over
price-fixing and other anticompetitive claims.

The plaintiff class includes dozens of retail buyers of natural
gas who say the defendants conspired to manipulate wholesale
natural gas prices from 2000 to 2002. During that time, the nation
experienced an energy crisis exemplified by the Enron natural gas
scandal of 2001.

Defendants include Oneok, The Williams Companies, American
Electric Power Co., Duke Energy, Dynegy Marketing and Trade, El
Paso Corp., Reliant Energy, and those companies' affiliates, and
others.

A 189-page FERC Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets
published in March 2003 indicates that more than 85 percent of
wholesale natural gas reports from natural gas wholesalers during
the period were false.

Plaintiffs accuse the wholesalers of manipulating natural gas
prices via wash trades, churning, conspiring to report false
information to trade press, and concealing the conspiracy.

Wash trades involve buying shares through one broker and reselling
them via another to manipulate markets by generating higher trade
volumes and encourage investors to buy.

Churning involves excessive trades to generate broker commissions.

With the case back in Nevada Federal Court after the Ninth
Circuit's 2013 remand, the parties are looking to decide nine
remaining actions. They are:

Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, et al., vs. Oneok in the
District of Colorado;

Reorganized FLI vs. Williams Companies, et al.;

Learjet, et al., vs. Oneok, et al., in the District of Kansas.

Arandell, et al., vs. CMS Energy, et al., in the Eastern District
of Michigan;

Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al., vs. Oneok, et al., in
the Western District of Missouri;

Sinclair Oil vs. E Prime, et al., in the Northern District of
Oklahoma;

Sinclair Oil vs. Oneok Energy Services in the District of Wyoming;

Arandell, et al., vs. Xcel Energy, et al., in the Western District
of Wisconsin;

And Newpage Wisconsin System vs. CMS Energy Resource Management,
et al., in the Western District of Wisconsin.

The parties filed a joint status report in April.


MERCK: 3rd Cir. Appeal Underway in Suit Over Femur Fractures
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
remaining class-action lawsuits in Newark, N.J claiming one of
Merck's drugs caused weakened bones and eventual femur fractures
should not go to a jury trial, the pharmaceutical company's
attorney argued June 30, before the Third Circuit.

A federal judge in 2014 dismissed more than 1,000 so-called
Fosamax Femur cases, tossing the allegations that Merck had failed
to adequately warn consumers about osteoporosis drug Fosamax's
risks because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had not
officially approved or rejected the label's language.

In arguments before the Third Circuit, Skadden Arps attorney John
Beisner said the massive class-action lawsuit should be dismissed
because Merck is protected by the "impossibility preemption"
doctrine, which in this case means that Merck should not be liable
because the FDA had not determined whether its label language was
acceptable.

Merck argued in court filings that the FDA had prohibited the
company from warning consumers about certain health risks of
Fosamax due to concerns about the language used. The company also
said that the FDA had wanted to wait to gather information to
issue an industry-wide stance on Fosamax.

Beisner argued that now the Third Circuit -- and not a jury --
must now rule on whether Merck is protected under the preemption
doctrine.

"This is not a jury issue," he said, noting the preemption issue
was a question of law akin to deciding federal jurisdiction, and
not subject to the whims of a jury, which might give different
answers. "Either an issue is preempted or it isn't."

But David Frederick, attorney for the consumers, argued that the
case should move forward.  "We're talking about throwing these
people out of court," he said.

In making his case, Frederick pointed to a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling, in which the high court decided 6-3 against the preemption
doctrine in a separate product liability case, Wyeth v. Levine,
finding that state law had not been preempted in that case.

In the Fosamax case, Frederick said the Third Circuit should allow
the case to move forward to determine whether there is "clear
evidence" that the FDA had any disputes with Merck's labeling.

During questioning, Judge Julio Fuentes said the issue of clear
evidence has not been adequately defined by the Supreme Court, but
that it seems to "stem from clear and convincing evidence without
the word 'convincing.'"

Frederick argued that a 2009 memo from the FDA shows that the
agency had problems with how Merck defined the possibility of
atypical fractures -- the pharmaceutical company used the term
"stress fractures," which are typically caused by exercise and
heal normally.

Fosamax, a drug used primarily by women with osteoporosis, has
been linked to necrotic "jaw death," as well as fractured bones
due to bone decay.


METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Faces Suit Over Toll Road Users' Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHIL KERPEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, 3322 Tennyson St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20015, CATHY
RUSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
11573 Southington Lane Herndon, VA 20170, AUSTIN RUSE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
11573 Southington Lane, Herndon, VA 20170, CHARLOTTE SELLIER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
11561 Southington Lane, Herndon, VA 20170, JOEL SELLIER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
11561 Southington Lane, Herndon, VA 20170, and MICHAEL GINGRAS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
37610 Cecilia Lane, Purcellville, VA 20132, Plaintiffs, v.
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, 1 Aviation Circle
Washington, DC 20001, ANTHONY FOXX, in his official capacity as
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590, Defendants, Case
1:16-cv-01401-ABJ (D.C., July 5, 2016), alleges that MWA violates
the constitutional separation of powers and the Toll Road users'
rights.

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority manages the two
federally owned Washington-area airports, Washington Dulles
International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Cynkar, Esq.
     Patrick M. Mcsweeney, Esq.
     Christopher I. Kachouroff, Esq.
     MCSWEENEY, CYNKAR & KACHOUROFF PLLC
     13649 Office Place, Suite 101
     Woodbridge, VA 22192
     Phone: (703) 621-3300
     E-mail: rcynkar@mck-lawyers.com
             patrick@mck-lawyers.com

        - and -

     S. Kyle Duncan, Esq.
     Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.
     SCHAERR|DUNCAN LLP
     1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 714-9492
     E-mail: KDuncan@Schaerr-Duncan.com
             GSchaerr@Schaerr-Duncan.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Addresses Problems Over Windows 10 Update
---------------------------------------------------------
Troy Wolverton, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that
Microsoft has heard the complaints about the tactics it's using to
push Windows 10 on users, and it's finally backing off.

The company rolled out an update for Windows 7 and 8 that will
change the alerts it has been using to promote Windows 10.  Unlike
before, the alerts will now offer users a clear choice to decline
Windows 10.  And if users click on the red "x" button to dismiss
the alert, Windows will no longer consider that a confirmation
that users want to upgrade to the new version.

After hearing from customers that the alert boxes were
"confusing," Microsoft decided to change them, said Lisa Gurry,
Microsoft's senior director for Windows.

"We're working really hard to address it," she said.  "We're
working hard to deliver a Windows that everyone will really love."

In addition to changing how the Windows upgrade prompts work,
Microsoft is offering free tech support to all customers who are
having trouble with Windows 10, Ms. Gurry said.  If users whose
PCs were upgraded to Windows 10 want to return them to their
previous operating system, Microsoft's customer support staff will
walk them through the process free of charge, she said.

The company's new tack is a welcome change from the increasingly
aggressive efforts it has taken to push customers into upgrading
their PCs to Windows 10.

Those efforts started last year, when it quietly pushed out an
update to Windows 7 and 8 computers that prompted users to
upgrade.  Microsoft then made it difficult for users to figure out
how to cancel the upgrade, hiding any reference to a "cancel" or
"decline" option.

In May, it changed the behavior of the "x" button, which is
normally used to close windows or dismiss alerts, so that clicking
it opted users into the upgrade.  It also reclassified the upgrade
as a "recommended" update to Windows 7 and 8. That led some
computers to upgrade to Windows all on their own, because many PCs
are set to automatically install recommended updates.

Microsoft has tried to portray such moves as beneficial to
customers.  It's offering Windows 10 as a free upgrade for Windows
7 and 8 users only until July 29.  After that customers will have
to pay at least $120 to upgrade their PCs to Windows 10.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has been touting Windows 10 as the most
secure version of the operating system to date.  The company
changed the way the "x" button worked to "make it easy to upgrade
and take advantage of the security benefits" of Windows 10,
Ms. Gurry said.

But the company is also looking after its own interests.  If it
can move users off older versions of its operating systems, it can
save money and resources by no longer having to maintain them.
And the more people on the new version, the more attractive it
will be to software developers, who in turn can potentially lure
in new Windows customers with their apps.

Whatever the company's reasons for pushing Windows 10, its tactics
have left many customers frustrated and infuriated.

Many complained they had been unwittingly upgraded to Windows 10
or have had to repeatedly dismiss notifications pushing them to
upgrade.  Some of those who were upgraded found that their PCs
could not run some of their older software or wouldn't interact
with peripherals such as printers. Some said they had paid
computer technicians hundreds of dollars to restore their systems
to their previous versions of Windows.

After declining the Windows 10 upgrade numerous times, San Jose,
Calif., residents Brad and Alice Bryant found that one of their
computers had been upgraded overnight without their consent. Their
word processing program didn't work well with the new software.

"To me, this seems like an invasion," said Alice Bryant, 75.  "I
feel like they've taken away our rights."

Some users have threatened to file a class-action lawsuit against
Microsoft over its aggressive tactics.  A Sausalito woman went a
step further and actually sued the software giant.  In June, she
reportedly won a $10,000 judgment because her computer became
almost inoperable after automatically trying and failing to
install the Windows 10 update, which she said she hadn't
authorized.

Microsoft does give users whose computers have been upgraded to
Windows 10 the option to restore them to their earlier version
with a click of a button.  But that's not always a seamless
solution. Some users have found that their files have been
corrupted or drivers used to interact with printers and other
accessories have been deleted.

Until users receive the new update for Windows 7 and 8 that
changes the upgrade prompts, they will continue to see the old
ones that are difficult to dismiss and will schedule the upgrade
if they click the "x" box.  Users who don't want to wait for the
new update have several other options for blocking the Windows 10
upgrade notifications and permanently preventing their computers
from upgrading.  Among them are a program called Never10 and one
called GWX Control Panel.


MICROSOFT INC: Class Action Mulled Over Windows 10 Upgrade
----------------------------------------------------------
Riley McDermid, writing for San Francisco Business Times, reports
that a Sausalito business owner who won a $10,000 judgment in
small-claims court against Microsoft hopes to turn the case into a
class-action suit.

Teri Goldstein won the judgment against the software giant after
she claimed Windows 10 automatically installed on her Windows 7
computer, causing days of limited productivity and thousands of
dollars in lost business.

Microsoft has been the target of furious consumers and small
business owners since it began automatically installing Windows 10
in March, an "upgrade" that many users were not allowed to opt out
of at the time.  The automatic upgrade came via software installed
by Microsoft on computers that pushes Windows 7 and Windows 8
users with repeated alerts to install Windows 10.

At one point, Microsoft had alerts designed so that even if a user
clicked to dismiss it, it then automatically began installing the
system.  That's what Ms. Goldstein said happened to her, and why
she took the company to court.

Ms. Goldstein, owner of TG Travel Group LLC, told the Business
Times she took the tech giant to small-claims court in California
after becoming increasingly frustrated by the negative effects the
unwanted software had begun having on her business.

"I began noticing the impact on my business two months into the
computer problem.  I was not receiving my emails and getting nasty
phone calls because I had not answered them," she said.  "Also the
last quarter is always my busiest so I saw a dramatic impact
financially."

That's when Ms. Goldstein decided to represent herself and make a
claim in California's small claims court, in order to recoup at
least some of the lost business revenue.  Ms. Goldstein said
although some might consider the venue a small one, she considered
her options as a small business owner, and found it to be the most
viable, and ultimately the most rewarding, way to press her case.

Plaintiffs and defendants in small-claims court represent
themselves, and individuals can sue for up to $10,000 in damages.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Must Face Cancer Claims in Hawaii Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Fillmore, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Honolulu refused Monsanto's request to
dismiss a lawsuit by a former Kona coffee grower who claims she
got cancer from the company's weed-killer Roundup.

Christine and Kenneth Sheppard, former owners of Dragons Lair Kona
Coffee Farm in Captain Cook on the Big Island, accuse the
agribusiness giant of concealing risks associated with glyphosate,
which the World Health Organization recently classified as a
likely carcinogen and Christine Sheppard believes caused her to
develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

From 1996 through 2004, the Sheppards sprayed their farm with
Roundup. In 2003, Christine Sheppard was diagnosed with non-
Hodgkin lymphoma.

"Why me?" she asked in a 2009 editorial for the newsletter of the
Kona Coffee Farmer's Association.

The Sheppards had never lived near any industry and were "turning
organic," living in Kona, where in spring flowers stick to coffee
plants like snow on steep volcanic slopes above a cobalt sea. And
the smoky smell of roasting "cherries" fills the air at harvest
time.

Then Christine saw a report from Sweden that linked Roundup with
non-Hodgkin lymphoma. "Was this my link?" she wrote. She
bookmarked the report to read later, but found it had been removed
from the web, "rumor says under pressure from chemical giants,"
the Sheppards say in their complaint.

In its motion to dismiss the Sheppards' claims, Monsanto seized
upon Christine's editorial as proof that she suspected Roundup
long before filing the action on Feb. 2, 2016, and as a result
should be dismissed as outside the two-year statute of limitations
for tort claims.

However, U.S District Judge Michael Seabright said Monsanto's
dismissal motion relies on disputed "evidence" -- Christine
Sheppard's editorial -- that is inappropriate to consider at this
stage in the case.

Furthermore, Seabright said, "it is not apparent on the face of
the complaint that the statute of limitations has run, especially
considering the allegations regarding the 2015 designation [of
Roundup as a probable carcinogen] by the WHO."

Monsanto also argued that "warnings-based" claims are preempted by
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA.
The same question of federal preemption is at the heart of four
other cases currently before the Ninth Circuit involving county
initiatives across Hawaii to regulate GMOs and pesticide use.

However, Seabright said the Sheppards' warnings-based claims "are
fully consistent with FIFRA's labeling requirements, and thus are
not preempted."

He added, "The complaint is not attempting to impose a different
warning label, such as in Marzaie v. Monsanto Co., in which the
plaintiff sought injunctive relief requiring Monsanto to alter its
label. Rather, plaintiffs contend that Monsanto's existing label
(or the label used from 1995 to 2004) is 'misbranded' because it
misrepresents Roundup's safety, and is an inadequate warning. A
pesticide is 'misbranded' under FIFRA if its label is 'false or
misleading in any particular,' or omits necessary warnings or
statements. The product is 'defective' under either theory."

Because the Sheppards claim the Roundup label is "misbranded" in
violation of FIFRA and Hawaii law, their failure-to-warn claims
are not preempted, Seabright ruled.

The judge noted Monsanto's filing of "voluminous material
primarily from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency largely
regarding glyphosate tolerances related to food and recent
assessments evaluating the carcinogenic potential of gyphosate by
an EPA cancer assessment review committee," but said they don't
provide a basis for dismissal on preemption grounds at this stage.

Christine Sheppard is in remission, though she continues her
treatments. The couple sold the coffee farm and has since moved to
California.

Brian Mackintosh, the Sheppards' lead attorney in Hawaii, did not
return an email requesting comment by press time.

An email sent late July 1, to Monsanto's representatives was not
returned by press time.

The case captioned, CHRISTINE SHEPPARD and KENNETH SHEPPARD,
Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant., CIV. NO. 16-00043
JMS-RLP (D. Hawaii).


MURRAY HILL: Sued in Fla. Over Unpaid Service Payment
-----------------------------------------------------
RONSCO, INC., on behalf of all other similarly situated
beneficiaries of the Trust of which MURRAY HILL PROPERTIES, LLC is
a Trustee, pursuant to Lien Law Article 3-A, the Plaintiff, v.
MURRAY HILL PROPERTIES, LLC, ROXANA GIRAND, BRENDAN LENOX, JANE
DOE "1-10", and JOHN DOE "1-10", the Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-
62634-PAS (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2016), seeks recovery of
misappropriated funds and unpaid service payment.

On or about December 1, 2014, Structure Tone, Inc. entered into an
agreement with Premier Exhibitions, Inc. to act as construction
manager contractor on a project to convert the basement, first,
second and mezzanine of 417 Fifth Avenue into an exhibition space
(the Project). On or about December 5, 2014, Structuretone entered
into a subcontractor agreement with Ronsco pursuant to which
Ronsco was to provide all labor and materials to complete drywall,
ceiling and carpentry work on the Project in exchange for the sum
of $780,000. Change Orders were issued to Ronsco which increased
the sum due Ronsco by $541,628.

Murray Hill allegedly failed to remit funds it held to
Strucuretone which rightfully should have been allocated to the
Project. Despite due demand, there remains due and owing to Ronsco
the amount of $173,322.28 for services performed on the Project,
plus interest.

Premiere provided funds to Murray Hill in connection with the
Project for labor, materials and equipment furnished by
subcontractors and suppliers, including Ronsco. But Murray Hill
allegedly failed to pay over the sums to Structuretone.

Ronsco is a statutory beneficiary under Lien Law of which trust
Murray Hill is the trustee with respect to all funds received by
Murray Hill in connection with the Project.

Ronsco is engaged in the business of providing and furnishing
labor, equipment and materials for the installation of all drywall
and rough carpentry for major renovations and construction
projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N. Paykin, Esq.
          PAYKIN KRIEG & ADAMS, LLP
          2500 Westchester Avenue, Suite 107
          Purchase, NY 10577
          Telephone: (212) 725 4423


NAVIENT CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Omissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karl Baker, writing for The News Journal, reports that Wilmington-
based Navient Corp. is facing angry shareholders intent on
retrieving millions of dollars in lost stock value.

Delaware's Sallie May spinoff company -- tasked with collecting
student loan debt for the United States Department of Education
-- has endured in recent years plummeting stock prices and sharp
critiques from high-profile Democrats after it was accused of
violating consumer protection rules.

Now, a class action lawsuit is emerging against the company in
Delaware's federal court that puts at least $19 million on the
line for the company, according to court documents.  That figure
will likely rise as more investors join the case.  Navient employs
about 800 Delawareans.

"As a result of (Navient's) wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, (shareholders) have suffered significant losses and
damages," said the civil complaint from one of the multiple
plaintiffs.

Navient officials declined to comment about the case, but a
spokesperson pointed to a company document sent to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, which stated Navient intends "to
vigorously defend against the allegations."

"At this stage in the proceedings, we are unable to anticipate the
timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the
legal proceedings may have on the consolidation financial
position, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of
Navient Corporation and its affiliates," the document stated.

The News Journal spoke with multiple legal experts involved in the
case, who noted that, if the suit progresses to trial, it will not
likely be complete for two or three years from now.

Plaintiffs in the case include Chicago police officers, retired
city employees in Providence, Rhode Island, and the Lord Abbett
investment company.

They say the company officials misled investors in statements and
on financial reports in the time since it was spun off from
Newark-based Sallie Mae in 2014.  Navient's stock price dropped 62
percent between February 2015 and February 2016 -- which accounted
for more than $5.6 billion in total market value.

Navient officials said during past financial statements that the
company's loan customers defaulted at a rate that was 30 percent
lower than the national average, according to the civil complaint.
Shareholders in the class allege that figure was false, and state
the company's operations were not in compliance with federal
regulations,

Navient officials "failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the company's business, operational and compliance policies," the
civil complaint states.

The stock hit an all-time low Feb. 11, just days after Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that Navient was
"misleading people" and "doing some really terrible things."  In
an August 2015 report, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts,
said the company had engaged in "intentional and willful"
violations of federal laws by overcharging U.S. service members
receiving student loans.

In May 2015, the U.S Department of Justice announced that Navient
would pay the federal government $60 million in response to those
actions.  The money is reportedly being distributed to those
members of the military.

In a May letter to the United States Department of Education, Sen.
Warren continued her criticism of Navient, claiming the company
was spending an "extravagant" amount of money lobbying elected
officials.  That spending increased to $710,000 during the first
quarter of 2016 from $410,000 the previous year.

"While the Education Department is paying Navient hundreds of
millions of dollars to service student loans, the company
continues to evade responsibility for past failures," Sen. Warren
said in the letter.

Despite all of the turmoil, a stock analyst report published on
June 29 by financial research firm Morningstar Inc, states
Navient's share prices are undervalued.

Plaintiffs in the class action suit also claim that the company
officials personally benefited from its alleged misstatements.

They "were personally motivated to make false statements and omit
material informational," one plaintiff said in the civil
complaint, "in order to personally benefit from the sale of
Navient securities."


NESTLE PURINA: Beneful Pet Food Class Action in Canada Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Frisk, writing for Global News, reports that a proposed
Canadian class-action lawsuit against Nestle Purina that claimed
Beneful brand pet food poisoned and killed dogs has been dropped.

In March 2015, Colleen Gendron launched the suit after learning of
a similar class-action suit in the U.S., according to court
documents.

Ms. Gendron's suit said she had two dogs that became ill after
switching to Beneful in September 2014.  Five months later one of
her dogs had to be euthanized after suffering acute and severe
kidney and liver failure.

The pet company denied all allegations that the death was a result
of Beneful.

According to court documents obtained by Global News, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Toronto granted the dismissal after
Ms. Gendron's lawyers said they could not back up the suit's
claims.

"Based on the investigations undertaken by our firm, we have
concluded that Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP will be
unable to prove that ingesting Beneful was the cause of the injury
or death of the Plaintiff's pets or that there was a common source
causing the injury or death of the pet of any putative class
member who contacted our firm, and we have concluded that a class
action would not ultimately succeed," reads the court document.
"The Plaintiff therefore does not wish to pursue the case, and has
instructed our firm to seek a consent dismissal of the action,
without costs."

The suit was initially proposed after 66 individuals were referred
to a Canadian law firm as a result of the U.S. proceedings that
began in February 2015, court documents show.

In that case, Frank Lucido filed a lawsuit in a California federal
court alleging the pet food "contains substances that are toxic to
animals and that have resulted in the serious illness and death of
thousands of dogs."

The class-action suit was amended in June.

Mr. Lucido took one of his sick dogs to the vet for an
examination. Tests "revealed signs of internal bleeding in her
stomach and liver malfunction consistent with poisoning," the
lawsuit said.

The pet owner alleged in the suit that in the past four years,
"consumers have made more than 3,000 online complaints about dogs
becoming ill, in many cases very seriously ill, and/or dying after
eating Beneful.  The dogs show consistent symptoms, including
stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or
failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures,
bloat, and kidney failure."

Purina denied the allegations, calling Beneful "100 per cent safe
to feed" and saying the "lawsuit is without merit."

Both suits claim that Beneful ingredients include propylene
glycol, an automotive antifreeze component, and mycotoxins, a
group of toxins produced by fungus that occurs in grains.

In a statement, Purina said propylene glycol is a safe food
additive.

"Beneful is made with high-quality human food-grade levels or
above propylene glycol," the company said last year. "This
ingredient has been approved by the FDA as safe for years for use
in dog foods and a variety of human foods including ice creams,
salad dressing and cake mixes."

The level of mycotoxins detected "were well below the levels set
by FDA," the company said.

Court documents show the motion to dismiss Gendron's lawsuit was
granted on June 24 and becomes effective on December 24, 2016.

"All of this news supports what Purina has said all along in
response to the lawsuits: Beneful is a safe, high-quality dog food
enjoyed by millions of healthy, happy dogs each year," Nestle
Purina spokesperson Wendy Vlieks said in an email to Global News.
"We're pet owners, too, so first and foremost, our mission has
always been to limit the misinformation being spread to pet
owners, which could have put pet health at risk by delaying advice
or treatment from their veterinarian for a potentially serious
medical issue."

While some claims remain in the amended U.S. class-action, "we
believe these final claims will be dismissed and are looking
forward to focusing on pet nutrition and innovation," Ms. Vlieks
said.

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP has not responded to
request for comment about the case.


NETFLIX: Faces Class Action Over Subscription Fee Hike
------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cullins, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
the lawsuit estimates 22 million people could be part of a class
action against the streaming company.

A Netflix customer who says he was promised a $7.99 per month
subscription fee for the life of his account is suing the
streaming giant for increasing its prices, according to a proposed
class action lawsuit filed on June 29 in California federal court.

"For a period of time, Netflix solicited persons to subscribe to
Netflix's streaming service by guaranteeing that Netflix would not
increase monthly subscription prices as long as the subscribers
maintained the subscription service continuously," states the
complaint.  "Netflix has broken its contract with these
subscribers by unilaterally raising monthly subscription prices."

George Keritsis says he saw an ad promising that Netflix would
guarantee the $7.99 monthly subscription price and called the
company to confirm it was true.  The telephone representative
ensured Mr. Keritsis the fee would be "grandfathered," and he
subscribed based on that representation.

In October 2012, his rate increased to $8.68 per month.  In June,
Mr. Keritsis received an email from Netflix informing him that his
"special pricing" is ending and his new price would be $9.99 per
month.  The email listed a phone number for subscribers who had
questions, so Mr. Keritsis called.

"The Netflix representative stated that he could see Plaintiff's
account was 'grandfathered in,' states the complaint. "Plaintiff
protested that the price increase was inconsistent with the
lifetime price guarantee. The Netflix representative stated that
Netflix would raise prices for all grandfathered accounts, not
just Plaintiff's account."

Mr. Keritsis is suing Netflix for breach of contract and is
seeking class certification for "all persons who entered into an
agreement with Netflix for a streaming plan at a subscription
price that Netflix promised not to increase for as long as they
continuously maintained their subscriptions."  He says that's at
least 22 million people.

Netflix has not yet commented in response to the lawsuit.


NEW YORK: Reinstates Bearded Muslim Officer Following Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Haider Ali Sindhu, writing for Daily Pakistan, reports that the
New York Police Department (NYPD) on June 30 reinstated a Muslim
police officer who was suspended for not shaving his beard, while
also agreeing to review its "no-beard policy".

The previously suspended officer Masood Syed, who is of Pakistani
heritage and used to work as a law clerk for the NYPD's Deputy
Commissioner of Trials, had earlier been suspended without pay and
stripped of his badge and gun for refusing to shave his beard.

Mr. Syed, however, filed a class-action lawsuit on June 22 in a
Manhattan District Court challenging the constitutionality of the
NYPD's ban on beards.  During the proceedings, a federal judge
ordered the NYPD to continue paying Mr. Syed's salary and
benefits.

"I'm excited to be back at work," Mr. Syed said in a statement.
"It seems like the department has taken the crucial first step in
addressing an important and growing concern of officers of many
different faiths."

This isn't the first time an NYPD officer has sued the department
over its no-beard policy.  In 2012, the NYPD fired probationary
officer Fishel Litzman for refusing to shave the one-inch beard he
kept as a member of the Jewish Community.


NEW YORK: Court Sends Transgender-Care Exclusion Case to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
with New York's longstanding transgender-care exclusions declared
illegal, the Empire State must now stand trial over what
treatments currently labeled cosmetic or banned for minors qualify
for Medicaid, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled.

Former Gov. George Pataki's ban on Medicaid payments for
transgender care had been on the books for 16 years before Bronx
resident Angie Cruz led a class-action lawsuit opposing the policy
in 2014.

The following year, the state's Department of Health lifted the
prohibition but stopped short of the full spectrum of coverage.
The reformed regulations denied payments for facial feminization
surgery, breast augmentation, tracheal shaving and other
treatments that the state considered cosmetic.

The state also refused Medicaid coverage for transgender care
administered to people under the age of 18, such as pubertal
suppressants, commonly known as puberty blockers.

On July 6, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff found that the blanket
ban on "cosmetic" treatment violated the Medicaid Act, which
requires the state to provide "medically necessary care."

Cruz's lawyers celebrated the ruling in a conference call on July
7, evening.

Kimberly Forte, a supervising attorney with The Legal Aid
Society's LGBT Law and Policy Initiative, said that the clients
she contacted have been "thrilled" with the judge's decision.

"It's very unclear as to when the regulation will actually be
changed and the new regulation will go into effect," Forte said.

A date has not been set for a trial to determine whether
treatments like puberty blockers quality for coverage.

On the road to trial, Cruz's lawyers presented testimony by such
expert physicians as Johanna Olson from the Children's Hospital of
Los Angeles and Nicholas Gorton from Kings County Hospital in New
York.

Mary Eaton, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, said that
the city had "no medical experts, no experts at all."

Judge Rakoff's opinion confirms that this is not an exaggeration,
blasting the state for submitting "inadmissible hearsay" and
concluding that its sole expert "did not opine on the efficacy of
treatments for individuals with gender dysphoria."

Eaton added in a statement that the ruling demonstrates "Albany
turned a deaf ear to the chorus of medical experts" on transgender
treatment for 16 years.

For Mik Kinkead, an attorney with the Sylvia Rivera Law Project,
or SRLP, the development marks a victory "not only for the
transgender community but also all low-income New Yorkers" to keep
the state from determinations of medically necessary care.

Founded in 2002, SRLP takes its name from the late transgender
activist Sylvia Rivera, one of the central figures of the
Stonewall Inn uprising that launched the modern LGBT liberation
movement.

The organization has been fighting Pataki's regulation from its
earliest days, and Kinkead said of its namesake: "I think she
would be very excited, especially for young people, because she
advocated for young people."

The Department of Health said it is reviewing the judge's
decision.

The case captioned, ANGIE CRUZ, I.H., AR'ES KPAKA, and PIVA
CHRISTIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of
the Department of Health [of the State of New York], Defendant.,
Case No. 14-cv-4456 (JSR)(S.D.N.Y.).


NISSI CLEANERS: Faces "Arriaga" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Arriaga individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nissi Cleaners, Inc. and In Han
Hong, individually, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-07019 (N.D. Ill.,
July 6, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate a dry cleaning business called Niles Discount
Cleaners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1302
     E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


NUPLEXA GROUP: "Rosenblatt" Remanded to Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RAPHAEL M. ROSENBLATT, individually and on
behalf of those similarlysituated, Plaintiff, v. THE NUPLEXA
GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-1064 (ES)
(SCM) (D.N.J.), Judge Esther Salas granted the plaintiff's motion
to remand the action to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen
County.

A full-text copy of Judge Salas' June 29, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/VRdPqU from Leagle.com.

The putative class action concerned a product called Texas
Superfood Select).  The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made
"claims and promises" about this nutrition supplement "that are
simply untrue."

RAPHAEL M. ROSENBLATT, Plaintiff, represented by RAPHAEL MARK
ROSENBLATT, ROSENBLATT LAW PC.

THE NUPLEXA GROUP, INC, DR. DENNIS BLACK, Defendants, represented
by ASHTON E. THOMAS -- ashton@ashtonthomasesquire.com.


PATROON OPERATING: Rodriquez Seeks minimum wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESUS VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PATROON OPERATING COMPANY
LLC. (d/b/a ARETSKY PATRON TOWN HOUSE), DIANA LYNE and KENNETH
ARETSKY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05074 (S.D.N.Y., June
28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the New York Labor
Law (NYLL), including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants without appropriate
minimum wage for any of the hours that he worked. The Defendants
allegedly employed and accounted for Plaintiff Valencia as a
busboy in their payroll, but in actuality his duties included
greater or equal time spent performing non-delivery and non-tipped
duties. The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice
of requiring Plaintiff Valencia and other employees to work
without providing them the minimum wage required by federal and
state law and regulations.

Patroon Operating is an iconic midtown restaurant and three-level
event space known for its inviting ambiance, private rooms, and
stylish rooftop bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


PEPSICO INC: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminarily Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco preliminarily approved a
class action settlement in which PepsiCo will monitor levels of a
carcinogen in its soft drinks with caramel coloring.

Lead plaintiff Mary Hall accused the beverage giant of failing to
warn consumers that Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and Pepsi One contain
elevated levels of 4-methylimidazole, in violation of California
laws.

The compound is formed during manufacturing of caramel coloring.
The state listed 4-MeI on its Proposition 65 list of carcinogens
in 2011, after the National Toxicology Program found that it
caused lung tumors in laboratory animals, according to the state's
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Under California law, the amount of exposure to 4-MeI that will
not cause a significant cancer risk is 29 micrograms per day.

Hall claims that Pepsi intentionally concealed that its drinks
contain 4-MeI at levels above this safety threshold.

Under the proposed settlement, Pepsi agreed to require its caramel
coloring suppliers to meet certain 4-MeI levels in products
shipped for sale to the United States, to ensure that the
carcinogen's levels will not exceed 100 parts per billion.

The proposed limit of 100 parts per billion is significantly less
than the default level of 29 micrograms per day under Prop. 65.

Pepsico also agrees to test the covered products under a protocol
agreed to by the parties.

This is the same injunctive relief to which Pepsi already agreed
in a state court action brought by the Center for Environmental
Health, which was settled in 2015.

The new settlement expands the geographic scope of the injunction
from California to nationwide and increases the duration of relief
from three years to five years.

The settlement does not call for any monetary compensation.
However, class members will not give up any monetary claims for
damages, personal injury or wrongful death against Pepsi by
participating in the injunctive settlement.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen gave his preliminary stamp of
approval to the settlement on June 28.

"Importantly, the settlement agreement does not attempt to limit
future claims for injunctive relief; thus, if an individual is
unsatisfied with 4-MeI limits required by the settlement
agreement, they are not precluded from bringing a claim
challenging those 4-MeI levels," Chen wrote.

Class counsel plans to seek $500,000 in attorney fees during the
final approval hearing set for Aug. 25.

The case captioned, STACY SCIORTINO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PEPSICO, INC., Defendant., Case No. 14-cv-00478-EMC (N.D. Cal.).


PERFETTO ENTERPRISES: Faces "Greco" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO GRECO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who are or were employed by Perfetto
Enterprises Co., Inc. with respect to Public Works Projects
mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiffs, v. PERFETTO ENTERPRISES
CO., INC., Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-03764 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2016),
seeks to recover wages and benefits that Plaintiffs were allegedly
entitled to receive for work they performed on public works
projects but did not receive.

Perfetto is a general contracting company that performs work for
the city agencies of New York including, but not limited to,
emergency reconstruction on collapsed sanitary and storm sewers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
     John A. Blyth, Esq.
     HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, LLP
     185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-213-8311
     Fax: 212-779-0028


PHILADELPHIA: "Brennan" Overtime Suit Goes to Trial
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy R. Rice denied both the plaintiffs' and the
defendant's motions for partial summary judgment in the case
captioned ROBERT W. BRENNAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 13-6635 (E.D. Pa.).

The plaintiffs, Philadelphia firefighters, claimed the City failed
to promptly pay overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA").  They sought partial summary judgment regarding the
limited portion of their claim that concerns overtime payments
paid later than FLSA recommends, but in accordance with the City's
payroll policy.  The City opposed the plaintiffs' motion and moved
for partial summary judgment regarding the same subset of
payments.

"I deny Plaintiffs' motion with prejudice. Their interpretation of
the FLSA prompt overtime payment requirement conflicts with
Department of Labor ("DOL") guidance, and would contravene
statutory intent.  I deny the City's Motion, without prejudice to
renew after the close of discovery, because the facts it relies on
to demonstrate that its payments are made as soon as practicable
are in dispute," Judge Rice stated.

A full-text copy of Judge Rice's June 21, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/HmT79s from Leagle.com.

ROBERT W. BRENNAN, Plaintiff, represented by SOLOMON Z. KREVSKY,
CLARK & KREVSKY, ALAN S. KAUFMAN, CHAMBERLAIN KAUFMAN & JONES, pro
hac vice & ROBERT A. JONES, CHAMBERLAIN KAUFMAN AND JONES.

COLLEEN CARLIN, WILLIAM L. JOERGER, III, RICKY MADISON, MICHAEL
MCGUIRE, STEVEN M. MESETE, RAYMOND MULDERIG, KEVIN MCFADDEN,
NICHOLAS W. PAONESSA, BRIAN K. RILEY, LEO SHETZ, JAMES TAYLOR,
MATTHEW WEBER, CHARLES WEST, CHARLES WINROW, SCOTT CRAWFORD, MARK
PIETRAFESA, Plaintiffs, represented by SOLOMON Z. KREVSKY, CLARK &
KREVSKY.

THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSLYVANIA, Defendant, represented by
SHANNON D. FARMER -- farmers@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD, SPAHR,
ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP., CHRISTOPHER TODD COGNATO --
cognatoc@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP & MEREDITH C.
SWARTZ, BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS INGERSOLL LLP.


PRODEC FINISHES: Faces "Bavis" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
CANDACE G. BAVIS, 114 Ardoon Road, Lutherville- Timonium, Maryland
21093, Resident of Baltimore County, Plaintiff, v. PRODEC
FINISHES, INC., 15 W. Aylesbury Road, Suite 801, Lutherville-
Timonium, MD 21093, Serve: Ronald L. Buckheit, Resident Agent,
2801 Tylers Garth Drive, Finskburg, Maryland 21048, And RONALD L.
BUCKHEIT, 2801 Tylers Garth Drive, Finskburg, Maryland 21048 And
PHILIP A. GRUBER, 229 Deep Dale Drive, Lutherville-Timonium,
Maryland 21093, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02482-JKB (D. Md., July
5, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment
Article, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

PRODEC FINISHES, INC. is a painting and wall covering company
located in Lutherville-Timonium, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Jane Doe" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed without prejudice the
plaintiff's complaint in the case captioned JANE DOE, Plaintiff,
v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 8992
(LGS) (S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of Judge Schofield's June 29, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/RLSIGq from
Leagle.com.

Jane Doe brought the putative class action lawsuit against Quest
Diagnostics Inc., Counseling Services of New York, LLC, and Dr.
Ferdinand B. Banez for negligence, fraud, and deceptive business
practices arising from the alleged improper transmission of
medical information.  Quest moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  The plaintiff
sought voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(2).

Jane Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Michael Norton ,
Newman Ferrara LLP.

Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eamon Paul
Joyce -- ejoyce@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Daniel C. Craig
-- dcraig@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, LLP, pro hac vice, David H.
Hoffman -- david.hoffman@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, LLP, pro hac
vice & Geeta Malhotra , Sidley Austin, LLP.

Counseling Services of New York, LLC, Dr. Ferdinand B. Banez,
Defendants, represented by Amy S. Weissman , Marshall, Conway, &
Wright, P.C, Jeffrey Alan Marshall , Marshall, Conway & Bradley,
P.C. & Lauren Rachel Turkel , Marshall Conway & Bradley.


QLOGIC CORPORATION: Court Dismissed "Hull" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
QLogic Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the fiscal
year ended April 3, 2016, that a Court has dismissed a class
action lawsuit with prejudice as to Phyllis Hull and her
individual claims and without prejudice as to the unnamed class
members.

On September 28, 2015, a purported class action was commenced in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
asserting claims arising under federal securities laws against the
Company and certain individual defendants.  The plaintiff, Phyllis
Hull, purported to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, including a former
officer and a current officer, engaged in a scheme to inflate the
Company's stock price by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's operations, financial results and future
business prospects in violation of federal securities laws.  The
plaintiff sought compensatory damages, interest and an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  On March 4, 2016, the
parties filed a Joint Stipulation with the Court to voluntarily
dismiss the case. On March 7, 2016, the Court dismissed the case
with prejudice as to Phyllis Hull and her individual claims and
without prejudice as to the unnamed class members.


RAY MORGAN: Sued Over Refusal to Reimburse Business Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK LEBISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RAY MORGAN COMPANY, a California
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. RG16821236 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 28, 2016), asks the Court to find and declare that
Defendant's business expense policies and/or practices violate
California law, including Labor Code, by refusing and/or failing
to reimburse all business expenses incurred by Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees in the discharge of their duties as employees
of the Defendant.

The amount in controversy for Plaintiff, including claims for
civil penalties and pro rata share of attorney's fees, is less
than $75,000.

Ray Morgan specializes in simplifying the complexity and
management of office technology solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd. Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (443) 739 5758
          Facsimile: (310) 295 2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com
                  acherniak@hammondlawpc.com

               - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277 0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


RED BULL: "Rosado-Acha" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla has dismissed the case captioned JOSE
ROSADO-ACHA, Plaintiff, v. RED BULL GMBH, et al., Defendants, No.
15 Civ. 7620 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.).

On April 8, 2015, Jose Rosado-Acha, a resident of Puerto Rico,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico against Red Bull GmbH (GmbH), Red
Bull North America, Inc. (RBNA), and Red Bull Distribution
Company, Inc. (RBDC).  Rosado-Acha proposed a class of "similarly
situated consumers, in Puerto Rico, and all U.S. Territories,
seeking to redress the pervasive pattern of fraudulent, deceptive,
false and otherwise improper advertising, sales and marketing
practices that the Red Bull Defendants have engaged in and
continue to engage in with regard to their 'Red Bull' branded
energy drinks."

Judge Failla found that in an earlier class action, filed in the
same district on January 16, 2013, and for which the court
approved a settlement on May 12, 2015, a different plaintiff sued
the same defendants on behalf of a class of individuals
"nationwide and in New York" who were "seeking to redress the
pervasive pattern of fraudulent, deceptive, false and otherwise
improper advertising, sales and marketing practices that the Red
Bull Defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in with
regard to their 'Red Bull' branded energy drinks."  To a word,
Rosado-Acha echoed that prior complaint, only substituting his own
class definition -- residents of Puerto Rico and other U.S.
Territories -- and indicating underlying violations of Puerto
Rican and Territorial consumer protection laws, rather than those
of New York and other states listed in the earlier class action.

Defendant RBNA1 sought to dismiss Rosado-Acha's action on the
basis of the prior final judgment and settlement.

Judge Failla ruled as follows:

          (i) Defendant's motion to strike was granted;

          (ii) Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
               Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) was granted;

         (iii) the complaint was dismissed as to defendants GmbH
               and RBDC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
               Procedure 4(m); and

          (iv) Plaintiff's motion for entry of default against
               defendant Red Bull GmbH was denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Failla's June 29, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/Kj0bxr from Leagle.com.

Jose Rosado-Acha, Plaintiff, represented by Jose R. Franco-Rivera,
Law Office, pro hac vice.

Red Bull GmBh, Red Bull North America Inc, Defendants, represented
by Angela C. Colt -- angela.colt@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Hillary A. Hamilton --
hillary.hamilton@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, L.L.P., Jason D. Russell -- jason.russell@skadden.com --
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, Jordan A. Feirman --
jordan.feirman@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, pro hac vice & Juan A. Marques-Diaz -- jam@mcvpr.com --
McConnell Valdes, LLC.


RLCS INC.: "Fields" Suit Seeks Penalties Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
CHARLTONFIELDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. R.L.C.S. INC., d/b/a REDLINE COURIER
SERVICE, a California corporation; AMAZON.COM LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC625322 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 28, 2016),
asserts that the Defendants allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and
similarly situated aggrieved employees as independent contractors,
and also" routinely denied them lawful off-duty uninterrupted
thirty-minute meal periods when the nature of work performed did
not prevent them from being relieved for lawful meal periods, or
where the nature of work that prevented off-duty meal periods was
attributable solely to Defendants' own insufficient staffing
models; lawful uninterrupted ten-minute rest periods; proper
premium pay for denied meal and rest periods; regular pay and/or
minimum wages for regular hours worked; overtime premium
compensation for overtime hours worked; timely payment of wages
earned each pay period and upon cessation of employment;
reimbursement for necessary expenditures incurred; and accurate
itemized wage statements, thereby allowing Defendants to gain an
unjust competitive advantage from their uniform course of unlawful
and unfair employment practices.

R.L.C.S. was founded in 1995. The company's line of business
includes providing air delivery of individually addressed letters,
parcels, and packages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 2Q0
          San Diego, CA 921QI
          Telephone: (619) 595 3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Court Conditionally Certifies "Riva"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt granted the plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the case captioned RYAN RIVA,
Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-3002 (S.D. Tex.).

A full-text copy of Judge Hoyt's June 29, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/46miky from Leagle.com.

The plaintiff, Ryan Riva, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, moved for conditional certification of a class
of workers whom he asserted performed similar job duties and
received similar salaries, without any overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ryan Riva, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Marie Bresler ,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs & Josephson, Michael A. Josephson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Lauren Elizabeth Braddy
-- lbraddy@phippsandersondeacon.com -- Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP,
Matthew Scott Parmet , Bruckner Burch PLLC, Richard J. Burch,
Bruckner Burch PLLC & William Clifton Alexander --
calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com -- Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Robert P. Lombardi -- rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, pro
hac vice & Samuel Zurik, III -- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Suits Over Seritage Spinoff Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend against shareholder lawsuits related to the Seritage
transaction.

The Company said, "In May and June of 2015, four shareholder
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, which have
since been consolidated into a single action. A consolidated
complaint has been filed, naming Holdings, the members of our
Board of Directors, ESL Investments, Inc., Seritage, our CEO, and
Fairholme, alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with the Seritage transaction. Among other
forms of relief, the plaintiffs are currently seeking damages in
unspecified amounts and equitable relief related to the Seritage
transaction. The Company believes that the Seritage transaction
has provided substantial benefits to Holdings and its shareholders
and believes further that the plaintiffs' claims are legally
without merit. Holdings intends to contest these lawsuits
vigorously."

In July 2015, Sears Holdings announced that it closed its right
offering and sale-leaseback transaction with Seritage Growth
Properties ("Seritage"), a recently formed, independent publicly
traded real estate investment trust ("REIT").  In the transaction,
Sears sold 235 Sears- and Kmart-branded stores to Seritage along
with Sears' 50 percent interests in joint ventures with each of
Simon Property Group, Inc., General Growth Properties, Inc. and
The Macerich Company, which together hold an additional 31 Sears
Holdings properties.  Sears Holdings received aggregate gross
proceeds from the transaction of $2.7 billion, which provides the
Company with enhanced financial flexibility to accelerate
investments in its transformation to an asset light, member-
centric integrated retailer.


SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Faces "Egbers" Suit Over Employee Contributions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KARI EGBERS c/o Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, One West Fourth Street,
18th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202, and STEPHANIE WILLIAMS c/o
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others,
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. SENIOR LIFESTYLE CORPORATION,
303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60601, Defendant,
Case: 1:16-cv-00732-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 5, 2016), asserts that
SLC failed to remit the Employee Contributions for health
insurance coverage under the Senior Lifestyle Corporation
Employees Medical Plan.

Defendant operates over 100 independent, assisted, and memory
communities across the United States, and has thousands of
employees who participate in the Plan.

     Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
     Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
     One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 345-8291
     Fax: (513) 345-8294
     E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
             tnaylor@gs-legal.com

        - and -

     James E. Miller, Esq.
     Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
     SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     65 Main Street
     Chester, CT 06412
     Phone: (860) 526-1100
     Fax: (866) 300-7367
     E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
             lrubinow@sfmslaw.com


SHARP HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Patient Recordings
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hamilton, Esq. -- ahamilton@gordonrees.com -- of Gordon &
Rees LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on May 24, 2016,
a class-action complaint was filed against Sharp Healthcare in San
Diego, California, alleging violations of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Sharp secretly recorded approximately
15,000 videos of patients in Sharp's year-long attempt to build a
case against an anesthesiologist allegedly stealing the drug
Propofol.  Sharp allowed security guards to review the recordings,
and released 14 of the recordings to the anesthesiologist's
defense attorney. Many of the videos depicted unconscious
patients, nudity, Cesarean sections, or other surgeries.

The named plaintiff, Melissa Escalera, was allegedly filmed during
a Cesarean section.  The class potentially includes more than
1,000 patients secretly recorded by Sharp between July 2012 and
June 2013.  The complaint seeks class certification and damages
for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidentiality, unlawful
recording of confidential information, negligent creation and
maintenance of medical information, unlawful disclosure of medical
information, invasion of privacy, and distribution of private
sexually explicit materials.


SIRIUS XM: 11th Cir. Seeks Input from Florida Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Izzy Kapnick, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
challenge by 1960s rock band The Turtles to royalty-free
broadcasts of their songs by Sirius XM Radio requires input from
the Florida Supreme Court, the 11th Circuit said.

One of several cases tackling the issue of whether broadcasters
like Sirius have to pay royalties for playing pre-1972 recordings,
Turtles frontmen Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan brought the
underlying suit three years ago in Florida through their company,
Flo and Eddie Inc.

The cascade of civil actions, a handful of which were filed by The
Turtles frontmen, stems in part from a bifurcated regulatory
scheme: While the federal Sound Recording Act governs post-1972
works, an often murky patchwork of state law governs earlier
recordings.

In Flo and Eddie's Florida case, the band sought compensation from
Sirius for broadcasts including the 1967 tune "Happy Together,"
which famously dislodged the Beatles' "Penny Lane" from its top
spot on the Billboard charts.

A federal judge in Miami granted Sirius summary judgment, however,
setting the stage for Flo and Eddie's 11th Circuit appeal.

A three-judge panel with the federal appeals court in Atlanta
opted last week to seek the Florida Supreme Court's input, finding
Sunshine State precedent unclear.

In the 2005 New York case Capitol Records v. Naxos of America, the
state's high court ruled that a musician or record label's
distribution and sale of a record do not terminate common-law
copyright protections for the record.

Florida case law on the matter is so thin, however, that the 11th
Circuit had to reach back to a 1943 copyright case filed by a
magician -- Charles Hoffman -- who claimed a rival named Maurice
Glazer had ripped off his "Think-a-Drink" trick. (The classic
trick involved the use of supposedly magical containers to
transform water into any beverage his audience member desired.)

The Florida Supreme Court in that case ruled that, although
Hoffman was entitled to protection of his "Think-a-Drink" moniker
and the speech he recited to the audience during the trick, the
trick itself had become "property of the general public" through
Hoffman's repeated public performance of it.

The Eleventh Circuit found that the 70-year-old ruling provides
some guidance on common law copyright in Florida, but that
significant uncertainty remained.

"Kaylan characterized The Turtles' recordings, including such
'iconic' hits as Happy Together, as 'clearly part of world history
and not just American history,'" Judge Lanier Anderson wrote for
the court. "These facts, among others in the record, suggest that
to the extent that public distribution and sale of a phonorecord
. . . constitutes publication of the sound recording therein under
Florida common law, there is a strong possibility that any Florida
common law copyright has been terminated by publication."

The appellate panel seeks guidance from the Florida Supreme Court
regarding whether the state recognizes musicians' exclusive right
of broadcast/public performance of their sound recordings, and
regarding the extent to which prior sale of recordings terminates
copyright protection.

Another question the panel has punted asks whether, as The Turtles
frontmen had alleged, Sirius' creation of backup and buffer copies
of Turtles songs violated the band's rights to reproduction of the
recordings.

The Turtles additional claims of misappropriation, conversion and
civil theft are likewise left in limbo, with the parties in
dispute over the degree to which those counts are derivative of
the copyright claims.

When the Turtles frontmen brought the underlying Florida lawsuit
in 2013, they also filed parallel complaints in New York and
California.

In the New York case, the Empire State's highest court is set to
advise the Second Circuit as to whether owners of sound recordings
have a right of public performance.

A federal judge in California meanwhile certified Flo and Eddie's
class action last year, paving the way for musicians and music
owners to seek damages from Sirius for withholding royalties for
broadcasts of pre-1972 music.

Flo and Eddie won summary judgment as to Sirius' liability in that
case the year prior.

Last summer, the same judge refused the former band's attempt to
block the landmark $210 million settlement that Sirius reached
with the Recording Industry Association of America over pre-1972
songs, including tunes by The Beatles and Rolling Stones.

The settlement lets Sirius retain the rights to broadcast pre-1972
music owned by several RIAA constituent record labels until the
end of 2017.

The case captioned, FLO & EDDIE, INC., a California corporation,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant-Appellee, D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG
(11th Cir.).


SONOCO PROTECTIVE: Ortiz Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SONOCO PROTECTIVE SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation; SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, a South
Carolina corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. RG16821337 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 28, 2016), seeks
monetary damages, including full restitution from Defendants as a
result of Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or unfair business
practices, pursuant to California Labor Code.

With regard to Defendants' hourly paid employees, the Defendants
allegedly have failed to pay all wages due to illegal time
rounding; failed to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay
rate; failed to provide all meal periods; derivatively failed to
timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; independently
failed to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements;
violated Labor Code; and conducted unfair business practices.

Sonoco is a global provider of packaging products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          6 18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356-4229
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892
          E-mail: Sahagll@aol.com


SONY PICTURES: $18 Million Deal with Animators Wins Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal in San Jose judge gave preliminary approval to a
settlement between animation workers and two major animation
studios on July 6, night.

Blue Sky Studios and Sony Pictures agreed to pay animation workers
and visual effects producers a total of approximately $18 million
under the settlement.

"The court finds that the agreed-upon consideration of $5.95
million for Blue Sky and $13 million for Sony Pictures is fair and
reasonable based on the circumstances, risks involved, and
significant recovery from two of the companies whose share of
employee-years comprise 20.3% of the class," U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh wrote in the order.

Other major studios named in the class action, including Pixar,
Dreamworks, Lucasfilm, Disney and ImageMovers Digital, continue to
fight the case.

Lead plaintiffs Robert Nitsch, Georgia Cano and David Wentworth
stand to receive $10,000 as a part of the settlement.

Of the approximately 10,000 class members in line for a payday,
2,038 have worked at Sony and 578 have worked at Blue Sky,
according to their attorney Brent Johnson.

The recovery for each of the class members averages $1,026.

Nitsch's September 2014 lawsuit claims major animation studios
colluded to fix wages and restrict career opportunities for
artists.

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

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

Pixar and Lucasfilm settled for $9 million collectively last year,
but Koh has rejected a $325 million agreement proposed by Apple,
Google, Intel and Adobe in that case.  Nitsch claims the animation
studios acted in much the same way as the tech companies,
conspiring to deprive artists of "millions of dollars which
defendants instead put to their bottom lines."

He adds in his lawsuit: "It did so at the same time the films
produced by these workers achieved world renown and generated
billions in the United States and abroad."

Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when Apple founder Steve Jobs
bought Lucasfilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in
1986 and created Pixar.

Jobs, Lucas and Pixar president Ed Catmull agreed not to cold-call
each other's employees, Nitsch claims.  Lucas, Catmull and Apple
are not parties to Nitsch's complaint.

He claims Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to notify each other when
making an offer to an employee, and agreed not to offer higher pay
if the employer made a counteroffer. He says Jobs and Catmull
spread this kind of anticompetitive agreement throughout the
animation industry.

"Whenever a studio threatened to disturb the conspiracy's goals of
suppressing wages and salaries by recruiting employees and
offering better compensation, the leaders of the conspiracy took
steps to stop them," the complaint states.

The artists say the studios' cooperation was so thorough that they
emailed each other salary and budget information.

Nitsch quotes Lucas as saying that "the rule we always had [was]
we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we
don't have the margins for that sort of thing."

The other studios used similar practices and pay structures,
Nitsch says.

Blue Sky is a computer animation film studio based in Connecticut.
It is famous for making the films "Ice Age," "Rio" and "The
Peanuts Movie."

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

The case captioned, ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 14-
CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal.)


STUDENT LOAN ASSISTANCE: Sued Over Robo-Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Student Loan Assistance
Center illegally, and annoyingly, sends robo-spam text messages to
cell phones, costing people money and invading their privacy, a
class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


TEXAS: Intellectually-Disabled People's Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Blaney, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
states of Texas is facing a suit.

It took more than 40 years for Leonard Barefield to finally get to
choose where he lived.

The intellectually-disabled Texas native moved to a group home in
Lubbock in September after he had first lived in near slavery
conditions for more than three decades in a squalid house in Iowa
and worked at a turkey processing plant there for 41 cents an
hour.  After being freed by social workers from that situation, he
was sent in 2008 to a nursing home in Midland, Texas.

His plight is not uncommon in Texas, where people with such
disabilities are routinely warehoused in nursing homes, according
to a lawsuit brought by Mr. Barefield and other disabled people.

Advocates for the intellectually-disabled -- a condition affecting
reasoning and learning -- say Texas is violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act and other federal laws by denying services
that could allow more than 4,000 people to live in the community.

The state denies it is exploiting the disabled, saying it is
committed to providing them with the highest quality of services.

The 71-year-old Mr. Barefield has a developmental disability,
suffers from depression and other mental health and medical
conditions, and has high blood pressure, court records show.  He
wears a hearing aid and his speech is significantly impaired.  But
he can read, write and drive a truck.

Mr. Barefield lives with three other intellectually disabled men
in a well-maintained and spacious home.

"It's better here," he said, nodding his head emphatically.
Mr. Barefield leaves the home several days a week for a day center
where he can play games and work on small projects.

Even though he was exploited for decades, the outcome of
Mr. Barefield's case is better than some.

Andrea Padron, who suffered a severe head injury in a car accident
when she was 10, died in 2013 after getting an inaccurate
evaluation to determine the care she needed in a nursing home,
court documents show.

Ms. Padron's mother put her in a nursing home when she could no
longer afford to care for her.  Her mother then was deployed to
the Iraq war with the military.  The services promised for
Ms. Padron were not provided during the mother's absence.

When her mother returned to Texas, Ms. Padron couldn't even sit in
her wheelchair.

Ms. Padron was left to lie in bed for about 165 hours a week --
without specialized services, including physical therapies.  She
eventually was unable to straighten her wrists, ankles, shoulders,
legs or hips and developed a spine deformity, court records show.
She was 29 when she died.

The lawsuit against the state by Mr. Barefield and the other
disabled patients was filed in 2010 and has crawled through the
legal system.  The federal Department of Justice joined the suit
on the side of the disabled in 2012.

In 2013, the state and lawyers for the disabled reached an
"interim settlement agreement" that in part called for Texas to
expand community services and create a service team for each
disabled person.  In return the suit was put aside for two years.

But without explanation, the agreement was ended in 2015.  Neither
side will talk about why this happened because they say
confidentiality rules prevent comment.  The lawsuit has been
reactivated.

A federal judge in San Antonio ruled in May that the case could go
ahead and granted class-action status to include more than 4,000
intellectually-disabled people in nursing homes.

Mr. Barefield and the others aren't asking for any money in
compensation.

"All we're asking the state to do is comply with the (federal)
law," said Robert Velevis, an attorney for the disabled clients.

State aging and disability department spokeswoman Cecilia Cavuto
declined to comment on the case but said the state is "committed
to ensuring Texas nursing home residents, including those who have
intellectual and developmental disabilities, receive the highest
quality services."

She said Texas care providers do evaluations for each person
entering a nursing home to determine what specialized services
might be needed and whether a resident wants to transition into a
community-based setting.

Lawyers for the disabled say the state excludes them from "any
meaningful access" to Texas's system of community-based services
needed to be able to live in the community.

Lenwood Krause, whose 36-year-old son has a condition related to a
developmental disability from a traumatic brain injury, said the
state has mishandled the care of his son for years.

"I can't exactly express the sentiments I feel about them," the
72-year-old said.  "It's that bad."

Texas was ranked in the bottom one third of states for the
comprehensiveness of evaluations conducted on intellectually-
disabled patients, according to a federal report by the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services last year.

"Our belief is that people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities have just as much right to live in the community as
anyone else," said Yvette Ostolaza, another attorney for the
disabled clients.


TILE SHOP: Court Won't Reconsider Subpoena Order vs Gotham
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYERS RETIREMENT FUND, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 16-mc-80062-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley denied Gotham City Research, LLC's motion for leave to file
a motion for reconsideration of the court's June 6, 2016 order.

The action was filed to compel third-party Gotham to respond to
deposition and document subpoenas.  On June 6, 2016, the Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part.

The subpoenas at issue arose out of a putative securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  The plaintiffs initiated the Minnesota
lawsuit following the publication of a negative report about
defendant Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. by Gotham, an investor who
shorted Tile Shop stock.  Both the plaintiffs and the defendants
served third-party subpoenas on Gotham seeking documents and
depositions.  When Gotham failed to comply with the subpoenas, the
parties filed separate actions to compel Gotham's compliance,
which were subsequently consolidated.  The Court thereafter denied
the defendants' motion to compel compliance and granted the
plaintiffs' motion in part.  With respect to the plaintiffs'
motion, the court rejected Gotham's objections to the subpoenas
based on trade secrets and undue burden and rejected Gotham's
claim that the information sought was protected by the journalist
privilege.  Gotham was ordered to identify its source for the
information in its report which indicated that Tile Shop employee
Fumitake Nishi, who was also the Tile Shop CEO's brother-in-law,
owned Beijing Pingxiu, Tile Shop's largest supplier.  Gotham
sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Order.

Gotham argued that (1) there is a material difference between the
facts understood by the Court and the actual facts; (2) the Court
failed to consider certain material facts; and (3) the Court made
a legal error with respect to application of the journalist
privilege.

Judge Corley held that none of these arguments are availing.  The
judge found that Gotham has failed to demonstrate that such an
extraordinary remedy is appropriate especially considering that it
has disclosed the very information it sought to shield, thereby
rendering its objections moot.

A full-text copy of Judge Corley's June 29, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/YIju2m from Leagle.com.

Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Christopher T. Gilroy -- cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joseph Russello --
jrussello@rgrdlaw.com --  Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Kenneth
Joseph Black -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Matthew Leo Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Paul Aaron Breucop --
pbreucop@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel H.
Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Stacey Marie Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP & William J. Geddish -- wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman Dowd LLP.

Erie County Employees' Retirement System, Luc Dewulf, Plaintiffs,
represented by Shawn A. Williams , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Christopher T. Gilroy , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Joseph Russello , Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Matthew Leo
Mustokoff , Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Paul Aaron
Breucop , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel H. Rudman ,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Stacey Marie Kaplan , Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & William J. Geddish , Robbins Geller
Rudman Dowd LLP.

Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicholas Poli
Chan -- nick.chan@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels.

Gotham City Research LLC, Witness, represented by David William
Shapiro, Boersch Shapiro LLP.


TITEFLEX CORP: "Roy" Suit Remanded to Circuit Court
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES ROY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TITEFLEX CORPORATION, t/a
GASTITE, and WARD MANUFACTURING, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
RDB-15-3466 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett granted the
plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland.

A full-text copy of Judge Bennett's June 29, 2016 memorandum order
is available at https://is.gd/haYCiO from Leagle.com.

The purported class action lawsuit arose out of the presence of
allegedly dangerous "Gastite" tubing and "Wardflex" piping in
residential and commercial structures in the State of Maryland.
The plaintiff, James Roy, on behalf of himself and two proposed
classes, filed a six-count Class Action Complaint against the
Titeflex Corporation and Ward Manufacturing, LLC asserting strict
liability pursuant to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of
Torts (Counts I and II), negligence for design defect (Counts III
and IV), and negligence for failure to warn (Counts V and VI).

James Roy, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan K. Tycko --
jtycko@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP, Andrea Rifka Gold
-- agold@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP & Gary E. Mason --
gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP.

Titeflex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Scott Patrick
Burns -- sburns@tydingslaw.com -- Tydings and Rosenberg LLP,
Charles B. Casper -- ccasper@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken LLP,
pro hac vice & John G. Papianou -- jpapianou@mmwr.com --
Montgomery McCracken LLP, pro hac vice.

Ward Manufacturing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven Andrew
Luxton -- steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP, Thomas J. Sullivan -- thomas.sullivan@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice & Zachary M. Johns -
- zachary.johns@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 3.37 Million Cars Over Air Bags, Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ankit Ajmera and Bernie Woodall, writing for Reuters, report that
Toyota Motor Corp. has recalled 3.37 million cars worldwide over
possible defects involving air bags and emissions control units.

The automaker on June 29 said it was recalling 2.87 million cars
over a possible fault in emissions control units.  That followed
an announcement late on June 28 that 1.43 million cars needed
repairs over a separate issue involving air bag inflators.

About 930,000 cars are affected by both potential defects, Toyota
said.  Because of that overlap, it said the total number of
vehicles recalled was 3.37 million.

No injuries have been linked to either issue.

Toyota on June 29 said evaporative fuel emissions control units in
models produced from 2006 to 2015 including the Prius, Auris
compact hatchback and Corolla were prone to cracks, which could
lead to fuel leaks over time.

Of the 2.87 million vehicles recalled due to the emission control
units, Toyota said 1.55 million are in Japan; 713,000 in Europe;
35,000 in China; and 568,000 in other areas.

Late on June 28 it recalled Prius models and Lexus CT200h cars
made from 2010 to 2012 over air bag inflators that could have a
small crack in a weld, which could lead to the separation of the
inflator chambers.

Of the 1.4 million vehicles recalled over the air bag inflators,
482,000 are in the U.S. market.

The inflator could partially inflate and enter the vehicle
interior, increasing the risk of injury, Toyota said.

Sweden-based auto safety gear maker Autoliv Inc. confirmed on June
29 that it supplied the air bag inflators involved. Autoliv said
about 90 percent of the affected inflators were in Prius cars.

Autoliv said it was aware of seven incidents where a side curtain
air bag has partially inflated in parked Toyota Prius cars, but no
injuries were reported.

Autoliv has benefited from an earlier recall involving faulty air
bag inflators made by Japan's Takata.

The company said in an April regulatory filing that it was
investigating six incidents related to its air bags and a possible
recall could cost it between $10 million-$40 million, net of
expected insurance recoveries. (

Autoliv said on June 29 it expected the cost of recall to be at
the lower end of the range.


TRACY, CA: Police Sergeant Files Class Action Over OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ellis Langley, writing for Tracy Press, reports that
Sgt. Ryan Knight with the Tracy Police Department has filed a
class-action lawsuit against the city for violating overtime laws.

In the complaint, filed in Sacramento on June 10, Knight claims
the city violated Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act:
"In calculating the 'regular rate' (of pay) for the purposes of
overtime compensation, Defendant excluded the remunerations it
paid Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals in lieu of
contributions toward medical benefits."

Sgt. Knight's attorneys, the Sacramento firm of Mastagni Holstedt,
are claiming that because the city paid the police sergeant a
stipend because he had health insurance from another source, that
stipend should have been included with his base salary when the
city calculated overtime pay.  They are asking for three years of
recalculated overtime, damages and attorney's fees.

According to public records, Sgt. Knight earned a base salary of
$87,040 in 2013 and earned $13,985 in overtime that year.  In
2014, Sgt. Knight's salary was $90,879 and he earned $12,757 in
overtime.

Sgt. Knight's class-action suit is based upon a June 2 decision by
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Flores v. City of
San Gabriel.  A three-judge panel found that the plaintiff, a city
employee in San Gabriel, should have received overtime pay
calculated from the base pay plus health insurance stipend.

City Attorney Bill Sartor said he was aware of Sgt. Knight's suit
but had not yet been served with the complaint.

"This case is highly unusual," he said June 30.  "It's a new
thing.  A it-came-out-of-left-field decision."

Mr. Sartor said there are few people on the city staff who opt not
to take the city insurance and who are nonexempt employees and
would be affected by the decision.

Sartor said the city complies with the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the city believes the San Gabriel case was wrongly decided.
The city of San Gabriel has appealed the decision to the full
nine-judge appeals court panel.
Mr. Sartor said that Sgt. Knight's is the first class-action suit
against the city in his 15-year tenure in Tracy.

He could not estimate the city's monetary exposure if the
San Gabriel ruling stands, but he thought it would be minor.

"It's going to be a limited subset of a subset," Mr. Sartor said
of the number of people the suit might apply to.  "It shouldn't be
that big of a deal. Of course we will follow the law."


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Still Fight Release of Video Depositions
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Donald Trump and his lawyers continue to fight disclosure of the
videotaped copies of three depositions he gave in relation to two
class action suits against Trump University.

A more complete record of three depositions that took place
between 2012 and January 2016 reveal a Trump that oscillates
between defiance and evasion, and between attacking the lawyers
seeking answers about his now-defunct real estate school and
complimenting them.

The plaintiffs' lawyers in the Cohen v. Trump case argue the
videotaped depositions must be considered because the transcripts
do not show body language, facial expressions and "many
spontaneous and ad hominem remarks that are not reflected in the
paper transcript."

While Jason Forge and Rachel Jensen, the two attorneys
representing the class, cite omissions of ad hominem remarks in
the transcript, there are plenty of them included.

"I think the lawsuit is trying to hurt the brand and I honestly
look forward to winning this case and suing your law firm for as
much as we can and we will be doing that," Trump told Jensen
during a deposition that took place in September 2012, according
to the transcript.

Jensen responded with an "OK," to which Trump replied:
"And you individually."

Later when Jensen, trying to ferret out Trump's definition of a
mentor, asked how he mentors his kids, Trump flared up.

"These are ridiculous questions," Trump said, according to the
transcript. "You're not getting at anything. You are just wasting
a lot of time."

Trump's ire was not restricted to Jensen either.

Plaintiff attorney Jason Forge deposed Trump twice recently --
Dec. 10, 2015 in New York and Jan. 21, 2016 in Las Vegas.

At one point in the first deposition, Trump -- clearly beleaguered
by hours of questioning -- asked Forge if he can wrap it up.

"After all these hours, you can't finish up?" Trump said. "I think
it's disgraceful."

Trump's thinly veiled hostility pales in comparison to some of the
fracases between Forge and Trump's lawyer Daniel Petrocelli, who
was present for the depositions and frequently objected to the
line of questioning.
Take the following exchange:

Petrocelli: Take the mic off. Jason, don't do that again. Don't
talk to my client.

Forge: Dan, don't wave your finger at me. Okay, buddy?

Petrocelli: Don't do that again.

Forge: Don't wave your finger at me. All right?

Petrocelli: Don't do that again.

Forge: Do you understand?

Petrocelli: You're really an amateur. And, you two, stop
snickering or I'm going to call it out on the record.

Forge: Dan, I don't know if your blood sugar got low or something,
but you're out of control right now.

Temper flares and derogatory remarks aside, Forge and Jensen both
successfully established that Trump did not personally interview
any of the instructors or mentors who worked at Trump University
from 2005 to 2010.

Instead, Trump represented to the lawyers that he delegated almost
all matters relating to the administration of the university to
Michael Sexton, the former president.

"I'm not saying I picked him, but Michael Sexton picked him and he
is my arm," Trump said at one point, often repeating that Sexton
was essentially his stand-in.

This is important because at the heart of both cases, Cohen and
Low v. Trump, is a false advertising claim that Trump University's
assertion that the instructors and mentors were personally hand-
selected by Trump himself turned out to be false and therefore
deceptive.

Trump does not dispute that he wasn't involved with the selection
of instructors, but instead claims phrases like "hand-selected"
are innocent exaggerations common to the language of advertising.

However, Trump appeared flustered when Forge played a videotape of
an unnamed instructor claiming he recently had dinner with Trump
and characterizing a part of the lesson plan as advice that was
personally shared during that dinner.

Trump admitted he did not have dinner with the man and that he
would not have said such a thing, but dismissed the assertion as
hyperbole.

"A lot of people say they met with me and they were with me and
all of that stuff," he says. "It happens all the time. I think
it's hyperbole."

Many legal experts agree that the facts surrounding the case are
unsavory, particularly as Trump University was billed as a
university when in actuality it was a three-day business seminar
that attendees paid around $2,000 to attend.

During the seminars, which were often run by salespeople rather
than real estate experts, attendees faced high-pressure sales
techniques aimed at getting them to buy a Trump Gold Premium
package, which cost $35,000.

The package guaranteed a mentor would help students break into
individual real estate markets, but the plaintiffs in both cases
claim this mentorship never occurred as promised.

However, the experts are not convinced the brouhaha necessarily
means the plaintiffs are assured a victory.

"The facts are not at what is at issue here; what is at issue is
whether a reasonable person might rely upon these assertions to
make a decision to purchase the product," University of
California-San Diego Law Professor Sean Martin said.

The Cohen case in particular will be difficult to prove according
to Martin and others, because it is a civil racketeering case,
which means they have to go above and beyond proving a simple
false advertising claim.

Instead, the plaintiffs must prove Trump University was a corrupt
organization engaged in a pattern of fraud, where the individuals
running it knew what they were saying was false but did so anyway.

"It's harder to prove RICO cases," David Levine, a law professor
at University of California's Hastings College of Law, said.

It's a fact Trump appeared to recognize.

"It's the most ridiculous lawsuit I've ever seen, I will say that,
especially as a RICO lawsuit," Trump told Forge at one point
during the deposition. "But that's okay. That's up to you. You'll
see how we do."

But both Levine and Martin were quick to say the plaintiffs have a
good, if not favorable position, even in the RICO case.

"The court may well find that Trump University violated RICO,"
Levine said. "It's a pretty strong case just looking at the videos
released and the papers released; it seems like the scams were
perpetrated in similar ways."

If Cohen is to make it to trial, it must survive a summary
judgment motion by Trump and his attorneys. The current fight is
over whether to make the videotapes of the aforementioned
depositions part of the evidentiary record.

A slate of media companies, including the Washington Post and Fox
News, has intervened, asking the tapes be disclosed to the public.
A hearing on the matter was set for July 13.

The Low case has already survived a motion for summary judgment
and the trial is scheduled to get underway on November 28, after
the general presidential election.

While negative press continues to swirl around Trump University's
downfall, if Trump's statements in the deposition are any
indication he has few if any regrets. In fact, he defiantly stands
by the school.

"I thought it was something that was going to help people," he
said, according to the transcript. "I thought it was something
where people could learn. They could for a relatively small amount
of money, they could learn something or be good."

He added, "I thought it was something that would be very positive
for a lot of people. And by the way, it was. We have many, many
people who have written to us and that are going to be witnesses
in the case that are saying they -- they were thrilled by this. We
have many, many people.

"So I thought it was a very important thing to me, actually, the
school."


TYSON FOODS: Seeks New Trial in Workers' OT Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Hytrek, writing for Sioux City Journal, reports that Tyson
Foods has asked for a new trial in a case in which workers at its
Storm Lake pork plant were awarded $5.8 million.

In a brief filed in U.S. District Court in Sioux City, Tyson
lawyers said a new trial is needed to address both liability and
damages issues.  The food company said a new trial would help
determine which of the workers included in the class action
lawsuit are entitled to a share of the verdict.

Several methods of disbursing the money have been proposed by the
workers, Tyson said, but none of them ensure that only people who
deserve a share get it.

"As a result, the verdict cannot stand," Tyson said in its brief.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-2 to reject new limits
Tyson asked to have imposed on the ability of workers to band
together to challenge pay and workplace issues.

Peg Bouaphakeo and other Tyson Storm Lake workers sued in 2007 to
collect back pay for the time they spent putting on and taking off
protective work clothes and equipment before wielding sharp knives
in slaughtering hogs and processing the animals.

A federal jury in Sioux City awarded $5.8 million in overtime and
damages for more than 3,000 workers.  The lower court decision was
upheld by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014.

Because Tyson did not keep records, the workers tried to prove the
damages based on an expert witness' statistical inferences of how
long it took the workers to get ready for their jobs on the
plant's slaughter or "kill" floor and the processing or
"fabrication" floor.

Tyson challenged the means by which the class-action status was
granted.  The questions before the court were whether statistics
should have been allowed to determine damages for all employees.
Rather than base the damages on the average amount of time it took
employees to get ready, the award should have been assessed
individually for each plaintiff, Tyson argued.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Withholds Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Gate, reports that a federal
judge withheld approval on June 30 of a settlement of $84 million
to $100 million for hundreds of thousands of Uber drivers in
California and Massachusetts and questioned whether the deal would
compensate drivers adequately for the claims they were giving up.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco did not
definitively reject the agreement, negotiated by a lawyer for
plaintiffs in a class-action suit against the ride-hailing
company, and said he might ultimately find it to be fair and
reasonable based on further information or changes in some of its
terms.  But he said the parties to the settlement had failed to
address arguments by objectors -- groups of dissident drivers and
their lawyers -- who said they were being short-changed.

Judge Chen said one claim -- that Uber had violated California
labor laws by classifying drivers as independent contractors
rather than employees, denying them overtime, work expenses and
other benefits -- could be worth $1 billion or more if the drivers
went to trial and won employee status.  The state would be
entitled to three-fourths of any labor law penalties, which were
valued at $1 million in the proposed settlement.

"The parties should provide more substantial legal authority for
why a 99.9 percent discount (in the labor penalties) is
warranted," Judge Chen said.  He also said the two sides had
assigned no value to claims in other lawsuits -- seeking payment
for meal and rest breaks, waiting times between rides, and the
denial of workers' compensation benefits -- that would be
dismissed if the settlement were approved.

The suit, filed on behalf of 385,000 Uber drivers in the two
states, challenged Uber's classification of them as contractors.
The settlement would not affect that status, which could be
disputed in future cases.

Mark Geragos, a lawyer for a group of drivers challenging the
settlement, praised the decision and said Judge  Chen rightly
"wants to know why (the plaintiffs) think they can hijack claims"
in his suit and others.

Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who reached the settlement after
three years of negotiations with Uber, said she understands the
judge's desire for more information, and does not think claims
that would be dismissed have much value.

"He does not appear to have given credence to some of the
outlandish objections that have been made about me personally, or
the amount of the settlement," said Ms. Liss-Riordan, whose ouster
as lead attorney had been sought by Mr. Geragos and other
objectors.  The settlement initially would have awarded her $21
million to $25 million in attorneys' fees, but Ms. Liss-Riordan
recently reduced her proposed share by $10 million.

The settlement would increase from $84 million to $100 million if
Uber began selling its shares publicly.  Another provision would
require Uber, which now can fire drivers at will, to have
"sufficient good cause," determined by an arbitrator, for
dismissal.  The company would also agree to provide funding for a
"driver association" that would discuss drivers' concerns with
managers but would not have the powers of a labor union.

Judge Chen asked for further information from all sides, including
a state labor agency, by July 15 before deciding whether to
approve the settlement or send the case to trial.  His ruling
comes a week after another federal judge gave preliminary approval
to a similar agreement providing $27 million to 163,000 Lyft Inc.
drivers in California.

The case captioned, DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 13-cv-
03826-EMC,  HAKAN YUCESOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 15-cv-00262-EMC
(N.D. Cal.).


UNITED STATES: Deal Okayed in Suit Against Immigration Dept.
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that federal immigration officials will pay $405,000 and change
phone policies for immigrants in some California detention centers
to settle charges they violated detainees' rights by restricting
phone calls.

U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen on June 29, granted preliminary
approval of the settlement between U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and a class of immigrant detainees locked up in
detention facilities in four Northern California counties, saying
ICE had addressed all of the phone access issues the plaintiffs
had flagged.

Audley Barrington Lyon Jr. and three other detainees sued ICE in
2013 for violating the statutory and constitutional rights of
immigrants held in detention facilities in Contra Costa, Kern,
Sacramento and Yuba counties. The plaintiffs said ICE makes it so
difficult to call their lawyers and gather evidence that they
can't obtain fair hearings -- resulting in the deportation of many
detainees who are actually eligible to stay in the United States.

Chen said the case had helped clarify the legal issues surrounding
detainees' due process rights relating to their right to be able
to contact attorneys and gather evidence.

"It's clear [these issues] were not all that clear in the law,"
the judge said.

Four facilities were named in the class action, including Yuba
County Jail, Rio Consumnes Correctional Center in Sacramento
County, West County Detention Facility in Contra Costa County and
Mesa Verde Detention Facility in Kern County. ICE contracts with
those counties to hold immigrants during their deportation
proceedings.

Under the terms of the settlement, ICE will be required to provide
detainees with phone access to more approved attorneys and
government agencies and the calls won't be monitored. The calls
will connect even if a voicemail system answers, allowing
detainees to leave messages. Currently, a call is dropped if a
live person doesn't answer the phone.

Detainees will also be able to use the phone any time during the
day, and automatic cut-off times will be extended from 20 minutes
to 40 in most cases. Detainees who can't afford to make calls will
be given phone credit.

The plaintiffs say being able to speak with their lawyers and
government agencies freely is imperative to getting a fair
decision in their deportation proceedings.

Of all deportation cases in San Francisco in 2011, only 34 percent
of detainees were able to secure an attorney, compared to 75
percent of those not detained. And only 11 percent of detainees
obtained successful decisions, compared to 59 percent of
respondents who weren't detained.

"The settlement provides feasible alternatives that should be
adopted by ICE," Julia Mass, an attorney with the American Civil
Liberties Union of Northern California who represented the
plaintiffs, said. "We think it can be a model for facilities
throughout the United States."

Many immigrants held in the four named facilities spend up to 22
hours a day confined to their cells and are only allowed to make
calls outside business hours, according to the complaint. When
they do get to a phone during business hours, calls are dropped if
a live person doesn't answer, prohibiting them from leaving
messages.

The plaintiffs say ICE's restrictions make it nearly impossible
for detainees to talk to their attorneys or even secure legal
counsel. Getting in touch with a government agency or hospital to
gather documents for their hearings is similarly difficult. And
even if they can get to a phone, many detainees can't afford ICE's
exorbitant phone fees.

At the West County Detention Facility, a long-distance call costs
25 cents a minute, plus a $3.00 connection fee. Calls are dropped
after 15 minutes and callers must pay a new connection fee to keep
talking, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by Julia Mass, Angelica Salceda,
Christine Sun and Michael Risher of the American Civil Liberties
Foundation of Northern California in San Francisco and Carl Takei
of the ACLU's National Prison Project in Washington, along with
the firms Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Van Der Hout,
Brigagliano & Nightingale in San Francisco.

ICE is represented by U.S. Justice Department attorney Katherine
Shinners.

The case captioned, AUDLEY BARRINGTON LYON, JR., JOSE ELIZANDRO
ASTORGA-CERVANTES, and NANCY NERIA-GARCIA , on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; SARAH SALDANA,
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of
Homeland Security; and ADRIAN MACIAS, Acting Director of the San
Francisco Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement., Defendants., Case No. 3:13-cv-05878-EMC (N.D. Cal.).


UNITED STATES: Ordered to Unseal Evidence in Immigration Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
RT reports that a federal judge in Tucson, Arizona, approved the
release of some photos and documents filed as evidence in a class
action lawsuit against US Customs and Border Protection over
allegedly deplorable conditions in eight detention facilities.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told the court that even a
partial release of the photographs and documents would invade the
privacy rights of immigrants and jeopardize security at border
patrol facilities.

Judge David Bury, in an order, dismissed those concerns as "vague"
and ordered the unsealing of certain photos and documents.

The judge also ruled that the Arizona Republic newspaper could
access the evidence, photos taken by plaintiffs in the case
showing unsanitary conditions in some holding-facility toilets,
water fountains and other areas.

The documents are CBP inspection reports covering the recurring
problems with lighting, air conditioning and surveillance cameras
not working properly in the facilities.  One report pointed out
video monitors as well as holding room audio and video loops "have
been inoperable for over two years."

The class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of immigrants who
were held at eight detention facilities in southern Arizona.  A
coalition of advocates and lawyers, including the American
Immigration Council in Washington, DC and Morrison & Foerster LLP,
claim immigrants were held in unsanitary and inhumane conditions,
subjected to cold and deprived of sleep by the border
enforcement's Tucson Sector.

The judge further ruled that CBP lawyers would have to present
more specific arguments as to why he should keep the remaining
evidence under seal as well.  The remaining cache of evidence was
provided by the CBP.

A staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, one of
the coalition groups representing the plaintiffs, told RT that the
Tucson facilities are the second busiest in the country, handling
about 70,000 to 80,000 people a year.

"We think it is part of an ongoing problem with border control. It
is an agency that is not known for being transparent and open to
the public.  We think it is important for the public to see how
the government is running these facilities, the conditions they
are subjecting all these immigrants to, and the government
continues to fight," Nora Preciado, staff attorney with the
National Immigration Law Center told RT.

"This is just a tiny part of the photographs in evidence that we
have submitted to the court.  We are still fighting with the
federal government to release even more graphic photographs that
we are hoping will see the light of day, so the public can see
exactly what is happening at these detention centers."

Ms. Preciado said regardless of immigration status, people are
still protected by the Constitution, and their lawsuit alleges
violations of constitutional rights.

"They are not receiving due process while they are being housed in
detention.  Basically, we have precedent for this.  In other
instances where civil detainees are held in similar conditions,
the courts have said, 'You can't make people sleep on the ground'
[and] 'You can't keep people without a clean facility, not provide
them adequate food, water, basic things such as soap, access to
showers, some of these immigrants are being held up to four or
five days, without access to a bed, blankets, shower,'" said Ms.
Preciado.

"You have seen some of the photographs that depict the filthiness
of the facilities.  These facilities are not only housing men and
adult women, they are housing children.  It is really deplorable
how we are treating them while we are holding them in these
facilities."


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Rules in Suit Over Undocumented Minors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
President Barack Obama's immigration authorities must respect a
19-year-old settlement protecting undocumented children,
regardless of whether the minor entered the United States with
their parents, the Ninth Circuit ruled July 6.

The ruling provides some relief to children locked up two years
ago while fleeing strife in Central America, but at the same time
it strips protections for their undocumented parents.

Peter Schey, the executive director from the Los Angeles-based
Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said he hopes the
ruling "convinces the Obama administration that its policy of
detaining immigrant mothers and children is inhumane and illegal
and must come to an end."

"During the past two years this administration has wasted over one
hundred million dollars unnecessarily detaining thousands of
refugee children commingled with unrelated adults in unlicensed
secure facilities in violation of well-established child detention
standards," wrote Schey, who served as lead counsel in the case.
"This disgraceful policy should now be brought to an end by
President Obama."

The case of Flores v. Lynch first began with a different lead
defendant: then-Attorney General Janet Reno.

Lead plaintiff Jenny Lisette Flores was 15 years old when she fled
the civil war in her native El Salvador. Authorities arrested
Flores near San Ysidro, California, in 1985.  She spent months in
a detention center in Pasadena, enduring strip searches in a lock-
up that also held adult inmates.

A year later, Flores wound up being one of four named plaintiffs
who sued the government in drawn-out litigation.

More than a decade later, the government entered into a 1997
settlement setting out a "nationwide policy for the detention,
release, and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS,"
the acronym for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Congress abolished that agency five years later, in post-9/11
legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

As humanitarian crises in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
brought tens of thousands of asylum-seekers to the U.S.-Mexico
border, the Obama administration responded by erecting so-called
family detention centers in Texas and New Mexico.

In a class action against Attorney General Loretta Lynch last
year, children detained in those centers claimed that the
facilities violated the Flores settlement.  The Obama
administration's lawyers tried to carve out an exception to that
agreement for minors who are accompanied by their parents, but
Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz resoundingly rejected that rationale
for a unanimous Ninth Circuit.

"The government has not explained why the detention claims class
would exclude accompanied minors; minors who arrive with their
parents are as desirous of education and recreation, and as averse
to strip searches, as those who come alone," he wrote in a
scathing 23-page opinion.

Circuit Judges Ronald Gould and Michael Melloy -- who sat by
designation from the Eighth Circuit -- joined the opinion, which
overrules the lower court in one important respect.

Though the original settlement had no protections for undocumented
adults, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that ICE's alleged
"no-release" policy for Central Americans "cannot be reconciled
with the agreement's grant to class members of a right to
preferential release to a parent."

In the Ninth Circuit's view, Gee should have hewn closer to the
letter of the settlement.

"The fact that the settlement grants class members a right to
preferential release to a parent over others does not mean that
the government must also make a parent available; it simply means
that, if available, a parent is the first choice," Hurwitz wrote.
All of the judges rejected the Obama administration's attempt to
amend the settlement.

The Department of Justice and the Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law did not immediately respond to emailed requests
for comment.

The case captioned, JENNY LISETTE FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Attorney General of the United
States; JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and its subordinate entities;
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION, Defendants-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR
(9th Cir.).


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: "Mikhak" Suit Sent to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BAHAR MIKHAK, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF
PHOENIX, Defendant, No. C16-00901 CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles
R. Breyer granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and
stayed the action pending outcome of the arbitration.

A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's June 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/6HLsXl from Leagle.com.

The defendant, University of Phoenix, is a global higher education
institution offering degree programs online and at more than 100
locations across the United States.  The plaintiff, Bahar Mikhak,
is a former faculty candidate denied a full-time faculty position.
Upon denial, Mikhak filed unsuccessful employment discrimination
claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  Mikhak
then filed a complaint in the Northern District of California
alleging ten counts of unlawful discrimination on the basis of
religion, and related claims in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
Cal. Gov't Code section 12940, and Article 1, Section 8 of the
California Constitution.  The University moved to compel
arbitration in accordance with an agreement in the University
Faculty Handbook that Mikhak signed consenting to arbitrate all
employment-related disputes.

Bahar Mikhak, Plaintiff, represented by Noah Asa Phillips, Legal
Aid Society - Employment Law Center, Howard Moore, Jr., Moore &
Moore & William Clarence McNeill, III, The Legal Aid Society.

University of Phoenix, Defendant, represented by Neda N. Dal Cielo
-- ndalcielo@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Kimberly
Lisa Gee -- kgee@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


V.K. MECHANICAL: Faces "Burch" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CALEB WESLEY BURCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. V.K. MECHANICAL, XL PLUMBING OF NEW YORK,
INC., XL PLUMBING, INC., XCEL PLUMBING OF NEW YORK, INC., XCEL
PLUMBING & HEATING OF NEW YORK, INC., APPLE PLUMBING, INC., and
WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-03700 (E.D.N.Y., July
1, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the New York Labor Law.

V.K MECHANICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. deals with the installation of
plumbing, drainage, wetriser, dryriser, sprinkler systems and
Intelligent Addressable Fire Alarm Detection System in
high rise buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
     KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP
     85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 500-6114 x103
     Fax: (646) 612-7996
     E-mail: pkakalec@kakalec-schlanger.com


VALVE: TmarTn Mum on Suit Over CS:GO Skin Betting Site
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Barrett, writing for PCGames, reports that TmarTn has now gone
dark as his lawyers reveal there will be no further comment.
Meanwhile, Valve are under fire in a related case, as another
lawyer lays fault at Gabe Newell's door for allowing an "illegal
gambling" ecosystem to flourish around CS:GO.

TmarTn released an apology video, though it's since been removed.
The video itself didn't give any answers, as the YouTube star
avoided tackling any of the difficult questions popping up around
his CS:GO skin betting site, CSGOLotto.  His lawyers have since
said we won't be hearing any more on the situation.

Not all our favorite FPS games have entire industries set up
around their microtransactions.

Eurogamer reached out to TmarTn and was answered by his legal team
who are now responding on his behalf.  All they were told is that
there would be "no further public comments on the matter",
suggesting the rest will be settled in court.

Meanwhile, another case is brewing against Valve.  Another lawyer,
Jasper Ward, is representing a client who's suing Valve for
allegedly allowing an illegal gambling market to grow around their
shooter using weapon skins, some of which are worth substantial
amounts.  Mr. Ward also represents another underage client who's
also taken out a lawsuit against Valve.

Mr. Ward describes Valve's silence around this whole saga as
"unconscionable".

"In sum, Valve owns the league, sells the casino chips, and
receives a piece of the casino's income stream through foreign
websites in order to maintain the charade that Valve is not
promoting and profiting from online gambling, like a modern-day
Captain Renault from Casablanca," the suit alleges.  "That most of
the people in the CS:GO gambling economy are teenagers and under
21 makes Valve's and the other Defendants' actions even more
unconscionable."

Speaking to Polygon, Mr. Ward claimed Valve "created and is
profiting from an online gambling ecosystem that, because it is
illegal and unregulated, harms consumers, many of whom are
teenagers.

"Parents don't know this is going on and can't talk to their kids
about it because the gambling chips are called 'Skins' and it
seems like just another in-game purchase.

"Valve is like a bar owner who lets people set up roulette wheels
and blackjack tables in the back, sells chips to teenagers on
their way in the door, and then makes people cash out at the pawn
shop across the street," he said.  "Oh, and it has created a new
game it owns and on which those kids can gamble, then lets the
bookies take bets on it in the corner booth.

"The fact that it's Valve's server and software instead of a bar,
and Steam's API instead of a physical roulette wheel and
international websites like OPSkins instead of a pawn shop and
Lounge instead of a bookie in the corner booth doesn't change what
Valve is doing: it has created a gambling ecosystem out of thin
air, and its customers are getting scammed and losing money on
rigged websites as a result."

Mr. Ward says Valve need to tell their side of the story, which
he's "anxiously awaiting".

While all this has been bubbling over, another YouTuber has
possibly been caught scamming people in a different CS:GO betting
site.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Must Face Union Suit Over AlphaSector Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
less than a year after its $16.5 million settlement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Virtus Investment Partners
must now face a class action over similar complaints regarding its
AlphaSector funds, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled July 1.

After its initial public offering in 2009, Virtus started
marketing a new family of funds called AlphaSector.  Leading the
class action on behalf of its shareholders, the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System claims that AlphaSector is based on an algorithm
formulated by a 20-year-old intern that purported to beat the S&P
500 for years.

The teachers union alleges that Virtus marketing materials puffed
up AlphaSector's performance since 2001, even though the funds did
not exist until seven years later.

Federal regulators found that Virtus and its subadvisor F-Squared
Investments substantially overstated performance track record of
the funds.

The Massachusetts-based F-Squared paid a $35 million fine to the
SEC in late 2014.

In February 2015, the teachers' union fund sued the Hartford,
Conn.-based Virtus, which reached a deal with regulators that
November.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley III refused to let Virtus and
some of its wholesalers dismiss the case on July 1.

Virtus did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is, In re VIRTUS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, INC. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 15cv1249 (S.D.N.Y.).


VISA AND MASTERCARD: 2nd Cir. Vacates $7.2-Bil. Antitrust Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that citing inadequate representation, the Second Circuit on June
30, vacated a $7.2 billion settlement agreement in a massive
antitrust class action against Visa and MasterCard over credit-
card swipe fees.

The settlement would have ended a decade of litigation involving
12 million merchants who claim Visa and MasterCard used their
uncontested market power to set supra-competitive "swipe fees" and
"interchange fees."

Businesses must accept credit cards in order to make sales, but
they have little bargaining power to induce Visa or MasterCard to
lower the cut they take.

Merchants are forbidden from refusing cards with higher
interchange fees, or from applying a surcharge to customers who
want to pay with credit.

In addition, cards offering "rewards" cut into merchants' bottom
lines by charging merchants a higher swipe fee, but they are not
allowed to discriminate between rewards cards and credit cards
that do not offer rewards.

"Plaintiffs have paid and continue to pay significantly higher
costs to accept Visa-branded and MasterCard-branded credit and
debit cards than they would if the banks issuing such cards
competed for merchant acceptance," one of the consolidated
complaints claims.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to provide merchants
who accepted Visa and MasterCard from 2004 to 2012 with $7.25
billion in monetary relief.

Merchants who accepted the cards from 2012 onward would receive no
money under the settlement, but the card issuers agreed to change
their network rules to allow surcharges for the use of a credit
card.

Under the terms of the agreement, Visa and MasterCard cannot
modify their surcharge rules until July 2021. In return, the
merchants agreed to waive any claim they have against the issuers
for any policy in place as of November 2012, in perpetuity, as
long as Visa and MasterCard leave in place the surcharge rules
modified by the settlement agreement.

"In sum, regardless what Visa or MasterCard do with their network
rules after July 20, 2021, no merchant will ever be permitted to
bring claims arising out of the network rules that are unaffected
by this settlement agreement, including most importantly, the
honor-all-cards rule or existence of default interchange fees,"
Judge Dennis Jacobs said, writing for a three-judge panel of the
Second Circuit. (Emphasis in original.)

The Second Circuit found this release overbroad and absolutely not
in the merchants' best interests, especially given that the second
class of merchants cannot opt-out.

The New York-based appeals court said there was undoubtedly a
conflict between the first class of merchants who sought monetary
relief, many of whom are no longer in business, and the second
class, which was eligible only to demand rule changes in the way
they accept credit card payments.

The conflict is magnified by the fact that class counsel, which
represented both classes, stands to gain $545 million in fees from
the settlement, which would be the largest-ever cash settlement in
an antitrust class action.

"We expressly do not impugn the motives or acts of class counsel,"
Jacobs said. "Nonetheless, class counsel was charged with an
inequitable task."

The panel said it was concerned that counsel traded the interests
of one class for another in the settlement proposal.

"The only unified interests served by herding these competing
claims into one class are the interests served by settlement: (i)
the interest of class counsel in fees, and (ii) the interest of
defendants in a bundled group of all possible claimants who can be
precluded by a single payment," Jacobs said.

The settlement's release permanently immunizes the credit card
companies from any claims regarding its honor-all-cards and
default interchange rules, even from a business that opens after
July 2021 when defendants' obligation not to change the surcharge
rule ends.

These merchants would effectively receive nothing from the
settlement, but woul still be bound by the release.

"Merchants operating after July 20, 2021 give up claims of
potential value and receive nothing that they would not otherwise
have gotten. Since there was no independent representation
vigorously asserting these merchants' interests, we have no way to
ascertain the value of the claims forgone," the 46-page opinion
states.

Since the class plaintiffs were inadequately represented by
unified counsel, the settlement is a nullity, the Second Circuit
concluded.

The appeals court reversed approval of the settlement and remanded
the case.


VITTORIO AUTO: Faces "Fuentres" Lawsuit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hector Fuentres, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Vittorio Auto Body Inc., and Vittario
Boccardo and Luigi Boccardo, in their individual capacity,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-03714-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y., July 5, 2016),
was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vittorio Auto Body Inc. is an auto body and collision shop.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Delvis Melendez, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DELVIS MELENDEZ
     90 Bradley St.
     Brentwood, NY 11717
     Phone: 631-434-1443
     Fax: 631-434-1443


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Diminishes Dealers' Leverage
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that the hundreds
of frustrated Volkswagen dealers who turned up at the National
Automobile Dealers Association convention in March in Las Vegas
faced a difficult decision.

Charge ahead with a class-action lawsuit against the automaker for
damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, or roll the dice
on an out-of-court deal.

At the last minute, retailers decided to go for a settlement --
wishing to avoid a contentious court battle that would further
damage a franchise already under siege.  But that choice may prove
to be a costly miscalculation.

VW agreed to pay out piles of cash to diesel owners and government
agencies as part of a record $15 billion in settlements of class-
action claims.  VW dealers -- faced with plunging sales and
decreasing franchise values -- received nothing.

"I hate to say "I told you so,' but I think they realize the train
may have left the station," said dealer lawyer Leonard Bellavia of
Bellavia Blatt & Crossett in Mineola, N.Y.

He said retailers "would've done better and gotten a faster result
if they had taken the advice of dealer counsel to file a class
action while the pressure was on.  It would've been a lot easier
to get a lot more money at an earlier stage."

Retailers were reluctant to "jump into the attack on VW," said
dealer lawyer Aaron Jacoby -- aaron.jacoby@arentfox.com -- of
Arent Fox in Los Angeles.

"The dealers missed the boat on this one, but with intent,"
Mr. Jacoby wrote in an email.  "None of the prominent dealers
wanted to lead on a class action.  I think it felt too distasteful
to most of them."

Now the hopes of VW's 652 U.S. dealers rest with a six-man
committee negotiating a deal with the manufacturer.

Struggling dealers

Volkswagen dealers are struggling.  The brand's sales were down 15
percent through June amid a freeze on new diesel sales and the
value of VW franchises has taken a hit in the last nine months.
But the stakes are high for the factory, too.  Disappointing the
dealers risks undermining the support VW needs to fulfill its
obligation to buy back or fix 475,000 2.0-liter diesels under its
consent decree with the authorities.

Still, if the talks fail to satisfy dealers, the decision to forgo
litigation could go down as a strategic blunder.

Ahead of VW's make meeting in March, Mr. Bellavia said he had a
class-action complaint ready to file on behalf of multiple clients
pending the outcome of the meeting.  On the eve of the meeting, a
self-appointed group of five VW dealers told fellow retailers they
planned to engage VW in talks aimed at an out-of-court settlement.

Dealer council chairman Alan Brown, who later became the sixth
member of the committee, said retailers opted out of the class
action to "put customers first" in the settlement process.

VW met with the dealer committee at the company's U.S.
headquarters in Herndon, Va., on June 6.  VW executives said in a
June 28 letter to dealers that while no agreement has been
reached, "we have made substantial progress toward addressing your
concerns as Volkswagen dealers."

Jason Kuhn, chairman of the committee and president of Kuhn
Automotive Group of Tampa, Fla., declined to comment on the talks.
VW also declined to comment.

Fred Emich, general manager of Emich Volkswagen in Denver, said he
hopes the committee "provides some income for us. This year has
cost me a lot of money."

Mr. Emich called the $15 billion settlements "astounding" in size.
Given how quickly the settlements came together, he said, a class
action, in hindsight, might have been a feasible option for
dealers.  But he said suing the factory is fraught with risk.

Steve Kalafer, a VW dealer and owner of the 17-franchise
Flemington Car & Truck Country in Flemington, N.J., is skeptical
the committee will wrest sufficient concessions from VW to repair
the damage done to dealers in the past nine months.

"I predict that the record will show that the consumers will have
received equity and the dealers will have received none,"
Mr. Kalafer said.

Diminished leverage

Mr. Bellavia said not taking a seat at the negotiating table that
yielded the blockbuster settlements announced "diminished the
leverage dealers had."

Said Jacoby: "Dealers could easily have taken part in this case
and in the massive settlement -- and most knew that.  It may be a
missed opportunity ... depending on the solution arrived at with
VW, if any."

But University of California, Berkeley law professor Andrew Bradt
doubts that the dealers' damages claims would have the same
leverage in court.  He said U.S. Judge Charles Breyer made the
claims of environmental regulators and consumers the priority.

"The judge was clearly focused on the consumers and on a speedy
resolution to the controversy," Mr. Bradt said.

Lawyers say dealers could still file a class-action suit and have
it transferred to the San Francisco federal court overseeing the
VW litigation.

Anthony Sabino, a federal class-action expert and law professor at
St. John's University in New York, said establishing a dealer
class-action claim would be risky.  Regulators could view VW
dealer claims as a distraction from the larger issues of consumer
and environmental redress.  "Only the next few years will reveal
whether the dealers made the correct strategic decision to not
file a class action," Mr. Sabino said.

"They may come to congratulate themselves for their smarts, or
they may come to regret it."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Korean Consumer Rights Agency to Seek Redress
------------------------------------------------------------
Ahn Sung-mi, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that with
Volkswagen's decision not to offer further compensation to the
Korean consumers hit by the emission-rigging scandal, a local
consumer rights agency is taking action on behalf of any VW owners
who were hit by the carmaker's false advertisements, local news
reported on July 4.

Korea Consumer Association announced that it will begin consumer
redress activities for VW owners who were deceived by the
carmaker's false advertising that promoted the cars as low-
emission and environmentally friendly.  The association is
receiving applications from the consumers for providing
alternative dispute resolution, to resolve the issue without a
trial.

"There aren't many ways to demand compensation for the owners who
cannot take part in a class action suits with a law firm.  So we
decided to help these car owners," Shin Hyun-doo, the head of the
association said.  "We will try to get as many affected car owners
as possible to negotiate with Audi Volkswagen Korea for a
compensation."

The automaker decided to pay US owners of defective vehicles as
much as US$10,000 per car, with the entire settlement fee totaling
to US$14.7 billion.  However, VW Korea reaffirmed that it has no
plans to compensate Korean consumers, "because the Korean
situation is different from the US."


VOLKSWAGEN: Won't Offer Generous Compensation to U.S. Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Boston and Zeke Turner, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that the day Volkswagen AG's lawyers were in court
sealing a historic $15 billion settlement to resolve its emissions
scandal in the U.S., Chief Executive Matthias Mueller went to
Brussels to try to defuse a potential flare up with the European
Commission over demands that the German car maker also offer
generous compensation for nearly nine million European customers.

During the meeting on June 30 with Elzbieta Bienkowska, the
European Union Industry Commissioner, Mr. Mueller made clear that
Volkswagen had no intention of offering equal compensation to
Europeans who bought tainted diesel vehicles.  He said tougher
U.S. emissions standards made it more difficult to fix the cars to
make them compliant than in Europe, requiring the hefty payments
in the U.S., but not in Europe.

"I said this to the Commissioner in a personal conversation on
June 30 in Brussels," Mr. Mueller said in comments published on
July 3 in Germany's weekly Welt am Sonntag newspaper.

While Mr. Mueller's position is based on the differences between
American and European law, his main concern is that the company
would suffer potentially irreparable financial damage were it
forced to provide the same level of compensation for its European
customers.  In the U.S., nearly 500,000 U.S. customers are
affected, but in Europe there are nearly nine million.

"Volkswagen is solid financially, but you don't have to be a
mathematician to see that damage payments in some arbitrary amount
would even be too much for Volkswagen to cope with," he told Welt
am Sonntag.

The comments are the strongest yet to demonstrate that the German
car maker has drawn a line in the sand and is preparing to fight
demands for compensation from both the European Commission as well
as attorneys who are readying class-action suits on behalf of
European customers and investors.

In 2015, Volkswagen took charges of EUR16.2 billion ($18.05
billion) to cover the costs of fixing vehicles in Europe and
funding the settlement in the U.S.  The company has said
repeatedly that it doesn't foresee any further significant costs
linked to the emissions scandal.

As it became clear that Volkswagen had agreed to a historic
settlement, the highest ever paid by an auto maker in the U.S.,
Ms. Bienkowska lashed out at the company for what she sees as
unfair treatment of its European customers in the wake of the
diesel scandal and dismissed the legal justification that
Mr. Mueller invoked.  "It is unfair if Volkswagen is hiding behind
these legal considerations," she said.  "Volkswagen should
voluntarily provide European car owners with compensation that is
comparable to what it is paying U.S. customers."

Disclosure of the emissions-cheating scandal by U.S. authorities
in September led to a complete shake up of Volkswagen management,
caused the company's shares to plunge, and may have affected
resale values of the cars.  Some owners are worried that
Volkswagen's planned fix to make the vehicles compliant with
environmental laws could affect the vehicles' performance.

After a marathon stretch of meetings with plaintiffs' attorneys
and U.S. officials that began in February, Volkswagen agreed to
pay up to $15 billion to settle class-action suits affecting
owners of its two-liter diesels in the U.S.  The deal, detailed in
court documents, includes up to $10.03 billion for owners of
475,000 affected vehicles with two-liter diesel engines, including
Jettas, Passats, Beetles, Golfs and Audi A3s. Volkswagen also will
pay $2.7 billion to an environmental remediation fund and $2
billion to promote so-called zero-emission vehicle technology.

Comparable compensation for its European customers would add up to
a minimum of around EUR40 billion, which is why Volkswagen has
made no comparable offer of compensation to European authorities,
who have yet to charge the company with any infraction of the law
or allow a major class-action suit to go to trial.

Volkswagen is in the midst of a European recall of the tainted
vehicles that will involve making a software update to some cars
and retrofitting hardware in the emissions systems of others.

Because European authorities have failed to launch an aggressive
legal response to Volkswagen's admission that it installed
cheating software on as many as 11 million diesel engines, most of
which were sold in Europe, analysts say Ms. Bienkowska isn't
likely to force Volkswagen to compensate European owners.

"The legal basis in Europe is different from that in America.  In
Europe, consumer law and environmental law are irrelevant," said
Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, head of the Center for Automotive Research
in Duisburg.

There are several class-action suits being prepared in Germany,
where the district court in Braunschweig has received more than 70
individual complaints.  The complaints include one lawsuit on
behalf of nearly 300 investors that include several large pension
funds seeking more than EUR3 billion in damages.  The court hasn't
ruled on whether it will accept the case.

The Berlin office of U.S. law firm Hausfeld & Co. LLP has set up a
website with EUR30 million in financing from Burford Capital to
sign up European victims of Volkswagen's diesel fraud.  The law
firm welcomed the U.S. settlement, but said Volkswagen must now
tend to Europe.

"VW cannot cheat European consumers and escape accountability,"
said Michael Hausfeld, chairman of the law firm.  "Europeans are
no less worthy of justice than their American counterparts."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Awaits Ruling on $15.3BB Emissions Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News Latino reports that the U.S. federal judge in San
Francisco who is hearing a class action suit against Volkswagen
over the diesel emissions-cheating scandal declined on June 30 to
approve a proposed $15.3 billion settlement.

While not rejecting the plan, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer
ordered attorneys representing the German automaker, VW owners and
the Environmental Protection Agency to report back to him on Aug.
25 about ideas for addressing vehicles with 3.0-liter engine not
included in the prospective settlement.

Judge Breyer thanked the parties for presenting the tentative deal
covering the affected VW diesels with 2.0-liter engines.

Under the tentative agreement, VW would repair or buy back 480,000
vehicles with 2.0-liter engines and owners would receive between
$5,100 and $10,000 each on top of that as compensation.

Lessees of affected cars would receive smaller amounts.

The proposed settlement also requires VW to pay billions of
dollars for environmental mitigation.

The class-action suit was filed following revelations that the
German automaker installed rogue software on hundreds of thousands
of diesel cars sold in the United States since 2008.

The software enabled defeat devices that detected when emissions
testing was taking place and activated the cars' emissions
controls.

When those same vehicles were being driven under normal
conditions, the controls were turned off and they spewed up to 40
times the legally allowable amount of nitrogen oxides, which have
been linked to lung and respiratory illnesses.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: U.S. Settlement Prompts Damages Debate in Korea
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Herald reports that German carmaker Volkswagen's $14.7
billion deal with U.S. customers and regulators is fueling a
debate over the need for Korea to introduce punitive damages and
class action lawsuits to bolster consumer protection.

To settle its emission cheating scandal in the U.S., Volkswagen
has offered to pay U.S. owners of its polluting vehicles -- nearly
475,000 TDI diesel cars -- as much as $10,000 per car in
compensation.  It has also agreed to buy back or repair the
defective vehicles.

While offering fairly generous terms to U.S. consumers, the German
carmaker reaffirmed it had no plans to provide compensation to
Korean owners of its emissions-cheating cars.

Volkswagen said its agreements with U.S. regulators and private
plaintiffs were "not an admission" of its liability in Korea.  It
asserted that U.S. regulations on nitrogen oxide emissions were
much stricter than those in other parts of the world.

One factor behind the company's double standards in treating its
customers in the U.S. and Korea is differences between the legal
systems of the two countries.

One major difference concerns punitive damages.  In the U.S., the
court may order a defendant to pay a plaintiff punitive damages in
addition to compensatory damages if the defendant's behavior was
reckless or intended to cause deliberate harm.

The court often imposes exorbitant punitive damages as they are
meant to punish the defendant and deter the defendant and others
from misconduct.

Volkswagen has sought to reach a deal with U.S. authorities early
as it was well aware that it could be ordered to pay an
astronomical amount of money in punitive damages if it lost the
lawsuit against it.

In Korea, punitive damages are generally not recognized.  They are
only available in cases concerning the illegal use of credit
information and unlawful employment of irregular workers.  And
punitive damages cannot exceed three times the actual damages
sustained.

The Korean government has been opposed to applying punitive
damages to other cases on the grounds that it would put an extra
burden on corporations.

Yet there have been growing voices calling for a broader use of
the legal remedy.  In a recent seminar jointly held by the
Judicial Policy Research Institute and the National Assembly
Research Service, legal experts called on the government to change
its stance.

They called for a general rule on punitive damages that could be
applied consistently to a wide range of egregious corporate
misconduct.  They also said the cap on punitive damages should be
raised to 10 times the actual losses.

The legal systems of the two countries also differ in class action
suits.  In the U.S., class suits allow an individual to represent
all consumers who suffered harm from a particular product or
service.

In Korea, the U.S.-style class action is applied only to
securities-related claims for damages based on false securities
reports, stock price manipulation and negligent auditing.

In other areas, the only legal remedy Korean consumers can use to
recover damages collectively is collective action suits.  But this
procedure requires each participant to come forward as a named
plaintiff.

This is why the number of Korean owners of defective Volkswagen
and Audi vehicles who participate in a collective action suit
against the company is so small -- about 4,500 out of a total of
125,000.

The Korean legal system does not provide strong protection for
consumers against companies that put profits before safety.  It is
time for the executive and legislative branches to take steps to
apply punitive damages and class action suits more broadly.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Still No Compensation for European Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karin Matussek, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that if you
own a Volkswagen with a diesel engine in the U.S., the company
will buy back your car and give you as much as $10,000.  If you
drive in Europe, you may only get a piece of pipe.

As part of Volkswagen AG's settlement of U.S. civil claims
stemming from the emissions scandal, the company pledged as much
as $10 billion for some 500,000 car owners.  The 8.5 million
customers in Europe may only get an hour-long visit to the dealer
to have their engines repaired with a tube that regulates air flow
or a software update.

The reasons for the wide disparity between the proposals stems
from equally large differences in legal and regulatory structures
in each region.  The tab on the eastern side of the Atlantic has
been held in check by factors ranging from the lack of U.S.-style
class-action lawsuits to regulators who have approved repairs that
were insufficient for their American counterparts.

"U.S. legal principles are very different from ours," said Laurent
Mercie, a French lawyer who has filed individual civil claims
against VW.  "There's a natural tendency to want to transpose what
happens there to here. Unfortunately, it's not possible."

Under the settlement filed on June 28 in a San Francisco court, VW
set aside as much $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.  VW also reached a
deal with two U.S. agencies and with 44 states, including New
York.
The lack of class-action lawsuits is a major disadvantage for
European consumers.  In Europe, there are few mechanisms to bundle
complaints, and most people have to file individual claims in
local courts, undermining their leverage in negotiations with VW.

The Wolfsburg, Germany-based carmaker has also been the
beneficiary of EU environmental rules, which are less strict on
diesel engines.  Europe doesn't clearly ban switch-off devices --
the bit of software at the heart of the scandal -- and allow them
to be used if they help protect the engine.

Identical Yet Unequal
Unequal treatment of car owners who have bought virtually
identical vehicles with similar promises about the emissions
levels has sparked anger from European consumer groups.

"Consumers have been massively misled by Volkswagen, and this
settlement in the U.S. recognizes the damage suffered by car
drivers," Monique Goyens, director general of the European
Consumer Organisation, said in a statement June 29.  "It is
inconceivable that consumers in the EU get treated differently.
Volkswagen would be well-advised to offer a similar settlement to
EU consumers."

National members of Ms. Goyens' group in Italy, Spain, Belgium and
Austria have decided to start lawsuits against Volkswagen, as the
car maker refused to respond to repeated calls to compensate
European car owners.

Quicker Repairs

Volkswagen also pointed to different types of consumer protection
on the two continents, but stressed that European car owners will
get faster repairs than their U.S. counterparts.

"We take care of each customer," said Eric Felber, a spokesman for
the carmaker.  "Customers in the U.S. probably have to wait longer
for a fix approved by the authorities than in most other
countries.  The disadvantages U.S. customers may have to bear are
significantly graver and thus not comparable."

The company is working on a "package" for all markets and
customers, Mr. Felber said without providing any details.
Still, the U.S. payout might mean that more Europeans feel they
have to go to court to get a similar deal.

Volkswagen customers in the U.K. will rightly question why a deal
is being offered to U.S. consumers when there is nothing on the
table for the 1.2 million owners affected in this country, said
Alex Neill, director of policy and campaigns at British consumer
group Which?.

"VW must not be let off the hook, the government should intervene
and stand up for U.K. consumers," he said.

Bozena Michalowska -- bmichalowska@leighday.co.uk -- a partner in
the Consumer Law and Product Safety group at London-based law firm
Leigh Day said her clients are disappointed U.S. consumers are
receiving preferential treatment.

"Whilst we hope to be able to achieve a negotiated settlement, it
looks increasingly likely that it will become necessary to issue
court proceedings," the lawyer said.


WAL-MART STORES: Del. Court Tossed Consolidated Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Delaware Court of
Chancery has granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated derivative proceedings in that court.

The Company is a defendant in several lawsuits in which the
complaints closely track the allegations set forth in a news story
that appeared in The New York Times (the "Times") on April 21,
2012. One of these is a securities lawsuit that was filed on May
7, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, and subsequently transferred to the Western
District of Arkansas, in which the plaintiff alleges various
violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA")
beginning in 2005, and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating
to certain prior disclosures of the Company. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
stock of the Company between December 8, 2011, and April 20, 2012,
and seeks damages and other relief based on allegations that the
defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock.

In addition, a number of derivative complaints have been filed in
Delaware and Arkansas, also tracking the allegations of the Times
story, and naming various current and former officers and
directors as additional defendants. The plaintiffs in the
derivative suits (in which the Company is a nominal defendant)
allege, among other things, that the defendants who are or were
directors or officers of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with their oversight of FCPA compliance. All
of the derivative suits have been combined into two consolidated
proceedings, one of which was consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and the other
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On March 31, 2015, the Western District of Arkansas granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated derivative
proceedings in that court. On April 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

On April 13, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated derivative
proceedings in that court. Management does not believe any
possible loss or the range of any possible loss that may be
incurred in connection with these proceedings will be material to
the Company's financial condition or results of operations.


WARNER MUSIC: Judge Okays $14MM Deal Over "Happy Birthday" Song
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a judge in Los Angeles has approved a $14 million class action
settlement over the song "Happy Birthday to You," ending decades
of uncertainty as to whether it belongs in the public domain.

U.S. District Judge George King found the terms of the settlement
fair and reasonable in a June 30 final order and judgment, after
ruling last year that music publisher Warner/Chappell Music does
not hold a valid copyright interest in the song. "The court hereby
declares that, as of the final settlement date, the song entitled
'Happy Birthday to You!' will be in the public domain," King wrote
in June 30, order.

During court proceedings, Warner/Chappell admitted that it charged
film and television producers between five and six figures to use
the most recognizable song in the English language.

By some estimates, the value of "Happy Birthday to You" royalties
was $2 million a year.

The melody of the song was composed in the late 1800s by school
teacher Mildred Hill in Louisville, Kentucky. The song was a
variation on "Good Morning to All," with lyrics by Mildred's
sister, Patty Hill.

In 2013, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Nelson filed a class
action through her production company, claiming Warner/Chappell
had collected and continued to collect millions of dollars in
licensing fees even though authorship and ownership of the song
were in dispute.  Nelson was shocked when Warner/Chappell charged
her $1,500 to license the song for a documentary about the song's
history and origins.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs built their case around an extensive
investigation into the song's history and origins, including an
analysis of U.S. Copyright Office and the Library of Congress
records, historical source materials, old court filings, and news
reports.

The case captioned, GOOD MORNING TO YOU PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., et al., Defendants.,
Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK(MRWx)(C.D. Cal.).


WEATHER MARK: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel C. Cruz individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weather Mark Group, LLC and Mark
O. Stern, individually, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-07010 (N.D.
Ill., July 6, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant called The Weather Mark Tavern.

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1302
     E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


WESLEY FINANCIAL: Faces "Burgess" Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE JEAN BURGESS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WESLEY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,
CHUCK MCDOWELL, CHARLES W. MCDOWELL IV and JON BROWNING,
Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-01655 (M.D. Tenn., July 1, 2016), was
filed pursuant to the Fair Labors Standards Act.

WESLEY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC is a timeshare transfer company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
     DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
     E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
     Fifth Third Center, Suite 1401
     424 Church Street
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-6538
     Fax: (615) 256-8386


WHITE HOUSE BLACK: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Altman" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas on May 23, 2016, issued a
Final Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendant White
House Black Market, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, be granted.

Jill Altman filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and
White House Black Market replied to the Objection.

Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2016, for the
quarter ended April 30, 2016, that the Company was named in July
2015 as a defendant in a putative class action filed in July 2015
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc.  The Complaint
alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published
more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or
an expiration date on customers' receipts.  The Company denies the
material allegations of the complaint and filed a motion to
dismiss on September 9, 2015, which is pending. The Company
believes that the case is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that the case
should have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

The case is, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-02451 (N.D. Ga.).  Judge Steve C Jones oversees the
case.  The case is referred to Judge Catherine M Salinas.


* Silicosis Class Action Certification to Spur More Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
David Oliveira, writing for Creamer Media's Mining Weekly, reports
that the certification of class action status to current and
former gold mineworkers suffering from silicosis and tuberculosis
against over 30 historic and current gold mining companies in
South Africa potentially opens the door for similar litigation
across several sectors, including coal and manganese.
Law firm Fasken Martineau partner Paul Fouche explains that there
is common ground between the sectors in so far as miners have
contracted lung diseases by inhaling the dust at mining
operations.

He points out that cases of pneumoconiosis, commonly known as
black lung disease, caused by the inhalation of coal dust, have
been well documented over a number of years, particularly in the
northern hemisphere.

Further, a peer-reviewed research paper by Dr David Stanton, which
was published in the occupational health journal Occupational
Health Southern Africa last year, states that the possibility of
class action litigation against South African coal mining
companies is being investigated, and there could be future class
action litigation against manganese mining companies.
Fouche points out that the pursuit of class action certification
largely depends on the number of plaintiffs forming part of the
class, as well as the ability to prove the common suffering shared
among the plaintiffs.

Meanwhile, he notes that, while the silicosis case is
unprecedented in terms of scale and complexity, it would not have
been possible if the Constitutional Court had not ruled in favor
of plaintiff and former AngloGold Ashanti miner Thembekile Mankayi
against his former employer for contracting silicosis while
working at the company's Vaal Reefs mine.

In the Mankayi case, the Constitutional Court held that
mineworkers who have contracted a compensatable disease, such as
silicosis, under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act
(ODMWA), are not precluded from claiming damages from their
employer, as is the case for employees who have contracted
occupational diseases which are compensatable under the
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (Coida).
That matter was first heard in the Witwatersrand High Court, which
ruled in favor of AngloGold Ashanti in June 2009.  In March 2010,
the matter was taken to the Supreme Court of Appeal, in
Bloemfontein, which upheld the lower court's judgment.  The case
was subsequently taken to the Constitutional Court, which
overturned both decisions, ruling in favor of Mankayi in
March 2011.

Mankayi had died of lung disease in February 2011.

"This case made it possible for workers suffering from lung
disease to sue their employers for civil damages," Fasken
Martineau senior associate Neil Searle points out.

He adds that, before the Mankayi case, employees who were entitled
to compensation under the ODMWA were effectively in the same legal
position as employees entitled to compensation under Coida in that
both were prohibited from claiming additional damages from their
employer through a civil lawsuit.

"The Mankayi case . . . changed the preclusion under Section 35 of
Coida such that it no longer applies to employees with claims for
compensation arising from occupational diseases contracted in
mines under the ODMWA. This, in turn, opened the door for the
silicosis class action litigation," Fouche explains.


* Supreme Court Rulings Bring Little Relief for Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court delivered little in the way of relief or certainty to
businesses in the session ended recently, punting on several
highly anticipated cases, including challenges to class-action
procedure, and deadlocking on others after Justice Antonin
Scalia's untimely death.

The cases the court did decide rarely provided the certainty
businesses wants.  Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo was supposed to be
the case ending "trial by formula," where plaintiff lawyers use
statistics to establish a class action instead of showing that
each individual plaintiff suffered harm.  Tyson Foods argued a
$2.9 million jury verdict against it in a wage-and-hour case was
unfair because it would wind up paying hundreds of workers who
suffered no losses at all.  The court's majority said while that
may be true, the underlying idea of using statistics to prove harm
to a class of workers was acceptable.

The court similarly avoided delivering a big win for business in
Spokeo v. Robins, which challenged so-called "no-injury" class
actions where plaintiffs sue over statutory damages in laws like
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which provide hundreds or
thousands of dollars per violation.  Instead of ruling that
plaintiffs must show actual injuries to form a class action, the
court merely reiterated -- with a little more force -- the
longstanding rule that lawyers must plead "concrete" facts showing
damages with "particularity."

"That might have been a very big case.  It wasn't," said
Daniel Sullivan -- dsullivan@hsgllp.com -- an associate with
Holwell Shuster & Goldberg in New York, who clerked for Justice
Scalia in 2009-2010.  "The court continued a pattern of refusing
to create exceptions to generally applicable legal rules in
particular subject matters."

Business lost convincingly in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, when the
court ruled that companies can't end class-action suits by picking
off representative plaintiffs with offers of settlement. The
decision left open whether companies can end a suit by depositing
settlement money in a plaintiff's account.

The court did deliver a strong decision in RJR Nabisco v. European
Community, ruling that plaintiffs in civil racketeering suits must
show damages within this country, even if the underlying
conspiracy occurred overseas.  The decision ends a once-promising
avenue for plaintiff lawyers to expand RICO to cover entirely
foreign conspiracies.  The case also forced EC member nations into
some strange contortions as they argued for the extraterritorial
application of this particular law when they have consistently
argued against it elsewhere.  "So what's going on?" Justice
Stephen Breyer asked in oral arguments.  "Is this the right hand
not knowing what the left hand is doing in Britain and in
Germany?"

That could be extended to those nations' criminal authorities, who
don't seem to know much about the vast criminal money-laundering
scheme the EC nations accuse RJ Reynolds and its co-conspirators
of running for years under their eyes.

The high court also rejected lawsuits over entirely foreign
injuries in OBB Personenverkehr v. Sachs, rejecting an American
woman's attempt to sue the Austrian national railway in U.S. court
over a tragic accident, saying the railway didn't meet the
exception for "commercial activity" in the U.S. from a law
protecting foreign nations from suit.


* Companies' Online Agreements Spark Consumer Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Economist reports that if a prize were to be awarded for the
world's clunkiest prose, the paragraphs of indecipherable text
that make up "terms of use" agreements would surely win.  These
legal thickets are designed to protect companies from litigious
online shoppers and users of web services.  Some firms require
agreement, as when users are asked to click a box before creating
an Apple ID.  Other sites explain their policies without seeking
customers' explicit consent.  Few consumers read these terms, let
alone understand them.  Because they involve no negotiation
between customer and company, firms often insert language
conferring broad protections to lower their risk of liability. But
in a new twist, legal disclaimers designed to limit lawsuits are
now unleashing litigation.

A surge of lawsuits in America claims that companies' online
agreements violate consumers' rights.  Consumers are banding
together in class actions against targets including Apple, Avis,
Bed Bath & Beyond, Toys R Us and Facebook.  The cases have a tinge
of the bizarre, citing a law passed before companies even had
websites.  And the lawsuits accuse companies of illegally limiting
lawsuits, a convoluted argument even by the standards of American
jurisprudence.  Nevertheless, the litigation could have broad
implications for the firms involved and for future class actions.

The suits seek to exploit the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act, enacted in New Jersey 35 years ago.  This was
intended to prevent companies that do business in the state from
using contracts, notices or signs to limit consumer rights
protected by law.

Trial lawyers only recently began to use the TCCWNA to target
online agreements.  "All firms that seek to represent consumers
are constantly mining different data fields for potential ways
consumer rights are being violated," explains Gary Lynch, of
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, a law firm.  James Bogan
of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, which has defended companies in
class actions, describes the use of the TCCWNA as "very creative".
But class-action lawyers such as Mr. Lynch may have struck gold.

The lawsuits vary, but generally include allegations that online
terms violate consumers' rights to seek damages as protected by
New Jersey law and fail to explain which provisions cover
New Jersey.  Unusually in American law, plaintiffs need not show
injury or loss in order to sue but merely prove violation of the
TCCWNA.  Moreover, the lawsuits are aimed not only at firms
headquartered in New Jersey but all manner of companies that
merely do business in the state.  Gavin Rooney --
grooney@lowenstein.com -- of Lowenstein Sandler, another law firm,
counts about 40 TCCWNA cases in the recent surge.  What is more,
the TCCWNA entitles each successful plaintiff to at least $100 in
damages, plus fees to lawyers and so on. If a website has millions
of visitors, the costs to a company could be staggering.

Whether the lawsuits will succeed is unclear.  Whatever the
outcome of individual claims, the barrage of litigation will
probably prompt firms to adjust their online terms.  "Don't
overreach" Mr. Rooney advises clients.  For example, a company
might no longer add words to terms-of-use agreements that seek to
limit liability from gross negligence or fraud.

That would be good news for consumers.  But changes to terms of
use do not always serve their interests.  A growing number of
firms, emboldened by favorable Supreme Court rulings, have adopted
clauses that limit class-action suits.  Consumers are instead
restricted to resolving disputes individually, in arbitration.
The TCCWNA cases may inspire more firms to add such caveats.  That
might limit frivolous suits.  But consumers with grave complaints
would be unable to sue, either.  In the end lawsuits over
restrictive contracts may make them more restrictive still.




                            *********

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  * * *