CAR_Public/160811.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 11, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 160




                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: Bryn Mawr Dental Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns
5W PUBLIC: Judge Denied Employee's Bid for Class Certification
ADVANCE STORES: Data Breach Class Action Remanded to State Court
AFFINION GROUP: Motion for Class Certification Pending
AFFINION GROUP: Sept. 14 Oral Argument in Webloyalty Case Appeal

AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet in 9th Cir. Webloyalty Case Appeal
ALERE: Faulty Home Blood Test Puts Patients at Risk, Suit Claims
ALEXANDER DEMOLITION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
ALLERGAN: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Large Eye Drops
ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: 7th Cir. Affirms Remedial Order, Fee Award

ALLSAINTS USA: Sued Over Printing of Credit Card No. in Receipts
AMARILLO COLLEGE: 9th Cir. Won't Send Suit to Arbitration
AMD ENERGY: "Domorad" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ANTHEM INC: No Argument Date Yet in "Gold" Action
ANTHEM INC: Summary Judgment Bid on Remaining UCR Claims Granted

ANTHEM INC: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
ANTHEM INC: ERISA Class Suit Filed v. Company, Express Scripts
ANZ BANK: Class Action Dismissal May Cost IMF Bentham $9.5MM
AREVALO MANUFACTURING: "Burgos" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Trims Claims in "McNorrill" Suit

AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Class Action Settlement Faces Delay
AVENTURA, FL: Appeals Court Allows Use of Red Light Cameras
AVENTURA FINEST: "Francis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Dorado" Suit
BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS: Court Awards Arlington $1.3MM in Atty. Fees

BUDGET RENT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in "Humphreys"
BUDGET RENT: Humphreys Appeals Ruling From E.D. Pennsylvania
BURCH & COMPANY: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Demurrer
CAMP GLADIATOR: Trainer Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
CARLTON MANOR: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "McKinney" Class Suit

CEMEX: Must Face Class Action Over Fuel, Environmental Fees
COLUSA, CA: Ex-Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
CONSUMER CREDIT: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
CRAB ADDISON: Plaintiff May Withdraw Summary Judgment Bid
CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants Final Approval of "Reyes" Settlement

DANA CORP: November 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DANTE DEMARTINO: "Moslem" Files Request for Judicial Intervention
DISNEY: Labaton Sucharow Mulls Securities Fraud Class Action
DOUBLE J SALOON: "Calderon" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
DUANE READE: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Racial Discrimination

EATON CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Unpaid Overtime Wages
FLYING FOOD: "Menjivar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces "Cryer" Class Suit in N.D. California
GE CAPITAL: December 19 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set

GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Favors Dismissal of "Rephen" Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action in Japan Over HPV Vaccines
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Silverstein Litigation Still Pending
H. TRADING: Faces "Fouissi" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
HAYRE-HARTER: "Tacza" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

HOMESTEAD FORD: Faces "Farinas" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
HOUSE OF WU: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Barendse" Class Suit Asserts
ICM GROUP: Settles Illawara Customers' Loan Fee Class Action
INDIANA: DOT Faces Class Action Over Chip & Seal Process
INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Under FLSA, Min. Wage Act

JGWPT HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in "Sanders" Suit
JOJOLIA INC: "Apilado" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code
JT MEAT: Faces "Garcia" Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
JUI LI: Class Cert. Granted in Automotive Sheet Metal Parts Case
KATE SPADE: Judge Denied Defendant's Bid to Dismiss Suit

KBS FLOORING: "Camargo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
KRAFT FOODS: Court Dismisses CEA Claims on Wash Trading Scheme
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Nov. 17 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Product Liability Case in Expert Discovery
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Steele" Action in Ontario

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Suit Over Abrasion Claims
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Litigation
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Ross" Litigation
MARYLAND: Court Approves Settlement in Detainees' Suit
MASSAGE ENVY: Hardwick Appeals Ruling in "Crawford" Class Suit

MERCK & CO: 400+ Women Join Equal Pay Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Settles TCPA Class Action, Aug. 26 Hearing Set
MODESTO CITY, CA: Faces "Beidleman" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Accused by "Beets" Suit of Violating TCPA
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Parties in Discovery

MOTION PICTURE: Faces Class Action Over "Tobacco Imagery" Film
NEW MEXICO: 10th Cir. Affirms Ruling on E-Filing Fee Structure
NOVA SCOTIA: Ex-Residents Still Waiting for Settlement Payouts
OCEAN DETAILING: "Charles" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PACIFIC PROCESS: "Andrews" Files New Suit Over Unpaid Settlement

PALOS VERDES, CA: Lunada Bay Boys Lose Bid to Dismiss Suit
PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Court Grants Judgment on Pleadings
PAYPAL INC: December 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PEAK CAMPUS: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Ads
PFIZER INC: Settles Securities Class Action Over Arthritis Drugs

PHILADELPHIA GAS: Landlords Want Judge to Nullify Gas Liens
PVH CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in "Scott-George" Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Compensation, Reinstatement
PIZZA HUT KANSAS: "Creech" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Reimbursements
PMZ REAL ESTATE: Judge Allows Fraud Class Action to Proceed

RANSOM MEMORIAL: Faces Kansas Suit Under FLSA, Wage Payment Act
REDBACK ENERGY: Faces "Caffey" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Additive Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Settlement in "Sateriale" Case Approved

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Feinman" Class Suit Dismisssed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Stayed "Young" Class Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 76 Filter Cases Pending v. Lorillard
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "DeLisle" Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Update in Smokeless Tobacco Litigation

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in ERISA Litigation Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Delaware Shareholder Actions Closed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in North Carolina Appeal
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in "Argabright" Suit
RIDDELL: Ex-NFL Player Files Class Action Over Helmet Issues

ROMA SAUSAGE: "Begic" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
SAINT-GOBAIN: First PFOA-Related Personal Injury Suit Filed
SAMSUNG: Faces Class Action Over Defective Remote Controls
SCHIFF NUTRITION: "Cochoit" Sues Over Restricted Access
SCOTTRADE: Missouri Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action

SKULLCANDY INC: "Bernicke" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
SOUTH LAFOURCHE: Louisiana Appeals Court Vacates Atty. Fee Order
STATE STREET: Settles Foreign Exchange Cases for $530 Million
SUMMIT ENTERTAIMENT: "Pawelsky" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
T & B MANAGEMENT: Faces "Chavez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
TOWERJAZZ: Court Approves Voluntary Class Action Dismissal
TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Byles" Suit Alleges
TUCKER ENERGY: "Headrick" Suit Seeks Compensation, Reinstatement
US BANCORP: Calif. Appeals Court Won't Send Case to Arbitration

VIACOM INC: Engineers Pension Fund Files Lawsuit in Delaware
VIACOM INC: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Intrusion Claim
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Target of US-Style Class Action Bill in Korea
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Class Settlement, Plan of Allocation Okayed
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK

VOYA RETIREMENT: "Dezelan" Files ERISA Class Action in Conn.
WASHINGTON: Court Grants Class Certification in "Teeter" Suit
WESTERN WORLD: Calif. App. Affirms Summary Judgment
WISCONSIN: Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment
WORLD WRESTLING: Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration

ZUMIES INC: "Bernal" Suit Alleges Unfair Employment Practices

* IMF Bentham Sponsors UNSW Class Action Research Project


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Bryn Mawr Dental Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryn Mawr Dental Associates, LTD., on behalf of itself and all
others, similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 3M Company, Defendant,
Case No. 0:16-cv-02521, (D. Minn., July 26, 2016), seeks temporary
and permanent enjoinment, applicable statutory and civil
penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded,
award of costs and attorney fees and such other or further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied
warranty, violations of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act.

3M Company and through its subsidiary division 3M ESPE
aggressively marketed and sold its Lava(TM) Ultimate Restorative
to dentists around the country. Their machine failed at an
alarming rate because of the manner in which the crown flexes when
under pressure and its failure to accept affixation through
recommended bonding or cementation procedures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
     David A. Goodwin, Esq.
     Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 333-8844
     Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
             awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
             dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
             etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

             - and -

     Paul Scarlato, Esq.
     GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
     Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
     161 Washington Street
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Tel: (484) 342-0700
     Fax: (484) 580-8747
     Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com

            - and -

     Peiffer Rosca Wolf, Esq.
     Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
     ABDULLAH CARR & KANE - A Professional Law Corporation
     1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Tel: (216) 589-9280
     Fax: (888) 411-0038
     Email: arosca@prwlegal.com

            - and -

     Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
     EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
     Newtown, PA 18940
     Tel: (215) 867-2200
     Fax: (267) 685-0676
     Email: medelson@edelson-law.com


5W PUBLIC: Judge Denied Employee's Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia S. Kern of the Supreme Court of New York County,
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case
KRISTINA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of Other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 5W PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC, RONN
TAROSSIAN Or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
5W PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC and RONN TAROSSIAN, Defendants, Docket
No. 156571/14 (N.Y.)

5W Public Relations, LLC is a for-profit public relations agency
servicing national corporations, start-up technology companies,
high-profile individuals, various brands and consumer companies
and is one of the twenty largest public relations firms in the
United States, with revenues exceeding $19 million.

Plaintiff Kristina Rodriguez and a putative class of individuals
filed a suit against 5W and its founder and CEO Ronn Torossian for
violating New York Labor Law Section 663 and NYCRR 142-2.1 and
Section 198 by failing to pay plaintiff and other members of the
putative class minimum wages for all hours worked and for failing
to pay plaintiff and other members of the putative class any wages
for their hours worked.

Plaintiffs moved for an order pursuant to CPLR Section 901
certifying the action as a class action: all individuals engaged
in 5W's internship program from July 2008 through the present.

Judge Kern denied plaintiffs' motion for an order certifying the
action as a class action.

A copy of Judge Kern's order dated July 26, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/Q5OWzLfrom Leagle.com.


ADVANCE STORES: Data Breach Class Action Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that in a case with a familiar fact pattern, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
refused to find that permitting Plaintiff to proceed in Louisiana
state court was "futile" on Article III standing issues and
remanded the matter to the state court for determination whether
Plaintiff has constitutional standing to proceed with his suit.

Plaintiff, Walter Bradix, IV, a former employee of Advance Stores
Company, d/b/a Advanced Auto Parts store, sued his former employer
for disclosure of his and a number of other employees' personal
information.  The disclosure occurred as a result of a phishing
scam where in the attacker posed as an employee of Defendant.  The
disclosed information including employees' names, gross wages for
2015, social security numbers and state in which each employee
paid income tax.

The Plaintiff alleged that the information can, and likely already
has, been used by thieves to open credit card accounts, file tax
returns, etc.  In support of the foregoing, Plaintiff pointed to
two unidentified inquires on his credit report.  Plaintiff argued
that the remedy offered by the Defendant -- 24 months of credit
monitoring services -- was "woefully inadequate" and that
Plaintiff and other employees will incur significant costs to
correct breaches of their personal data which Advance argued were
yet to occur.

Plaintiff filed a class action petition in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans.  Plaintiff alleged that
Defendant's conduct with regard to the phishing attack amounted to
negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and
invasion of privacy under Louisiana state law.  Defendant removed
the action to federal court asserting federal subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), and
then filed a motion to dismiss.  The District Court denied
Defendant's motion and entered an order remanding the case to
Louisiana State Court.  Defendant then asked for reconsideration
of the Court's ruling.

In its motion for reconsideration, Defendant argued that dismissal
is more appropriate as remand to Louisiana court would be
"futile".   Advance argued that Plaintiff lacked standing in both
federal court and Louisiana state court because both courts can
only preside over cases "involving 'actual present or immediately
threatened injury' and more than a 'hypothetical threat.'"  It was
the Defendant's position that the Louisiana state court would rely
on federal jurisprudence and apply federal law regarding
speculative harm, and since the federal law clearly provides that
federal court has no jurisdiction over matters dealing with
speculative harm, neither would the Louisiana state court have
jurisdiction over such claim.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected
Defendant's futility argument finding it too broad and also
finding it uncertain that the lack of standing under Article III
would necessarily mean that the Louisiana state court would have
to dismiss the case.

Relying on the United States Supreme Court's discussion of the
futility doctrine wherein the Court refused to apply the futility
doctrine to circumstances where "plaintiff's Article III standing
would not necessarily defeat its standing in state court," the
District Court found that Defendant failed to establish that
Louisiana state law firmly follows the Supreme Court on the issue
of Article III standing.  International Primate Protection League
v. Tulane Educaitonal Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (1991).

Based upon the foregoing, the District Court refused to apply the
futility doctrine to the within set of facts and remanded the
matter to the state court for determination whether Plaintiff has
standing to proceed with his suit.


AFFINION GROUP: Motion for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company does not
know when the court will rule on the motion for class
certification or the motion for Summary Judgment.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion.

On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit
affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration.

While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.
Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.

The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the
same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At
that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three
previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class
certification briefing schedule that had been set previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on
February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April
5, 2013.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to
dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from
the case.

The court also struck certain allegations from the consolidated
amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action
allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the
court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims
under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other
claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).

On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13,
2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions
of the court's order of March 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion was
completed on June 5, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory appeal. On May 29, 2015, the court issued a
scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence
immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015. On May 29,
2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive motions, which
are due February 29, 2016.

If no dispositive motions are filed, a joint trial memorandum
would be due by April 1, 2016, and jury selection would take place
on May 3, 2016. If dispositive motions are filed, the joint trial
memorandum would be due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection
would take place on November 1, 2016.

On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class
certification, with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due
on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by
November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants filed an
opposition brief on December 15, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a reply
brief on December 22, 2015, and Defendants filed a sur-reply on
December 29, 2015.

On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on the individual claims of the remaining named
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a response on March 21, 2016, and the
Company filed its response on April 4, 2016. The Company does not
know when the court will rule on the motion for class
certification or the motion for Summary Judgment.


AFFINION GROUP: Sept. 14 Oral Argument in Webloyalty Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has scheduled
oral arguments for Plaintiff's appeal for September 14, 2016.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
EFT, ECPA, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and CUTPA violation (the "Connecticut
Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct
occurring on and after October 1, 2008.

On November 1, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which Plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.

On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on Plaintiff's
motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the
Plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of
the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the
court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike.  The court, at the same
time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until
further proceedings the determination as to whether all of
Plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims
not grounded in fraud are dismissible.

The court permitted the Plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend
his complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct
limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014,
concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other
discovery was stayed in the case. The July 17, 2014 order
indicated that the court would set a further motion to dismiss
briefing schedule following the conclusion of this limited
discovery. The Plaintiff amended his complaint as scheduled, and
the parties conducted limited discovery as ordered.

After this limited discovery, the parties proposed a motion to
dismiss briefing schedule calling for the Defendants to file their
opening briefs on January 9, 2015. The Plaintiff filed his
opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on April 24, 2015, the
Defendants filed their reply briefs in response to that
opposition.

On October 15, 2015, the court entered a judgment dismissing all
of the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without further leave
to amend.

On November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal decision, but no further dates for that appeal have
been scheduled. Plaintiff's opening appeals brief was filed on
February 10, 2016. The Company's answering brief was filed on
April 15, 2016 and the Plaintiff filed a reply brief on May 11,
2016. The court has scheduled oral arguments for Plaintiff's
appeal for September 14, 2016.


AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet in 9th Cir. Webloyalty Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Ninth Circuit court
has not yet scheduled a hearing for the appeal in a class action
lawsuit against Webloyalty.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of CUTPA. Both claims
are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and
billing of the Plaintiff, Webloyalty charged Plaintiff's credit or
debit card using information obtained through a data pass process
and without obtaining directly from Plaintiff his full account
number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly
required under ROSCA.

On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the
motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial
notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account
documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012,
and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.
Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte
dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to
amend by September 30, 2013. The Plaintiff filed his amended
complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the
ECPA and for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2,
2013, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint.
Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the
submissions and issue a decision on Plaintiff's motion without
oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the
Plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of
limitations grounds. The court has allowed the Plaintiff 28 days
to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the
complaint would not be futile.

On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The
Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22,
2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying
Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with
prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company
responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015,
the court entered a final order and judgment denying Plaintiff's
motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and
dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff
filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015, and the
Company's answering brief was filed on January 19, 2016. Plaintiff
filed a reply brief on February 2, 2016. The court has not yet
scheduled a hearing for this appeal.


ALERE: Faulty Home Blood Test Puts Patients at Risk, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anticoagulants like warfarin require constant monitoring and
adjustment of dosages to strike the balance between dangerously
low coagulant levels that could lead to uncontrollable bleeding
and dangerously high levels that could lead to deadly clots.

Alere, a diagnostics firm, sold a number of home blood coagulation
test systems prescribed by physicians to help patients maintain
that precise balance.  But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
discovered that the company had failed to report known instances
in which the blood testing device produced significantly
inaccurate results.  When the company failed to respond the FDA's
warning letter, the FDA intervened and the company issued a
"voluntary" Class 1 Recall of its INRatio Monitors, INRatio2
Monitors and INRatio Test Strips.

Class 1 recalls are rare, issued only when there is a significant
and immediate danger of death or other serious injury from using
the recalled product.  Despite the seriousness of the recall,
Alere didn't ensure that all patients relying on these systems
received recall notices. In addition, the company hasn't offered
to refund the costs of the monitoring systems to anyone.

Two plaintiffs -- J.E. from Alexandria, Virginia, and J.D. from
Tucson, Arizona -- have brought a class-action lawsuit against
Alere.  They are represented by John Roddy --
jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- and Elizabeth Ryan --
eryan@baileyglasser.com -- of Bailey & Glasser's Boston,
Massachusetts, office, David Selby of the firm's Birmingham,
Alabama, office, and Todd Wheeles and Jeremy Knowles --
jknowles@mhhlaw.net -- with Morris, Haynes, Wheeles, Knowles &
Nelson.

Neither plaintiff -- identified only by their initials in the
complaint in order to protect confidential medical information --
received a recall notice from Alere.  Both learned of the
products' inaccuracy after searching the Internet.  Neither has
received any refund, even though J.D. paid approximately $1,700
out-of-pocket for Alere products.

Tens of thousands of Alere customers are potentially members of
the class covered by this lawsuit.  Alere continues to advertise
the system for sale to the public, despite the acknowledged flaws,
and it has refused to provide refunds to customers.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
Massachusetts.

Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston,
West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP has grown to include 52
lawyers, with offices in nine states and the District of Columbia.
The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high-stakes
commercial litigation; class actions for consumers, insureds,
investors, and retirement plan participants; catastrophic injury
and defective product cases; antitrust; and whistleblower
lawsuits.  The firm has extensive experience in energy law, and
litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy courts,
regulatory agencies, and appellate courts.  It has a major
corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from
assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to
the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial
transactions.


ALEXANDER DEMOLITION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE CARRERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. ALEXANDER DEMOLITION AND HAULING, a California
Corporation; Felipe Davila, an individual; BARRETT BUSINESS
SERVICES, INC, a Maryland Corporation; SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING
SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Case No.
BC628625 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2016),
accuses the Defendants of failing to pay minimum and overtime
wages.

Alexander Demolition and Hauling is a California corporation with
its principal place of business located within Los Angeles County.
Alexander demolishes and hauls houses, commercial, and industrial
buildings.  Alexander employs laborers, including the Plaintiff,
to demolish and haul away commercial and residential developments.
Felipe Davila is the owner, director, officer, or managing agent
of Alexander.

Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business located in Vancouver, Washington.
South East Employee Leasing Services, Inc. is a Florida
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Holiday, Florida.  Alexander contracted with Barrett and South
East to provide payroll services within the relevant statutes of
limitations periods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Goldman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. GOLDMAN, PC
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 287-7689
          Facsimile: (818) 287-7816
          E-mail: ken@kengoldmanlaw.com


ALLERGAN: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Large Eye Drops
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that U.S. District Judge Staci
Yandle certified a class action on a claim that makers of eye
drops for glaucoma patients design their droppers to waste fluid.

On July 25, she ruled that four plaintiffs could represent
Illinois and Missouri residents who used eye drops of Allergan,
Alcon, Bausch and Lomb, Pfizer, Merck, and Prasco.

"There are differences between plaintiffs, such as plaintiffs'
ages and varying treatment plans, but the core issue is whether
the dispensers release unnecessarily large eye drops," Judge
Yandle wrote.

"The alleged injury, that the large drops have resulted in wastage
of medication, remains the same for all four named plaintiffs and
for the putative class as a whole."

John Simon of St. Louis and Mark Goldenberg of Edwardsville
represent the plaintiffs, along with members of their firms.

Mr. Simon filed the suit in 2012, for Charlene Eike, Shirley
Fisher, Jordan Pitler, and Alan Raymond.

Defendants moved to dismiss the action, and moved for a stay
pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.

Merck counsel Chris Schmidt argued for a stay at a hearing before
Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson in 2013, on behalf of all
defendants.

"We are dealing with novel claims, claims that we are not aware of
any court sanctioning, let alone any consumer bringing anywhere in
the country," Mr. Schmidt said.

"Plaintiffs are seeking to force the defendants, who are regulated
by the Food and Drug Administration, to change their manufacturing
processes.

"They are seeking damages for that excess waste to the extent they
are able to calculate it."

He said plaintiffs didn't plead any actual injury.

"They have conceded that you can't overdose the eye," Mr. Schmidt
said.

Judge Wilkerson ruled that neither the novelty of the theories nor
the expense of discovery warranted a stay.

"Defendants argue that hundreds if not thousands of hours of
attorney and client time will be devoted to discovery in addition
to time that will be spent litigating the scope of discovery,"
Wilkerson wrote.

"None of these points are particularly unique to this case."

He wrote that discovery for defendants as a group would be
extensive, but there was no showing that the burden on each
individual defendant would be onerous.

District Judge David Herndon denied the motion to dismiss the
action in 2014, finding plaintiffs plausibly pleaded actual
damages.

He wrote that they alleged actual damage as measured by the price
of the portion of each drop in excess of 15 microliters.

"At this stage of the litigation, the court finds this sufficient
to survive review," Judge Herndon wrote.

He wrote that plaintiffs premised their claims on representing
classes of consumers who bought similar products from the
companies.

"They need not have used every prescription eye drop manufactured
by every defendant," he wrote.

Defendants moved for reconsideration or an order allowing
interlocutory appeal, but Judge Herndon wouldn't get a chance to
consider the motion.

The case passed to Judge Yandle when she joined the court, and she
denied the motion.

This February, she set trial for December.

Mr. Goldenberg entered his appearance in March, along with
Kevin Green and Thomas Rosenfeld of his firm.

On July 18, plaintiffs and defendants jointly moved to vacate the
December trial date pending a ruling on class certification.

Judge Yandle delivered her decision a week later.

As of July 26, she had not acted on the motion to postpone trial.

A federal judge in New Jersey dismissed a similar class action in
March.

District Judge Freda Wolfson ruled that plaintiffs "failed to show
that smaller-tipped bottles would be priced lower based solely on
volume," according to defense attorneys at Shook Hardy and Bacon.

Judge Wolfson further found that "plaintiffs failed to establish
economic harm or entitlement to reimbursement; the bottle design
in use was approved by the FDA; and there were no allegations that
plaintiffs would have purchased comparable cheaper products,
producing smaller drops, in place of the defendants' products,"
according to an article on the firm's website.


ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: 7th Cir. Affirms Remedial Order, Fee Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes of the Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit, affirmed the trial court's remedial order and awarded
attorney's fees and approved settlements among some of the parties
in the case captioned, CAROL CHESEMORE, et al., on behalf of
themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. DAVID B.
FENKELL, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS,
INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-3181, 14-3215 &
15-3740 (7th Cir.).

Trachte Building Systems, Inc., a Wisconsin manufacturer,
established an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in the mid-
1980s when ESOPs were a popular employee-benefits instrument. In
the late 1990s, David Fenkell and Alliance Holdings, Inc., a
company he founded and controlled, developed a niche specialty in
buying and selling ESOP-owned, closely held companies with limited
marketability. In accordance with this business model, Alliance
acquired Trachte in 2002 for $24 million and folded its ESOP into
Alliance's ESOP.

The new Trachte ESOP used the employees' accounts as collateral to
incur debt to purchase Trachte's equity back from Alliance.
Multiple interlocking transactions to that effect closed on the
same day in August 2007. When all was said and done, Trachte and
the new Trachte ESOP had paid $45 million for 100% of Trachte's
stock and incurred $36 million in debt. The purchase price was
inflated and the debt load was unsustainable. By the end of 2008,
Trachte's stock was worthless. The losers in this deal -- the
employee participants in the new Trachte ESOP -- sued Alliance,
Fenkell, his handpicked trustees, and several other entities
alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA.

The district court held a bench trial and issued a comprehensive
opinion finding the defendants liable. After an additional
hearing, the judge crafted a careful remedial order making the
class and a subclass whole. While the case was under advisement,
the district court found Fenkell in contempt for failing to comply
with the remedial order.

On appeal, Fenkell concedes liability but raises many objections
to the remedial order, the award of attorney's fees, and the
settlements by his codefendants. The plaintiffs filed a cross-
appeal seeking a larger award of attorney's fees and contesting
the judge's refusal to award costs against Fenkell.

In her Order dated July 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/23hyIk
from Leagle.com, Judge Sykes held that (1)the district court had
the authority to order Fenkell to indemnify the new Trachte ESOP
trustees. That remedy is within the court's equitable powers and
is consistent with principles of trust law within which ERISA
operates; (2) Fenkell has not established standing to challenge
the settlements; (3) Fenkell responsible for the attorney's fees
that remained unpaid after the settlements; and (4) the contempt
order was procedurally and substantively sound.

Alliance Holdings, Inc. et al. are represented by Patrick W.
Spangler, Esq. -- pspangler@vedderprice.com -- Charles Benno Wolf,
Esq. -- Swolf@lewitthackman.com -- and VEDDERPRICE -- Charles C.
Jackson, Esq. -- charles.jackson@morganlewis.com -- and James P.
Looby, Esq. -- james.looby@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS

David B. Fenkell is represented by David R. Johanson, Esq. --
djohanson@hptylaw.com -- and Douglas Andrew Rubel, Esq. --
drubel@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP --
Lars Golumbic, Esq. -- lgolumbic@groom.com -- GROOMLAW GROUP --
and Erin E. McAdams, Esq. -- erin.mcadams@morganlewis.com - MORGAN
LEWIS

Carol Chesemore, et al. are represented by Andrew W. Erlandson,
Esq. -- aerlandson@hbslawfirm.com - HURLEY, BURISH & STANSTON, SC
-- Michelle C. Yau, Esq. -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Robert
Joseph Barton, Esq. -- jbarton@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN


ALLSAINTS USA: Sued Over Printing of Credit Card No. in Receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA MOCEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLSAINTS USA LIMITED, a foreign
business corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-10056 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., July 29, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of the
Defendants violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act (FACTA).

To maximize its ability to sell products and services, AllSaints
accepts payment cards from all major card brands at all of its
retail locations. Accordingly, it is bound to the same contractual
obligations that Visa, MasterCard, and American Express impose on
all merchants: it is required to truncate payment card account
numbers (all but the last four digits), leave off expiration
dates, and otherwise comply with all applicable truncation laws
(including FACTA}. Yet despite its clear contractual and legal
obligations, AllSaints continues to print 10 account number
digits-twice what is allowed under FACTA-on the payment card
receipts it issues to consumers at its retail stores within the
United States.

AllSaints is an international fashion retailer that generates
hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenues through high-
end clothing stores around the world. The Company is majority-
owned by Lion Capital LLP, a sophisticated international
investment partnership with billions of dollars invested in more
than 100 consumer brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Courtney C. Booth
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  cbooth@edelson.com


AMARILLO COLLEGE: 9th Cir. Won't Send Suit to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, affirmed the district court's denial of Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, PAIGE MARTIN,
SUNDAE WORTHY, MARIA FORD, and MEGAN TALLERICO, on behalf of
themselves and classes of those similarly situated; Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. GARY YASUDA; AMARILLO COLLEGE OF HAIRDRESSING, INC.,
DBA Milan Institute, DBA Milan Institute of Cosmetology,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-55696 (9th Cir.).

The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on October 28, 2013
against the college and its owner and President, Gary Yasuda,
alleging that the defendants violated state labor laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the plaintiffs
contended, among other things, that Milan was an "employer" within
the meaning of state law as well as the FLSA and thus, as
uncompensated employees, they were entitled to minimum hourly
wages, overtime wages, and unpaid premiums for missed meal and
rest breaks. Over seventy individuals opted to join the action
between October 2013 and March 2014.

On May 16, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Extend
Time to File Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and Class
Certification with the district court which was subsequently
granted by the district court. The plaintiffs filed their first
amended complaint on June 6, 2014. It named additional plaintiffs
and added additional state wage and hour claims.

On March 20, 2015, almost seventeen months after the start of the
case, the defendants actually moved to compel individual
arbitration. In the motion, they argued, among other things, that
the court must enforce the parties' arbitration agreements, that
the agreements were valid and enforceable, and that they, the
defendants, had not waived arbitration. The plaintiffs opposed the
motion by arguing that the defendants had waived their right to
compel arbitration and that the terms were unconscionable and
unenforceable. Applying the three factor waiver test employed in
the circuit, the district court denied the defendants' motion to
compel individual arbitration.

On appeal, the defendants contend that the district court erred in
two ways. First, they argue that an arbitrator, rather than the
district court, should decide whether the defendants waived their
right to arbitration through litigation conduct. Second, they
contend that even if the district court was correct to decide the
issue, it erred by finding waiver.

In his Opinion dated July 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Nr0z8E from Leagle.com, Judge Reinhardt held that
the district court did not err in deciding the litigation conduct
waiver issue itself because the Defendants have waived their right
to compel arbitration.

Amarillo College Of Hairdressing, Inc., dba Milan Institute, DBA
Milan Institute of Cosmetology are represented by William M.
Hensley, Esq. -- mhensley@alvaradosmith.com -- Marc D. Alexander,
Esq. -- malexander@alvaradosmith.com -- and Jonathan M. Werner,
Esq. -- jwerner@alvaradosmith.com  -- ALVARADO SMITH -- Kirsten L.
Clevenger, Esq. -- kclevenger@dfrglaw.com -- Matthew L. Hoppock,
Esq. -- matthew@hoppocklawfirm.com -- and Ronald L. Holt, Esq. --
rholt@dfrglaw.com -- DUNN & DAVISON LLC

Paige Martin, Sundae Worthy, Maria Ford, and Megan Tallerico are
represented by Chaya M. Mandelbaum Esq. -- cmm@rezlaw.com -- and
Michelle G. Lee, Esq. -- mgl@rezlaw.com -- RUDY, EXELROD & ZIEFF,
LLP -- Dana Sniegocki, Esq. -- dana23@gmail.com -- LAW OFFICE OF
LEON GREENBERG -- Adetunji Olude, Esq. --
Adetunji.Olude@jud.ca.gov -- and Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq. --
bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW


AMD ENERGY: "Domorad" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Derek Domorad, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. AMD Energy Services LLC, Mayra Dehoyos,
Stan Bates and FLW-AMD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00748
(W.D. Tex., July 25, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants are oilfield service companies servicing the oil and
gas industry in the State of Texas where Plaintiff performed
routine and manual labor in the oilfield.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     ANDERSON2X, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Telephone: (361) 452-1279
     Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
     Email: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com


ANTHEM INC: No Argument Date Yet in "Gold" Action
-------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a date for argument has
not been set in the "Gold" class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "We are defending a certified class action filed
as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance. The
lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is
captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem
Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the
conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company
into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the
Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company
at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in
Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong
ESMs. A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015,
the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues,
finding that (i) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the State
of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (ii) Anthem Insurance
acted in good faith in making this determination, while Plaintiffs
failed to present sufficient evidence to override a presumption
that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct; and (iii)
Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual
obligation. In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the
Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal
directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate
appellate court. A date for argument has not been set. We intend
to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's judgment;
however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined."


ANTHEM INC: Summary Judgment Bid on Remaining UCR Claims Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims in
the case, In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-
Network "UCR" Rates Litigation.

The Company said, "We are currently a defendant in eleven putative
class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement
that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called
In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR"
Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were
filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members
on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services
for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the
American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON
physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric
Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the
California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes
of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers.
The plaintiffs filed several amended complaints alleging that the
defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,
federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement
database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement
methodologies."

The Company added, "We filed motions to dismiss in response to
each of those amended complaints, which were granted in part and
denied in part. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs
is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to
dismiss most, but not all, of the claims."

"In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and
federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be
dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further
found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-
Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged
non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also
dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice.
The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the
court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the
plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff
is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-
Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that
plaintiff. Fact discovery is complete."

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November
2013 seeking six different classes. Following oral argument, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
late 2014. The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more
narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but
two of the individually named subscribers and all of the providers
and medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice.

"We filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016, and a
motion for summary judgment was also filed by one of the remaining
individual plaintiffs. In July 2016, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion and granted our motion for summary judgment on all
remaining claims. We intend to vigorously defend these suits;
however, ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
defend against the case, In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust
Litigation.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that
were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue
Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases
were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In
re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue
plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate
geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules
(which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws.

"The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of
plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and
provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in
July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also
brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan
subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

"Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were
argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority
of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient
facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their
claims. Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by
each of the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our
answer and asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014.
Discovery has commenced.

"In October 2015, the court issued an order accelerating deadlines
for the underlying actions originally filed in Alabama, setting a
January 2017 discovery deadline, and scheduling class
certification and expert proceedings in 2017 and a pretrial
conference in January 2018. Since January 2016, subscribers have
filed additional actions asserting damage claims in Indiana,
Kansas, Kansas City, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have
been or will be consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit. We
intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate
outcome cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: ERISA Class Suit Filed v. Company, Express Scripts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Anthem, Inc. and
Express Scripts were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern District of New
York by three members of ERISA plans alleging ERISA violations.
The lawsuit is captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and
Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The
lawsuit is purportedly filed on behalf of participants in, or
beneficiaries of, ERISA governed employee welfare benefit plans
from December 1, 2009 to the present who received prescription
drug benefits under an Anthem plan provided through an agreement
with Express Scripts. The complaint alleges that Express Scripts
violated ERISA by overcharging Plaintiffs and the proposed class
for percentage based copays based on prescription drug charges
that are higher than competitive prices. Plaintiffs allege that
Anthem is an ERISA fiduciary and breached its fiduciary
obligations by (i) entering into an agreement with Express Scripts
that was imprudent and not in the best interests of the members of
the proposed class but enriched Anthem and granted to Express
Scripts excessive discretion to set prescription drug prices, and
(ii) failing to properly monitor and prevent Express Scripts from
overcharging Plaintiffs and the proposed class for copays. The
complaint asserts seven claims for relief under ERISA, four of
which are asserted against Anthem. Plaintiffs seek to recover all
losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief,
disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, joint
and several liability, attorney's fees and costs and interest. We
intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate
outcome cannot be presently determined.


ANZ BANK: Class Action Dismissal May Cost IMF Bentham $9.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the High Court's
dismissal of a customer class action against ANZ over credit card
fees may cost the company that funded the case as much as $9.5
million.

Litigation funder IMF Bentham said it had already written off its
intangible assets related to the ANZ case when the Federal Court
ruled in favor of the bank in 2014.

The High Court's dismissal of an appeal by customers may have
consequences for similar legal actions against other banks, and
IMF Bentham said it will recognize other impairments and higher
costs if its related bank fees cases are discontinued.

That could reduce its net profit for the 2015/16 financial year by
no more than $9.5 million, it said.

IMF Bentham made a net profit of $6.3 million in the 2014/15 year,
and posted a $944,000 loss in the six months to December 2015.

The judgment handed down in Brisbane followed a six-year legal
battle, which initially went the way of customers in a February
2014 ruling before the Federal Court overturned the decision last
year.


AREVALO MANUFACTURING: "Burgos" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
GONZALO BURGOS, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons v. AREVALO MANUFACTURING, INC and JESUS AREVALO,
Case No. 4:16-cv-02245 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2016), seeks judgment
against the Defendants for an amount equal to the Plaintiff's and
the proposed class members' unpaid overtime wages.

The class of similarly situated Plaintiffs is properly defined as:
All welders and painters paid on an hourly basis who were employed
by the Defendants Arevalo Manufacturing, Inc. and Jesus Arevalo
during the three-year period preceding the filing of this
Complaint.

Arevalo Manufacturing, Inc., is a Texas corporation.  Arevalo was
at all relevant times an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce.  Jesus Arevalo is an individual
resident of the state of Texas and is the control person of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Trims Claims in "McNorrill" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Randall Hall of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia granted in part Defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, JOSEPH MICHAEL McNORRILL,
on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ASSET
ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-210 (S.D. Ga.).

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Joseph Michael McNorrill,
as class representative, alleges that Defendant Asset Acceptance,
LLC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by
attempting to collect and, in fact, accepting payments on time-
barred debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. On November 7,
2014, Defendant removed the case to the Court.

Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint because he filed
suit after the FDCPA's statute of limitations ran. In response to
Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a
brief opposing dismissal and amended his Complaint. In light of
the amendment, the Court terminated Defendant's motion to dismiss
as moot.

On December 23, 2014, Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss
arguing that Plaintiff's FDCPA claim is time-barred by the FDCPA's
one-year statute of limitations.

In the Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/sXF3fl
from Leagle.com, Judge Hall found that the FDCPA's statute of
limitations bars Plaintiff's claim concerning Defendant's filing
of a time-barred proof of claim. The Court denied the motion to
dismiss as to Defendant's acceptance of payments on time-barred
debts in connection with a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceeding
because Plaintiff states a timely claim and granted as to
Plaintiff's claim addressed to the filing of time-barred proofs of
claims.

Joseph Michael McNorrill is represented by Christopher A. Cosper,
Esq. -- ccosper@hullbarrett.com -- HULL BARRETT, PC

Asset Acceptance, LLC is represented by Benjamin H. Brewton, Esq.
-- bbrewton@tuckerlong.com -- and Jason W. Blanchard, Esq. --
jblanchard@tuckerlong.com -- TUCKER, EVERITT, LONG, BREWTON &
LANIER, PC -- Chase T. Espy, Esq. -- cespy@balch.com -- and Jason
B. Tompkins, Esq. -- jtompkins@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Class Action Settlement Faces Delay
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Darragh, writing for NJ.com, reports that a planned class
action settlement between residents of the destroyed Avalon at
Edgewater apartment complex and its owners, scheduled for court
action Aug. 1, will be delayed as residents who have separate
lawsuits seek to intervene in the case.

Barry Epstein, whose firm represents residents of 47 units of the
complex that burned to the ground Jan. 21, 2015, said he is asking
the court to intervene in the class action in part because the
settlement would not cover all his clients' losses.

"I don't consider this a meaningful resolution," he said.  "It's
not offering them anything they didn't have a year and a half
ago."

Around 500 people in 240 units lost their residences in the fire,
which was accidentally started by maintenance workers using a
blowtorch.

Mr. Epstein's firm filed a motion in July to intervene in the
class action case, which is a combination of complaints filed into
one in federal court.

The class action, proposed for former residents with property
owner AvalonBay Communities, Inc., was scheduled to go before the
court on Aug. 1 for preliminary approval.  A judge's approval is
needed to certify the class action and the settlement.

Instead, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson scheduled on Aug.
1 as the deadline for Mr. Epstein to file papers arguing why his
clients should be allowed to get involved.

Lawyers for the proposed class action members are opposing the bid
to intervene, saying it would only prolong the difficulties the
former residents have faced since the five-alarm fire.

Besides, they said in a court filing, former residents will be
able to choose to join the class or stay out and continue their
individual lawsuits.

A court already has once dismissed Epstein's bid to intervene as
moot, once the settlement was reached with AvalonBay, it says.

But Mr. Epstein said he is concerned because his firm was not
copied on some records filed in the case, which could affect his
clients.

He also said the terms of the settlement, while not capped, do not
cover all his clients' needs.

The former residents Mr. Epstein's firm represents in 20 separate
state court lawsuits don't have entirely similar losses, he said.
According to the motion to intervene, those former residents "seek
to recover damages beyond those accounted for in the proposed
settlement, including . . . emotional distress damages, full loss
of property interests, full displacement costs, full attorneys'
fees, treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
breach of contract and punitive damages."

Bruce Greenberg, representing the proposed class action members,
said his clients' case "was always about personal property and
never was about emotional distress."

In court papers, lawyers for the proposed class members said the
residents who filed individual lawsuits had opportunities to join
the settlement discussions as they were happening.  Those
residents should not be allowed to delay the settlement process,
they said, because the state cases "remain stalled."

If approved, the class action settlement would allow former
residents to file a claim form to be reviewed by an independent
adjuster who would make the final decision about how much each
family would receive from AvalonBay, court records say.  The
amount available to each member would not be capped and would
provide "full recovery for all losses suffered in the fire," they
said.

Lawyers for the potential class members would be paid
"substantially less" than what they have billed in the case, they
said.

Those who stay in the class action, if it is approved by the
court, would give up any further claims against AvalonBay for the
fire, court records say.

Ronald Giller, a lawyer representing AvalonBay, was not
immediately available for comment.


AVENTURA, FL: Appeals Court Allows Use of Red Light Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher O'Donnell, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that
the cities of Aventura and Hollywood are separated by just a 5-
mile stretch of U.S. 1 in South Florida.

Nonetheless, appellate courts have ruled that Aventura can use
cameras to catch red-light runners while Hollywood's cameras were
declared unlawful and taken down.

Those starkly conflicting opinions likely mean the future of red-
light camera programs, including those in Tampa, Hillsborough
County and Clearwater, will now be decided by the Florida Supreme
Court.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled on July 27 that Aventura's
camera program does not break state law and called on the Supreme
Court to provide a definitive ruling on the controversial traffic
safety programs.

Its decision is at odds with a 2014 ruling by the 4th District
Court of Appeal that Hollywood illegally delegated law enforcement
functions to its camera provider.

A three-judge panel noted the conflict in the July 27 ruling and
said the state's highest court needs to resolve three questions
centered on whether cities are letting camera providers determine
guilt and issue citations.

Typically, workers with the camera companies review video and
photos and refer potential violations to sworn law enforcement
officers, who then decide if a citation is warranted by clicking
on "Accept."

"Because of the broad public and institutional interest in red-
light cameras, we certify three issues to the Florida Supreme
Court as having great public importance," the ruling states.

The Supreme Court is not obligated to accept the case but
typically takes on legal issues where appellate courts have set
conflicting legal precedent.

It's a case that will be watched closely by about 70 Florida
cities and counties that have used cameras to collect millions of
dollars in fines.  A consortium of traffic attorneys who won
against Hollywood used their victory as the basis for a
class-action lawsuit seeking reimbursement of the $158 citations.

If successful, communities and the state could be forced to pay
back millions of dollars to motorists.

Roughly 963,000 tickets were issued in 2015 based on camera data,
according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles.

The state takes 58 percent of the $158 fine, which in 2015 added
up to $54 million.

Concern about the Aventura case led Attorney General Pam Bondi's
office to intervene and side with the city.  Aventura was
appealing against a motorist who overturned his citation in
circuit court by bringing up the Hollywood case.

"It's a phenomenal ruling for local governments all over the state
that want to keep operating their red-light camera programs," said
Ed Guedes, an attorney representing Aventura.

Tampa, which has about 55 cameras monitoring 22 intersections, was
among several local municipalities named in the class-action
lawsuit.

The lawsuit is on hold while a test case between a motorist and
the city of Oldsmar makes its way through the 2nd District Court
of Appeal, which may also rule on the legality of camera programs.

Tampa City Attorney Julia Mandell declined to comment on the
July 27 ruling because of pending litigation but said a Supreme
Court decision would provide some consistency for local
governments.

"It would be important for there to be clarity on this issue," she
said.


AVENTURA FINEST: "Francis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Dione Francis and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Aventura Finest Carwash and Service at the Mall,
Inc., Guillermo Freile and Emilio G. Lourdes, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-23206 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2016), seeks actual damages for
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other and further
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a car-washer/detailer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: (305) 503.5131
     Facsimile: (888) 270.5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Dorado" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ursula Ungaro of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida denied Bank of America,
N.A.'s motion to dismiss in the case captioned, VERONICA DORADO,
Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-CV-
21147-UU (S.D. Fla.).

On March 8, 2011, Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Company loaned
Plaintiff money for the purchase of a home in Lynwood, California.
Defendant thereafter acquired Plaintiff's loan. Plaintiff's loan
was insured by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and, therefore,
subject to FHA regulations.

In 2013, Plaintiff re-financed her loan and requested that
Defendant provide her with a payoff statement. Defendant provided
Plaintiff with a payoff statement dated March 19, 2013.  Plaintiff
alleges that the March 2013 Payoff Statement failed to comply with
FHA regulations and that Defendant, therefore, breached the terms
of the note by collecting post-payment interest after providing
the inadequate March 2013 Payoff Statement.  Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated FHA regulations and
consequently breached the Note because Defendant: (1) did not
provide Plaintiff with a FHA-approved disclosure form before
collecting post-payment interest; and (2) represented on its
standard form that Plaintiff would be required to pay post-payment
interest -- even if payment were to be made on the first of the
month -- which contravenes FHA regulations. On March 20, 2013,
Plaintiff paid Defendant the amount necessary to pay off her loan
in full.

On May 6, 2016, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
because: (1) there is no private right of action for violations of
FHA or Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations; (2)
Defendant had a pre-existing duty to follow HUD regulations, such
that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for breach of contract; and
(3) Plaintiff fails to allege facts to show damages caused by
Defendant's alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff responded to
each of Defendant's arguments and, moreover, argued that the
Motion should be denied even if Plaintiff fails to state a claim
for relief because Plaintiff filed the case as a putative class
action.

In her Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Jq0zRE
from Leagle.com, Judge Ungaro found that Plaintiff can state a
claim for breach of contract based on incorporation of FHA or HUD
regulations and that Plaintiffs stated as claim. The Court further
found that the California law applies to the Plaintiffs' claim for
breach of contract.

Veronica Dorado is represented by Jeremy Simons Korch, Esq. --
jkorch@bastamron.com -- and Brett Michael Amron, Esq. --
bamron@bastamron.com -- BAST AMRON LLP

She is also represented by:

      Fredric J. Bold, Jr., Esq.
      Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
      Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq.
      Michael B. Terry, Esq.
      BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
             1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404)881-4100

            - and -

      Adam Hoipkemier, Esq.
      Michael L. Werner, Esq.
      THE WERNER LAW FIRM
      2860 Piedmont Rd. NE
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Tel: (770)837-342

Bank of America, N.A. is represented by Allen W. Burton, Esq. --
aburton@omm.com -- and William K. Pao, Esq. -- wpao@omm.com --
O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP; Alex Joseph Sabo, II, Esq. --
asabo@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS


BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS: Court Awards Arlington $1.3MM in Atty. Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge A. Richard Caputo of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania awarded Plaintiff
$1,145,230.41 in attorneys' fees and $227,632.37 in costs in the
case captioned, ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v.
BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:02-CV-0134 (M.D.
Pa.).

Arlington and Bridgeport both manufacture and sell electrical
connectors.  After Arlington initiated a lawsuit against
Bridgeport in 2004, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, pursuant to which Bridgeport agreed to be enjoined from
making and selling certain products and their "colorable
imitations."

Bridgeport then redesigned its electrical connectors, and on
February 3, 2012, Arlington sought a contempt order holding that
these redesigned connectors violated the original agreement. A
contempt hearing was held on October 25-26, 2012; December 17,
2012; and February 20, 2013. On March 19, 2013, The Court entered
an order finding Bridgeport in contempt of the original
injunction. Bridgeport appealed the contempt order to the Federal
Circuit, but the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

On November 25, 2013, Arlington moved for attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in enforcing the injunction. On June 23, 2014, the
Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Initial Fee Order) granting
Plaintiff's motion but reducing their requested award in
attorneys' fees from $2,380,704.65 to $1,527,632.35. The Court
granted in full Plaintiff's request for $282,839.55 in costs.
Bridgeport appealed the Initial Fee Order, and Arlington cross-
appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Initial Fee Order
without an opinion.

Arlington now seeks attorneys' fees and costs incurred in post-
trial proceedings in the District Court and on both appeals in the
Federal Circuit.

In his Memorandum dated June 28, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/OpIpPO from Leagle.com, Judge Caputo found that
$1,145,230.41 as the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees and
affirmed the award of $227,632.37 finding that the records
submitted are sufficiently detailed and that the costs are
reasonable, for a total of $1,372,862.78.

Arlington Industries, Inc. is represented by Jacob Z. Zambrzycki,
Esq. -- jzambrzycki@crowell.com -- and Kathryn L. Clune, Esq. --
kclune@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING, Amanda J. Lavis, Esq. --
alavis@rhoads-sinon.com -- and Robert J. Tribeck, Esq. --
rtribeck@rhoads-sinon.com -- RHOADS & SINON LLP

Bridgeport Fittings Inc. is represented by Alan M. Anderson, Esq.
-- alananders@yahoo.com -- ALLEN ANDERSON LAW FIRM, LLC -- and
Robert N. Gawlas, Jr., Esq. -- rgawlas@rjglaw.com -- ROSENN,
JENKINS & GREENWALD, LLP


BUDGET RENT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in "Humphreys"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiff's
motion to certify four classes and six subclasses in the case
captioned, ANNE HUMPHREYS, Plaintiff, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-CV-1302 (E.D. Pa.).

Anne Humphreys initiated the suit after a dispute arose over
damage to a car that she rented from defendant Budget Rent A Car
System, Inc. (Budget). After the plaintiff refused to pay the
alleged debt, defendant Viking Collection Service, Inc. (Viking)
attempted to collect the debt. The plaintiff has filed this action
against both Budget and Viking and challenges the way in which
Budget charges its customers for damage to its rental vehicles.
Specifically, the plaintiff contends that two formulas Budget uses
to calculate the damages owed are impermissible liquidated damages
clauses. She also challenges Budget and Viking's collection
practices with regards to these debts, arguing that these
practices violate both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) and Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act
(PFCEUA).

The plaintiff seeks to serve as a class representative for others
who similarly declined LDW coverage and who Budget charged for
damage to a rental car. Ambitiously, she moves to certify four
classes and six subclasses pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. She proposes that the classes be
certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In his Memorandum dated July 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ODSXR4 from Leagle.com, Judge Stengel found that the
plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating that the
commonality requirement of Rule 23 is satisfied and that the
plaintiff's proposed nationwide classes would not be manageable.

Anne Humphrey is represented by Ann Miller, Esq. -- alm@miller.law
-- LAW OFFICE OF ANN MILLER; Arthur Stock, Esq. -- astock@bm.net
-- Shoshana Michelle Savett, Esq. -- stsavett@bm.net -- and Todd
S. Collins, Esq. -- tcollins@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.;
Daniel M. Harris, Esq. -- dan@nmilawyers.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF
DANIEL HARRIS

Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. And Viking Collection Service, Inc.
are represented by Bridget E. Montgomery, Esq. --
bmontgomery@eckertseamans.com -- Adam M. Shienvold, Esq. --
ashienvold@eckertseamans.com -- Carol L. Press, Esq. --
cpress@eckertseamans.com -- and Ryan Lee Stauffer, Esq. --
rstauffer@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT


BUDGET RENT: Humphreys Appeals Ruling From E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Humphreys filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
captioned Anne Humphreys v. Budget Rent A Car System Inc, et al.,
Case No. 2-10-cv-01302, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The original lawsuit accused the Defendants of overbilling
Pennsylvania residents, who rent Budget cars in Florida, decline
Loss Damage Waiver and then return the cars in a damaged
condition.

The appellate case is captioned as Anne Humphreys v. Budget Rent A
Car System Inc, et al., Case No. 16-8056, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Petitioner-Plaintiff Anne Humphreys, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Shoshana Savett, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3071
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4636
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  stsavett@bm.net

               - and -

          Ann Miller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANN MILLER
          1657 The Fairway #132
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 238-0468
          Facsimile: (215) 405-2653
          E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com

Respondents BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC. and VIKING COLLECTION
SERVICE INC. are represented by:

          Bridget E. Montgomery, Esq.
          Adam M. Shienvold, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          213 Market Street, 8th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 237-6054
          Facsimile: (717) 237-6019
          E-mail: bmontgomery@eckertseamans.com
                  ashienvold@eckertseamans.com

               - and -

          Carol L. Press, Esq.
          Keith E. Smith, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          50 South 16th Street
          Two Liberty Place, 22nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 851-8439
          E-mail: cpress@eckertseamans.com
                  ksmith@eckertseamans.com


BURCH & COMPANY: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Demurrer
------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Kathleen E. O'Leary of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgments in the case captioned, ARI-SCC 3,
LLC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BURCH & COMPANY, INC.,
et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. G050847 (Cal. App.).

The case concerns Plaintiffs' failed multi-million dollar
investment in commercial real estate. In 2005 and 2006, Plaintiffs
invested in five office buildings known as Shoreview Corporate
Center in Shoreview, Minnesota.  The transaction was promoted by
ARI-SCC, LLC (the Company), and its related entities and
affiliates, referred to collectively by the parties as the "ARGUS
Defendants."

In 2012, Plaintiffs (in a class action complaint) sued 30
defendants but only four, on the periphery of the transaction, are
involved in this appeal after the court sustained their demurrers
and entered judgments of dismissal. The four defendants are real
estate broker CBRE, Inc., securities broker and dealer, Burch &
Company (Burch), LaSalle Bank, N.A. (LaSalle), and the law firm
Hirschler Fleischer (Hirschler). Plaintiffs amended their
complaint several times in response to motion practice by the
Defendants. The operative TAC alleges 15 causes of action and
groups the Defendants into three categories. First, there are
seven groups titled "Class Defendants" because they are named by
the "Class Plaintiffs." Second, there are "Non-Class Defendants"
subject to individual claims. Third, there are "Doe Defendants."
This appeal concerns only four "Class Defendants," namely, CBRE,
LaSalle, Burch, and Hirschler.

The trial court sustained Defendants' demurrers to the TAC,
without leave to amend, in part, on the basis that all causes of
action were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The
trial court stated that in addition to sustaining the demurrers on
statute of limitations grounds, the court also considered and
ruled on causes of action for alternative grounds alleged by
Defendants.

On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the ruling that maintaining they
timely filed their complaint and adequately complied with the
delayed discovery rule.

In his Opinion dated July 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/TXjzWn from Leagle.com, Judge O'Leary found that the
trial court correctly sustained the demurrer because Plaintiffs
failed to meet their burden of alleging the necessary facts for
the delayed discovery rule to apply.

ARI-SCC 3, LLC, et at. are represented by Kenneth J. Catanzarite,
Esq. -- kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- Nicole M. Catanzarite,
Esq. -- ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- and Eric V. Anderton, Esq.
-- eanderton@catanzarite.com -- CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION

Burch & Company, Inc. is represented by Joel S. Miliband, Esq. --
jmiliband@brownrudnick.com - BROWN RUDNICK LLP -- Anthony J.
Durone, Esq. -- adurone@berkowitzoliver.com -- and Jennifer B.
Wieland, Esq. -- jwieland@berkowitzoliver.com -- BERKOWITZ OLIVER
WILLIAMS SHAW & EISENBRANT

CBRE, Inc. is represented by Maribeth Annaguey, Esq. --
mannaguey@linerlaw.com -- and Kathryn L. McCann, Esq. --
kmccann@linerlaw.com -- LINER

Hirschler Fleischer, APC is represented by Mark S. Lester, Esq.
-- mlester@lc-law-llp.com -- David Cantrell, Esq. -- dcantrell@lc-
law-llp.com -- and Colin A. Northcutt, Esq. -- cnorthcutt@lc-law-
llp.com -- LESTER & CANTRELL

Lasalle Bank, N.A. is represented by Peter B. Morrison, Esq. --
peter.morrison@skadden.com -- and Kevin J. Minnick, Esq. --
kminnick@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM


CAMP GLADIATOR: Trainer Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stromgren, writing for Club Industry, reports that a trainer
for Camp Gladiator, Austin, Texas, has filed a class action
lawsuit against the fitness boot camp franchise over alleged
unpaid wages.

Shannon Schoellhorn filed the suit in U.S. District Court in
Dallas on July 15 alleging Camp Gladiator violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay minimum wage to intern
trainers and failing to pay overtime to primary trainers.  The
suit, which seeks class certification and jury trial, also seeks
damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DPTA).

Camp Gladiator's attorneys are reviewing the allegations, but the
company's policy is not to comment on pending litigation, a
company spokesperson told Club Industry.

The suit contends that Camp Gladiator interns, who are considered
interns because they are in a Camp Gladiator training program to
become a primary trainer, were not paid any wages for compensable,
non-exempt work performed for Camp Gladiator in a "willful"
violation of the FLSA, according to the complaint.  The
internships can last from six to 10 weeks, depending on how long
potential trainers can complete the assigned tasks.  The complaint
alleges that intern trainers are not classified as employees as
they should be, and Camp Gladiator does not meet Department of
Labor standards for unpaid internships.

Prospective Camp Gladiator trainers must first apply in writing to
the company and attend an information session where there are
often field interviews, according to the complaint.  Trainers who
make it through these two steps are invited to begin the unpaid
internship, which consists of at least 14 required tasks that must
be completed to become a primary trainer, according to the
complaint.  Those tasks include sales, workout program creation,
attending all-trainer meetings with current trainers and
submission of a business plan, according to the complaint.

After individuals pass the internship, they become primary
trainers.  The suit contends Camp Gladiator misclassifies its
primary trainers as independent contractors under factors set by
the Texas Workforce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.
Camp Gladiator does not pay its primary trainers overtime after 40
hours of work in a week, and the company does not keep records of
employee time worked or make attempts to comply with the FLSA,
according to the complaint.

The suit claims that Camp Gladiator is a "business opportunity"
under the Texas Business Opportunity Act (BOA) but is not
registered as such with the Texas Secretary of State, which is a
violation of the DPTA.  Camp Gladiator disseminates statements
that materially misrepresent the character of service it offers to
potential trainers and represents that its service has
characteristics and benefits that it does not have, according to
the complaint, detailing statements made on digital platforms.

The classes proposed in the lawsuit would be interns and primary
trainers.  The intern class would cover all individuals who
performed any amount of unpaid work as a Camp Gladiator Intern.
The primary trainer class would cover all individuals who have
performed more than 40 hours of work in a single week but were not
paid overtime beyond the 40 hours.

Mr. Schoellhorn and any potential intern or trainer class members
are seeking to recover an amount equal to the overtime payments
with an equal amount as liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs
and pre- and post-judgment interest. The class period for both
interns and trainers begins three years before the date an
individual class member opts in to the class by filing a consent
form with the court.

Mr. Schoellhorn also is seeking declarations that Camp Gladiator's
interns and trainers are non-exempt employees under the FLSA and
permanent injunctions to be entered against Camp Gladiator.  The
permanent injunctions would formally reclassify Camp Gladiator
interns and trainers as non-exempt employees, notification of the
reclassification to trainers and interns, and ensure Camp
Gladiator is complying with the reclassification.

Under the DPTA claim, Mr. Schoellhorn is seeking additional treble
damages and an injunction under the Texas Business & Communication
Code.  The injunction would require that Camp Gladiator comply
with the BOA by registering with the Texas Secretary of State,
amend all trainer recruiting materials to accurately describe the
nature of the primary trainer opportunity, and cease use of all
inaccurate or misleading trainer recruitment materials, according
to the complaint.


CARLTON MANOR: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "McKinney" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debi McKinney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Debi McKinney v. Carlton Manor Nursing, et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-00279, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio at Columbus.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.

The appellate case is captioned as Debi McKinney v. Carlton Manor
Nursing, et al., Case No. 16-3895, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          210 S. Washington Ave.
          Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com


CEMEX: Must Face Class Action Over Fuel, Environmental Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, Jacob Fischler, Alex Wolf and Nathan Hale,
writing for Law360, report that a Florida federal judge on
July 26 denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action against
building materials supplier Cemex, ruling that Deere Construction
LLC's allegations that Cemex charged deceptive surcharge fees to
clients are substantive enough to proceed with the case.

U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga denied Cemex's bid to toss
the suit that claims its fuel and environmental surcharges are
merely profit-makers used to unfairly fleece its customers.

Cemex argued that the surcharges were clearly laid out in
contracts with its clients, but Judge Altonaga pointed out that in
the complaint, Deere says the issue isn't that it didn't know
about the surcharges but that they weren't used for their stated
purposes.

"What is allegedly deceptive is that the so-called 'fuel
surcharges' and 'environmental charges,' labeled as such by
defendants, were not in fact designed to cover anything related to
fuel or the environment.  Defendant chose the two adjectives that
describe the fees being assessed," the judge said.

The original complaint was dismissed by U.S. District Judge
Lawrence King in May, who found that it was "light on actual facts
and rife with conclusory allegations masquerading as facts."
Judge King nixed several of the claims with prejudice, but allowed
Deere to amend two claims of deceptive trade practices, giving the
company a chance to show it had facts to illustrate the charges
were improper.

Deere had filed suit in November, claiming an environmental fee
and fuel surcharge billed by Cemex's Florida subsidiary are
deceptive and violated state law because they are not tied to
actual fuel or environmental costs.

Earlier in July, Cemex asked Judge Altonaga to sanction Deere for
bringing the allegedly meritless claims.  Cemex attempted to
bolster the legitimacy of its charges in its motion for sanctions,
saying its fuel surcharges are determined based on the change in
diesel fuel prices contained in the Federal Energy
Administration's weekly reports for the operating region and are
not "arbitrary," as Deere alleges.

An attorney for Deere declined to comment.  A representative for
Cemex could not immediately be reached for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Harley S. Tropin --
hst@kttlaw.com -- Adam M. Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com -- Javier
Lopez -- jal@kttlaw.com  --and Tal J. Lifsitz of Kozyak Tropin
Throckmorton LLP, J. Matthew Stephens -- mstephens@mmlaw.net -- of
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, and Lance A. Harke of Harke Clasby
& Bushman LLP.

Cemex is represented by Michael Nachwalter --
mn@kennynachwalter.com -- Jeffrey T. Foreman --
jtf@kennynachwalter.com -- and Janelle M. Ans of Kenny Nachwalter
PA, and John A. DeVault -- jad@bedellfirm.com -- III and Patrick
P. Coll of Bedell Dittmar DeVault Pillans & Coxe PA.

The case is Deere Construction LLC v. Cemex Construction Materials
Florida LLC et al., case number 1:15-cv-24375, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


COLUSA, CA: Ex-Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that two current county of Colusa employees have filed a class-
action complaint alleging that they were not paid overtime.

Miles Lewis and Cheri Erdelt filed a complaint on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals on July 25 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California against the county of
Colusa citing violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they worked
for more than 40 hours per week without being paid any overtime
wages by the defendants.  The plaintiffs hold the county of Colusa
responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to pay
plaintiffs any overtime premiums at a rate of time-and-one-half in
violation of the FLSA.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek order for a
complete and accurate accounting of all compensation due to
plaintiffs, award plaintiffs all monetary damages, including back
pay and liquidated damages plus interest; all legal fees and any
other relief as the court deems just.  They are represented by
Gary Messing and Jason H. Jasmine -- jason@majlabor.com -- of
Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP in Sacramento.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-01745-JAM-EFB


CONSUMER CREDIT: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado reports that a consumer has filed a class-action
lawsuit against a debt settlement business alleging it called him
without his permission to solicit services.

Jason Alan filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Consumer Credit Card Relief LLC,
Jenssen Varela, Luis Vecchi and Does 1 through 10 alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in January,
he sustained damages and charges for incoming calls from the
defendants in an attempt to solicit services.  The plaintiff holds
Consumer Credit Card Relief, LLC, Jenssen Varela, Luis Vecchi and
Does 1 through 10 responsible because the plaintiff has never
provided any personal information to the defendants and never gave
his consent to call him.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages for each and every violation, $1,500 as treble damages for
each and every violation and any other relief as the court deems
just.  He is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon
of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Beverly Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-05447-BRO-KS


CRAB ADDISON: Plaintiff May Withdraw Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles J. Siragusa of the Western District of New
York granted plaintiff's request to withdraw the motion for
partial summary judgment in the case CHRISTOPHER HART, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CRAB ADDISON, INC. d/b/a JOE'S CRAB SHACK, IGNITE
RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., RAYMOND A. BLANCHETTE, III, KEVIN
COTTINGIM, and RODNEY MORRIS, Defendants, No. 13-CV-6458 CJS
(W.D.N.Y.)

Christopher Hart filed a collective/class action suit, asserting
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the minimum-
wage statutes of states including New York, Maryland, Missouri,
Illinois and Arizona. The court granted conditional certification
of the FLSA collective action, and after the deadline for opting-
in to the action had passed, Hart filed a motion for partial
summary judgment as to the FLSA claims. Defendants cross-moved to
strike Hart's application, citing the one-way intervention rule,
inasmuch as plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification
of their state-law claims.

On February 12, 2016, Hart wrote to the court requesting
permission to withdraw his application. Hart indicated that he
wished to withdraw the application until after the Seventh Circuit
issues a decision in Schaefer v. Walker Bros. Enters., which
involves FLSA tip-credit and dual job issues similar to the
present action. Defendants opposed Hart's request.

On May 4, 2016, the court received further communications from
Hart, supplementing his request to withdraw his application for
partial summary judgment. Hart indicated that the court should
allow him to withdraw his application, because subsequent to oral
argument he learned that some of the potential FLSA collective-
action members were not given notice of the action, due to errors
on defendants' part. Hart indicated that defendants had provided
plaintiffs' counsel with an inaccurate list of putative class
members.  Defendants again opposed Hart's request to withdraw his
motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants contend that Hart
is merely hoping to avoid an unfavorable ruling and that even if
some of the FLSA collective action members did not receive notice,
such fact would not lessen the applicability of the one-way
intervention rule.

Judge Siragusa granted Hart's request to withdraw the motion for
partial summary judgment and denied as moot the defendants' cross-
motion to strike.

A copy of Judge Siragusa's decision and order dated July 26, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/ewq6vTfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
Jared Kimball Cook, Esq.
Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz, Esq.
Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq.
Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
Thomas & Solomon LLP
The Strong Todd House
693 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
Telephone: 585-272-0540
Facsimile: 585-272-0574

Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Howard Ruzal --
jruzal@ebglaw.com -- Kenneth John Kelly -- kkelly@ebglaw.com -- at
Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.; Melissa Jill Osipoff --
mosipoff@fisherphillips.com -- Brian Jeffrey Gershengorn --
bgershengorn@fisherphillips.com -- Seth Diamant Kaufman --
skaufman@fisherphillips.com -- at Fisher & Phillips LLP


CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants Final Approval of "Reyes" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff
Francisco Nieves Reyes' motion for final approval of a class
action settlement in the case captioned, FRANCISCO NIEVES REYES,
Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-00964-MJS (E.D. Cal.).

The action was filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court on
January 30, 2013. It initially was removed to federal court on
March 21, 2013 on grounds of federal question jurisdiction, but
remanded on February 12, 2014. Plaintiffs asserts claims for
failure to pay vacation wages owed upon termination, failure to
pay all wages owed upon termination, and failure to pay final
wages timely upon termination, in violation of the California
Labor Code; unfair competition under the California Business and
Professions Code; and civil penalties under the California Labor
Code's Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). These claims
arise from Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants (1) calculate
the amount of employees' accrued vacation on a monthly basis and
(2) do not pay accrued but unused holiday pay timely upon
termination.

The parties agreed to mediate with respect to these claims and, on
July 30, 2015, during mediation before Barry Winograd, Esq., the
parties reached agreement on material terms of a class action
settlement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement,
Defendants agree to pay the gross settlement amount of $400,000 to
resolve the claims of any participating class members. The
Settlement Class consists of all persons whose employment at CVS's
La Habra, California or Patterson, California Distribution Centers
ended any time between January 30, 2009 and October 31, 2015, and
who were subject to a collective bargaining agreement, not
including the La Habra, California Warehouse Agreements.

On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff Francisco Nieves Reyes, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated moved for final approval of
a class action settlement. Counsel Gregory Karasik appeared on
behalf of Plaintiffs, and counsel Jennifer Zargarof appeared
telephonically on behalf of Defendants.

In his Order dated June 28, 2016 available at https://is.gd/PtsxrV
from Leagle.com, Judge Seng found that the terms of the Settlement
to be fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered that payment from the
settlement fund of settlement administration fees be made to
Simpluris, Inc. in the amount of $6,500 in accordance with the
Settlement, $1,000 to the Labor Workforce Development Agency,
$9,004.54 to Plaintiffs for litigation costs, $100,000 for
reasonable attorney's fees and $5,000 as a class representative
incentive payment to the named Plaintiff Mr. Reyes.

Francisco Nieves Reyes is represented by Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
-- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- KARASIK LAW FIRM

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Caremark RX LLC are represented by Douglas
Roger Hart, Esq. -- dhart@sidley.com -- Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
-- jzargarof@sidley.com -- and Francis S. Lam, Esq. --
flam@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP


DANA CORP: November 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 8 issued the following
statement regarding the Dana Corporation Securities Litigation:

PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL
PENSION FUND; SEIU PENSION PLANS
MASTER TRUST; and WEST VIRGINIA
LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND, On Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MICHAEL J. BURNS and ROBERT C. RICHTER,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-07393-JGC
CLASS ACTION
Senior Judge James G. Carr


SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES1
OF DANA CORPORATION BETWEEN APRIL 21, 2004 AND OCTOBER 7, 2005

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western
Division, that a hearing will be held on November 18, 2016, at
12:00 p.m., before the Honorable James G. Carr, Senior United
States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, James M. Ashley and
Thomas W.L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse, 1716 Spielbusch Avenue,
Toledo, Ohio 43604, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed settlement of the Litigation for $64 million should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
should be entered by the Court; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation
for the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Class
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and Class
Representatives' awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(4) should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF DANA
CORPORATION DURING THE TIME PERIOD COMMENCING ON APRIL 21, 2004,
AND ENDING ON OCTOBER 7, 2005, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"),
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION,
INCLUDING THE RELEASE OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR
PURCHASE OF THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF DANA CORPORATION
DURING THE CLASS PERIOD.  If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you
may obtain copies by writing to Dana Corporation Investor Action,
Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30224,
College Station, TX 77842-3224, or on the Internet at
www.DanaCorporationInvestorAction.com.  If you are a Class Member,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail (postmarked
no later than October 31, 2016) or online no later than October
31, 2016, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased Dana Corporation's Publicly Traded Securities
during the Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is
postmarked no later than October 3, 2016, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.  All members
of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from
the Class in the manner set forth in the Notice will be bound by
any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation
of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Class
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and
Class Representatives' request for their time and expenses must be
received by each of the following recipients no later than October
3, 2016:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
James M. Ashley and Thomas W.L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse
1716 Spielbusch Avenue
Toledo, OH  43604

Class Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
DEBRA J. WYMAN
JEFFREY D. LIGHT
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
JOEL W. STERNMAN
DEAN N. RAZAVI
575 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10022

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Class Counsel at the address listed above or visit the
website listed above.

DATED: July 19, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Publicly Traded Securities means Dana Corporation's common stock
and the following Bonds:  6.5% Bond issued on March 16, 1998, with
a maturity date of March 15, 2008 (CUSIP 235811AH9); 7.0% Bond
issued on March 16, 1998, with a maturity date of March 15, 2028
(CUSIP 235811AJ5); 6.5% Bond issued on March 3, 1999, with a
maturity date of March 1, 2009 (CUSIP 235811AK2); 7.0% Bond issued
on March 3, 1999, with a maturity date of March 1, 2029 (CUSIP
235811AL0); 9.0% Bond issued on February 20, 2002, with a maturity
date of August 25, 2011 (CUSIP 235811AU0); 10.125% Bond issued on
October 16, 2002, with a maturity date of March 15, 2010 (CUSIP
235811AX4); 5.85% Bond issued on May 26, 2005, with a maturity
date of January 15, 2015 (CUSIP 235811BA3); 5.85% Bond issued on
December 10, 2004, with a maturity date of January 15, 2015 (CUSIP
235811AY2); and 8.375% Bond issued by Dana Credit Corp., a
subsidiary of Dana Corporation, on August 22, 2000, with a
maturity date of August 15, 2007 (CUSIP 23581MAB6).


DANTE DEMARTINO: "Moslem" Files Request for Judicial Intervention
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on July 20, 2016, in
the case captioned Mehdi Moslem a/k/a Michael Moslem and Accel
Motors, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. Dante DeMartino, Drew Smith and John
Doe, Defendants, Case No. 705768/2016 (N.Y. Sup., May 16, 2016).

The case asserts breach of fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover sole ownership of Accel shares.
Moslem alleges that his shares in Accel were fraudulently
transferred in order to conceal debt from creditors. DeMartino
opened a line of credit against the assets of the corporation,
without the consent or knowledge of Plaintiff, forcing Plaintiff
to refinance the corporation.  Drew Smith refused to tender any
consideration for the transfer of DeMartino's shares in Accel
Motors.

Mehdi Moslem owns Accel Motors, Inc., a car dealership located at
30-15 Thomson Ave., Long Island City, New York 11101. He issued 51
shares of Accel to DeMartino. DeMartino entered into a real estate
partnership with Drew Smith, allegedly using Accel assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elias C. Schwartz, Esq.
     THE LAW FIRM OF ELIAS C. SCHWARTZ, PLLC
     343 Great Neck Road
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: 516-487-0175

Defendant is represented by:

     Seth Ginsberg, Esq.
     299 Broadway Ste. 1405
     New York, NY 10007

           - and -

     Michael L. Macklowitz, Esq.
     291 Broadway
     New York, NY 10007
     Tel: (212) 227-6655


DISNEY: Labaton Sucharow Mulls Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Ley, writing for Deadspin, reports that ESPN's recent loss of
three million cable subscribers, which was followed by a
significant drop in its parent company's share price, has
attracted the attention of a high-powered law firm that
specializes in bringing class-action lawsuits on behalf of
defrauded investors.

On Nov. 25, 2015, Disney's stock price was at $118.67 per share.
That same day, Disney submitted its annual 10-K filing to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which revealed that the ESPN
cable network--80 percent owned by Disney--had lost three million
subscribers in the fiscal year that ended on Oct. 3.  When the
market reopened on Nov. 27, Disney's stock went into a sustained
free fall, reaching a low of $88.85 per share on Feb. 10.
Currently, Disney's stock price is sitting at $96.42 per share.
ESPN is Disney's greatest profit center, and the subscriber loss
was enough to send Disney investors into a mild panic; it was also
enough to get the Labaton Sucharow law firm thinking about a
potential securities fraud suit.

Sources tell Deadspin that Labaton Sucharow has reached out to
former ESPN employees in an attempt to gather information that
could be used in a potential class-action suit against Disney.
According to a source, the firm is particularly interested in any
internal ESPN or Disney documents -- emails, meeting notes,
slideshow presentations -- that could prove Disney knew the exact
severity of the subscriber loss during the 2015 fiscal year, but
chose not to reveal it to investors.  The question at hand is if
Disney executives knowingly misled investors by publicly
expressing confidence in ESPN's subscriber base while they were
privately aware that a big drop in subscribers had occurred.

According to Adam Pritchard, a University of Michigan law
professor with an expertise in securities fraud, Labaton Sucharow
would have to clear two hurdles in any lawsuit.  First, they would
need to prove that Disney was knowingly misleading investors or
acting recklessly in not revealing the subscriber loss before the
end of fiscal year 2015.  Second, they would need to prove that
the subscriber loss that was revealed in the SEC filing in
November was the driving force behind the drop in Disney's stock
price, which certainly seems to be the case given how most market
analysts reacted to the news.

"If Disney executives knew ESPN had suffered a substantial loss of
subscriptions in fiscal year 2015, they will need a credible
explanation for why they didn't reveal that loss to investors
before the end of the year," said Mr. Pritchard.

No official complaint has been filed yet, but it's not uncommon
for firms that specialize in securities fraud cases to take a hard
look at companies that suffer sharp and unexpected stock hits.  In
such cases, what a firm like Labaton Sucharow is looking for are
former employees of the company in question who can tell them
whether the bad news that led to the sudden drop in stock price--
the three million lost ESPN subscribers, in this case--was
actively concealed by the company.

It's not hard to see why Labaton Sucharow would set its sights on
Disney, which spent the end of the 2015 fiscal year speaking only
in the vaguest terms about ESPN's subscriber base while assuring
investors that the cable network was in great shape.

Disney has not yet returned a request for comment.  Labaton
Sucharow declined to comment on this story.  The SEC, as is
standard, also declined to comment on whether Disney is currently
under investigation.

On Aug. 4, 2015, Disney sent out a press release reporting its
record third-quarter earnings of $2.5 billion.  The release stated
that the operating income of Disney's collection of cable networks
had increased by seven percent for the quarter, and that such
growth was partly driven by ESPN:

Operating results at ESPN were driven by growth in affiliate
revenue, partially offset by lower advertising revenue. The
increase in affiliate revenues was due to contractual rate
increases and an increase in subscribers.  The increase in
subscribers was due to the new SEC Network launched in August
2014, partially offset by a decline in subscribers at certain of
our networks.

That same day, Disney brass held a conference call with investors,
in which CEO Bob Iger admitted that ESPN was suffering "modest"
subscriber losses in the 2015 fiscal year, but refused to share
any specific figures despite being asked a number of questions
about the losses.

The press release's vague language and Mr. Iger's inability to
offer up hard numbers did nothing to dispel the specter of ESPN
subscriber loss.  That uncertainty was enough to send Disney's
stock on a nine percent tumble over the course of one day. The
stock price eventually rebounded, and when it came time for Disney
to report on its 2015 fourth-quarter earnings, the language used
to describe ESPN's performance was just as opaque as it was in
August.

From a Disney press release dated Nov. 5, 2015:

Operating income at Cable Networks increased $381 million to $1.7
billion for the quarter due to an increase at ESPN and, to a
lesser extent, A&E Television Networks (A & E) and the Disney
Channels.

The increase at ESPN reflected higher affiliate and advertising
revenues, partially offset by an increase in programming costs.
Affiliate revenue growth was driven by contractual rate increases
and an increase in subscribers.  The increase in subscribers was
due to a full quarter of the SEC Network, which launched in August
2014, partially offset by a decline in subscribers at certain of
our networks.

Another conference call with investors was held that day, and the
very first question Mr. Iger was asked was about his comments on
ESPN subscriber losses during the Aug. 5 call, which had resulted
in that massive one-day stock drop.

Iger was asked if he wanted to clarify or amend those comments,
and this is how he answered:

"Okay.  Well, regarding your first question, there's nothing that
I would either retract or in any way change.  To just reiterate
what we did, we updated guidance that we had given in 2014 about
ESPN's sub fees, and that guidance holds today.  We also decided
to be candid, I think maybe refreshingly so, about what the
industry was experiencing in terms of sub losses during roughly
the last period.  And we feel that there certainly should be no
reason to panic over comments like that."

"The fact remains that we're in an environment today that's
definitely changing.  It's different than the environment before.
There's a lot more competition for people's time.  With that
interestingly enough, we have an opportunity to distribute our
content in many different ways than we ever have before--in more
different ways than we ever have before.  So there's not only a
silver lining, but there's a glass half full perspective on this,
and that's what we have.

"We also know, specifically related to ESPN, that not only is the
brand strong, which is evidenced, by the way, in the ratings -- 50
of the top cable shows in fiscal 2015 -- of the 50 top cable shows
in fiscal 2015, 26 were ESPN's -- and in addition to that, live
television and live sports in particular is incredibly strong in
this environment, demand for it has probably never been greater
interestingly enough.

"So that's I guess a long way around my saying that we don't have
anything to really add to the comments that we've made.  We feel
bullish about ESPN and ESPN's business.  We like the environment
because we think long-term it gives us more opportunities.  I
should also add that ESPN has been at the forefront of using
technology to create more compelling product for its consumers and
to be present on more platforms.

"Twenty days later, Disney filed its 2015 fiscal year earnings
report to the SEC.  That report revealed--via Nielsen estimates--
that the number of ESPN subscribers had dropped to 92 million in
2015, a decrease of three million subscribers from the previous
year's filing.  Since then, Disney's stock price has yet to climb
back above $106 per share."


DOUBLE J SALOON: "Calderon" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Manuel Calderon, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Double J Saloon, Inc.
d/b/a El Chaparro Mexican Bar & Grill, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-
cv-02210 (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2016), seeks minimum wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable and necessary
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of this action and such other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant owns and/or operates a restaurant in Magnolia, Texas
known as El Chaparro Mexican Bar & Grill where Plaintiff was hired
as a busboy.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
     SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 621-2277
     Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
     Email: bdebes@eeoc.net


DUANE READE: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN ESPINAL, JONATHAN CHIN, GLADYS AIDOO, CRAIG ROSE, and SAUD
SANADY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiffs, v. DUANE READE INC. and WALGREEN CO.,
the Defendants, Case No. 513146/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 29,
2016), seeks to recover damages and attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendants' discrimination against the Plaintiff on the basis of
race and/or color in violation of the New York State Human Rights
Law.

Duane Reade, a subsidiary of the Walgreens Boots Alliance, is a
chain of pharmacy and convenience stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
          Kenneth D. Sommer, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257 6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257 6845
          E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
                  mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
                  ksommer@wigdorlaw.com


EATON CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on July 25 disclosed
that on July 22, 2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of its client Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan
("Local 449") against Eaton Corporation plc ("Eaton" or the
"Company"), and certain of its senior executives (collectively,
"Defendants").  The action, which is captioned Steamfitters Local
449 Pension Plan v. Eaton Corporation plc, No. 16-cv-5894
(S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Eaton between
November 13, 2013 and July 28, 2014, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's unencumbered ability
to divest its automobile-part manufacturing business.  Eaton is an
Ireland-based manufacturer of engineered products marketed to
customers in the industrial, agricultural, construction,
aerospace, and vehicle markets.  For most of its 100 year history,
Eaton primarily was a vehicle component manufacturer.  Since 2008,
however, the Company has been making strategic shifts away from
its vehicle business, while growing its electrical component
businesses.

In 2012, the Company engaged in a merger (the "Merger") with the
Irish-headquartered Cooper Industries plc. ("Cooper"), which
reincorporated the Company in Ireland.  Following the Merger, and
during the Class Period, in response to questions from securities
analysts about the effect of the Merger on the Company's ability
to spin-off its business, Eaton executives falsely assured
investors and the market of the continued feasibility of divesting
the Company's automobile-part manufacturing business on a tax-free
basis.  This prospect was key to investors' and analysts' ability
to value the Company.  As a result, Eaton and its executives
artificially inflated the price of Eaton stock.

On July 29, 2014, Eaton Chief Executive Officer Alexander M.
Cutler ("Cutler") finally informed investors that, contrary to the
Company's prior assurances, Eaton could not feasibly divest its
vehicle business until late 2017 due to tax-law restrictions
related to the Merger with Cooper.  Defendant Cutler further
revealed that the Company had been "well aware" of these
restrictions "all along."  This disclosure caused a material
decline in the price of Eaton stock.

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of
Eaton during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and
may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than September 23, 2016.  A
lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com

You can view a copy of the complaint online at
https://is.gd/dbaVxp

Local 449 is represented by Labaton Sucharow --
http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest
pension funds in the United States and internationally with
collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half
century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time
attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts,
and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been recognized
for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently
ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are located in
New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.


FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Southeast Texas Record reports that a gun mechanic has filed a
class-action lawsuit against his former employer alleging he was
not paid overtime wages.

Darnell Senegal filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on July 15 in the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas against Fairfield Industries Inc.
alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his
employment with the defendant between August 1994 and May, he
regularly worked longer than 40 hours per week without receiving
proper overtime compensation.  The plaintiff holds Fairfield
Industries Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly
refused to pay his extra hours worked at a rate not less than one-
and-one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours and failed to maintain accurate time and pay records.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an award for all
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and all such other
and further relief to which he is justly entitled.  He is
represented by Melissa Moore and Curt Hesse of Moore & Associates
in Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
4:16-cv-02113


FLYING FOOD: "Menjivar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
NURY MENJIVAR, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. FLYING FOOD GROUP, LLC, a limited
liability company; FLYING FOOD GROUP PACIFIC, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-100, the inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and interest for Defendants' failure to
provide meal periods or pay meal period premium wages, failure to
provide rest periods or pay rest period premium wages, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, as well as reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to California Labor Code.

Flying Food is a large-scale catering company providing airline
catering meals and snacks for over 70 leading airlines and top
retail partners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LA VI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfinn.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfinn.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces "Cryer" Class Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Franklin
Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan v. FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., the
Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan Investment Committee,
and DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-04265-EDL (N.D. Cal., July 28,
2016), alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by causing the Plan to invest in funds offered and managed by
Franklin Templeton, when better-performing and lower-cost funds
were available.

The Plan is sponsored by Franklin Resources, Inc., and was
established on October 1, 1981, and amended on October 1, 2010.
The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  Franklin
Resources is a global investment management organization known as
Franklin Templeton Investments.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were motivated to cause
the Plan to invest in Franklin Funds to benefit Franklin
Templeton's investment management business.  Franklin Templeton is
a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware,
with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in
the city and county of San Mateo, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  mkindall@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Creitz, Esq.
          Lisa S. Serebin, Esq.
          CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP
          250 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 466-3090
          Facsimile: (415) 513-4475
          E-mail: joe@creitzserebin.com
                  lisa@creitzserebin.com


GE CAPITAL: December 19 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abdeljalil, et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank,
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Case No. 3:12-02078-JAH-MDD

If you received automated calls to your cell phone from Synchrony
Bank, formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank (or any of its
agents or affiliates) ("Synchrony") from August 22, 2008 through
June 16, 2016, you may be entitled to benefits under a class
action settlement. A federal court authorized this Notice. This is
not a solicitation from a lawyer.

A proposed settlement will provide a total of $7,000,000 (the
"Settlement Fund") to fully settle and release claims of persons
to whom calls were placed on their cell phones by Synchrony using
an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial
voice during the time period set forth above, where the call was
regarding an account not belonging to that person and who did not
provide the number or otherwise consent to the call (the
"Settlement Class").

Plaintiffs Muhammed Abdeljalil, Richard Springer, Joseph A. Hofer
and Bradley Moore (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that these
calls violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. (the "TCPA"). Synchrony denies
Plaintiffs' allegations and denies any wrongdoing whatsoever. By
entering into the settlement, Synchrony has not
conceded the truth or validity of any of the claims against it.

The Settlement Fund shall be used to pay all amounts related to
the settlement, including awards to Settlement Class Members who
submit a valid and timely claim form to receive payment ("Claim
Form"), attorneys' fees and costs to attorneys representing
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class ("Class Counsel"), any service
awards to Plaintiffs and the costs of notice and administration of
the settlement.  Monies remaining in the Settlement Fund if checks
are uncashed will be distributed to a charity approved by the
Court only if subsequent distributions to Settlement Class Members
are not economically feasible.  No amount of the Settlement Fund
will revert to Synchrony.

Your rights and options, and the deadlines to exercise them, are
explained in this Notice. Your legal rights are affected whether
you act or don't act. Read this Notice carefully

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM
If you are eligible to submit a Claim and submit a valid Claim
Form by November 14, 2016, you will receive a payment and will
give up your rights to sue Synchrony and/or any other released
parties on a released claim. Claim Forms may be submitted by mail
to Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank Claims Administrator, P.O.
Box 43420, Providence, RI 02940-3420 or through the
settlement website at www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com

EXCLUDE YOURSELF OR "OPT-OUT" OF THE SETTLEMENT
If you ask to be excluded, you will not receive a payment. This is
the only option that allows you to pursue your own claims against
Synchrony and/or other released parties in the future. The
deadline for excluding yourself is October 14, 2016.

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
Write to the Court about why you believe the settlement is unfair
in any respect.

The deadline for objecting is October 14, 2016. To obtain a
benefit from this settlement, you must still submit a Claim Form.
If you submit only an objection, you will not receive any benefit
from the settlement and you will give up your rights to sue
Synchrony and/or any other released parties on a released claim.

DO NOTHING
If you do nothing, you will not receive any monetary award and you
will give up your rights to sue Synchrony and/or any other
released parties on a released claim.

GO TO THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement. To
speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must file a document
which complies with the requirements set forth on the Settlement
Website.

These rights and options--and the deadlines to exercise them--are
explained in this Notice.

The Court still has to decide whether to approve the settlement.
Payments will be made if the Court approves the settlement and
after any appeals are resolved. Please be patient.

BASIC INFORMATION
1. What is the purpose of this Notice?
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that a proposed
settlement has been reached in the lawsuit entitled
Abdeljalil, et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank, U.S.D.C. Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:12-02078 (S.D. Cal.). Because
your rights will be affected by this settlement, it is extremely
important that you read this Notice carefully. This Notice
summarizes the settlement and your rights under it. Additional
information regarding the settlement is available on the
Settlement Website.

2. What does it mean if I received an email or postcard about this
settlement?
If you received an email or postcard describing this settlement,
that is because Synchrony's records indicate that you may be a
member of the Settlement Class in this action.

3. What is this class action lawsuit about?
In a class action, one or more people called class representatives
(here, Plaintiffs) sue on behalf of people who
allegedly have similar claims. This group is called a class and
the persons included are called class members.
One court resolves the issues for all of the class members, except
for those who exclude themselves from the class.
Here, Plaintiffs claim Synchrony violated the TCPA by placing
calls to cellular telephones from August 22, 2008 through June 16,
2016, through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express consent.
Synchrony denies these allegations and denies any claim of
wrongdoing. The Court has conditionally certified the Settlement
Class for settlement purposes only.
The Honorable John A. Houston is in charge of this action.

4. Why is there a settlement?
The Court has not decided in favor of Plaintiffs or Synchrony.
Instead, both sides agreed to this settlement, thereby avoiding
the risk and cost of further litigation and ensuring Settlement
Class Members will receive some compensation for their claims.
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel think the settlement is best for all
persons in the Settlement Class.

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?
5. How do I know if I am a part of the Settlement Class?
The Court has certified a Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only.  The Settlement Class is defined as:
All persons nationwide whose cellular telephone number, at any
time on or after August 22, 2008 through June 16, 2016, Synchrony
(or any of its agents or entities) called using an artificial or
prerecorded voice and/or using any automatic telephone dialing
system and where the person called was called regarding an account
that did not belong to him or her and did not provide the number
to Synchrony or is not a person who had consented to receiving
calls at that cellular telephone number. Excluded from the
Settlement Class are the Judge to whom the action is assigned and
any member of the Judge's staff and immediate family, as well as
all persons who are validly excluded from the Settlement Class.

"Settlement Class Member" is defined as any person in the
Settlement Class who is not validly excluded from
the Settlement Class. If you are still not sure whether you are
included, you can visit other sections of the Settlement Website,
www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com, you may write to the Claims
Administrator at Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 43420, Providence, RI 02940-3420,
or you may call the Toll-Free Settlement Hotline, 1-844-448-7075,
for more information.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
6. Do I have lawyers in this case?
The Court has appointed the law firms of Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
Hyde & Swigart, and Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. as Class
Counsel to represent you and the other persons in the Settlement
Class.

You will not be personally charged by these lawyers.

7. How will Class Counsel be paid?
Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of up to 30%
of the $7,000,000 Settlement Fund to them for attorneys' fees,
plus actual litigation expenses. Class Counsel also will ask the
Court to approve payment of up to $5,000 to each of the Plaintiffs
for their services as Class Representatives. The Court may award
less than these amounts.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS -- WHAT YOU GET
8. What does the settlement provide?
Settlement Fund. Synchrony will pay the total amount of $7,000,000
into a fund (the "Settlement Fund"), which will cover:

(1) cash payments to Settlement Class Members who submit timely
and valid Claim Forms;

(2) an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, in an
amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund plus actual
litigation expenses, as approved by the Court;

(3) service awards to Plaintiffs, in an amount not to exceed
$5,000 to each Plaintiff, as approved by the Court;

(4) the costs of notice and administration of the Settlement; and

(5) if there are any uncashed checks, a charitable contribution,
approved by the Court.

Cash Payments. All Settlement Class Members are eligible to submit
a Claim Form and receive a cash payment. To submit a Claim Form,
follow the procedures described under Question 11 below.
No Portion of the Settlement Fund Will Return to Synchrony. Any
money remaining in the Settlement Fund after paying all valid and
timely claims to Settlement Class Members, attorneys' fees and
costs to Class Counsel, any service awards to Plaintiffs and the
costs of notice and administration of the settlement will be
paid either: (1) in a second distribution to Settlement Class
Members who submitted valid and timely Claim Forms and whose
initial payments were cashed; or (2) if there are not enough funds
to justify a second distribution, the remaining funds will be
donated to a cy pres recipient approved by the Court. No portion
of the Settlement Fund will return to Synchrony.

9. How much will my payment be?
Your share of the Settlement Fund will depend on the number of
valid Claim Forms that Settlement Class Members submit.

10. What am I giving up to stay in the Settlement Class?
Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will be part
of the Settlement Class and will be bound by the release of claims
in the settlement. This means that if the settlement is approved,
you cannot rely on any Released Claim to sue or continue to sue,
on your own or as part of any other lawsuit, Synchrony and/or any
other Released Parties, as explained in the settlement agreement.
It also means that all of the Court's orders will apply to you and
legally bind you. Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement,
you will agree to release
Synchrony and any other Released Parties, as defined in the
settlement agreement, from any and all claims that arise from the
automated calls to your cellular telephone at issue in this
action.

In summary, the Release includes, without limitation, all claims
that arise out of the use by Synchrony or any of its agents or
affiliates, acting for or on their behalf, of an "automatic
telephone dialing system" and/or an "artificial or prerecorded
voice" to make "calls" to a cellular telephone (to the fullest
extent that those terms are used, defined or interpreted by the
TCPA, relevant regulatory or administrative promulgations and case
law) to make collection calls to a cellular telephone number, by
or on behalf of the Released Parties, including, but not limited
to, claims under or for violation of the TCPA, and the regulations
promulgated thereunder and relevant case law, and all claims for
violation of any other state or federal statutory or common law
that regulates, governs, prohibits or restricts the making,
placing or initiating of calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

If you have any questions about the Release or what it means, you
can speak to Class Counsel, listed under Question 6, for free, or
you can, at your own expense, talk to your own lawyer. The Release
does not apply to persons potentially in the Settlement Class who
timely exclude themselves.

HOW TO OBTAIN A PAYMENT
11. How can I get a payment?
To receive a payment, you must submit a Claim Form. You may get a
Claim Form on the Settlement Website,
www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com, or by calling the Toll-Free
Settlement Hotline, 1-844-448-7075.

Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form completely and
accurately, sign it and submit it. To be valid, the Claim Form
must be completed fully and accurately, signed and submitted
timely. A Claim Form may be submitted by mail to the Claims
Administrator at: Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 43420, Providence, RI 02940-3420, or via
the Settlement Website at www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com
If you are submitting your claim via the Settlement Website, it
must be submitted no later than November 14, 2016. If you are
mailing your Claim Form to the Claims Administrator, it must be
postmarked by that date.

WHEN WILL I RECEIVE MY SETTLEMENT PAYMENT?
12. When would I receive a settlement payment?
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on December 19, 2016
to decide whether to approve the settlement.  If the Court
approves the settlement, after that, there may be appeals.  It is
always uncertain whether these appeals can be resolved, and
resolving them can take time, perhaps more than a year.  Everyone
who sends in a Claim Form will be informed of the progress of the
settlement through information posted on the Settlement Website at
www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com. Please be patient.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
13. How do I get out of the settlement?
If you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Synchrony
or a Released Party, as defined in the settlement agreement, then
you must take steps to get out of the Settlement Class. This is
called excluding yourself from, or opting-out of, the Settlement
Class.

To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send an
exclusion request to the Claims Administrator. To be valid, an
exclusion request must: (i) be signed by the person in the
Settlement Class who is requesting exclusion; (ii) include the
full name and address of the person in the Settlement Class
requesting exclusion; and (iii) include the following statement:
"I/we request to be excluded from the settlement in the Abdeljalil
action." No request for exclusion will be valid unless all of the
information described above is included. No person in
the Settlement Class, or any person acting on behalf of or in
concert or participation with that person in the Settlement Class,
may exclude any other person or any group of persons from the
Settlement Class. To be valid, you must mail your exclusion
request postmarked no later than October 14, 2016 to the
Claims Administrator at Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank
Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43420, Providence, RI 02940-3420.

14. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Synchrony for the same
thing later?
No. If you do not exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue
(or continue to sue) Synchrony or any Released Parties for the
claims that this settlement resolves.

15. If I exclude myself, can I get a benefit from this settlement?
No. If you ask to be excluded, you will not be able to submit a
Claim Form for a settlement payment and you cannot object to the
settlement.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
16. How do I tell the Court that I do not think the settlement is
fair?
If you are in the Settlement Class, you can object to the
settlement or any part of the settlement that you think the Court
should reject, and the Court will consider your views. If you do
not provide a written objection in the manner described below, you
shall be deemed to have waived any objection and shall forever be
foreclosed from making any objection to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the settlement or the award of any
attorneys' fees and costs and/or service awards. To object, you
must make your objection in writing, stating that you object to
the settlement in Abdeljalil, et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank. To
be considered by the Court, the written objection must: (a) attach
documents establishing, or provide information sufficient to allow
the Parties to confirm, that the objector is a Settlement Class
Member, including providing the cellular telephone number called;
(b) include a statement of such
Settlement Class Member's specific objections; (c) state the
grounds for objection, as well as identify any documents which the
objector desires the Court to consider; and (d) if the Settlement
Class Member is represented by an attorney, list all other cases
in which the Class Member has filed an objection.
To be considered, you must file your objections with the Court and
mail your objections to the addresses below no later than October
14, 2016.

For Plaintiffs:
Kazerouni Law Group, APC
Abbas Kazerounian
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

For Synchrony:
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086

Even if you timely and properly object, to obtain a benefit from
this settlement, you must submit a Claim Form. If you object but
fail to submit a Claim Form, you will not receive any monetary
award.

17. What is the difference between objecting and excluding
yourself?
Objecting is telling the Court that you do not like something
about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the
Settlement Class. Excluding yourself means that you do not want to
be part of the Settlement Class.

If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the
case no longer affects you.

IF YOU DO NOTHING
18. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing, you will not receive any monetary award and you
will give up your rights to sue Synchrony and/or any other
Released Parties on a Released Claim. For information relating to
what rights you are giving up, see Question 10.

THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
settlement?
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 2:30 p.m. on
December 19, 2016 at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego,
California 92101, Courtroom 13B. At this hearing, the Court will
consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
If there are valid objections that comply with the requirements in
Question 16 above, the Court also will consider them and
will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The
Court may also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel and
Plaintiffs.

The Final Approval Hearing may be moved to a different date or
time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the
Settlement Website for updates.

20. Do I have to come to the hearing?
No. Class Counsel will appear on behalf of the Settlement Class.
But, you are welcome to come, or have your own lawyer appear, at
your own expense.

21. May I speak at the hearing?
You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Final
Approval Hearing, but only in connection with an objection that
you have timely submitted to the Court according to the procedure
set forth in Question 16 above.

To speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must also file a
document with the Court stating your intention to appear. For this
document to be considered, it must include your name, address,
telephone number and your signature. The document must be filed
with the Court no later than October 14, 2016. You cannot speak at
the hearing if you exclude yourself from the settlement.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
22. How do I get more information?
This Notice is only a summary of the proposed settlement. You can
get a copy of the settlement agreement by visiting the Settlement
Website, www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com, or you can write to the
address above or call the Toll-Free Settlement Hotline,
1-844-448-7075. You can also contact Class Counsel with any
questions at: 1-800-400-6808 or email:
abdeljalil@westcoastlitigation.com.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT, THE CLERK OF THE COURT,
SYNCHRONY OR SYNCHRONY'S COUNSEL ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Favors Dismissal of "Rephen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nelson S. Roman of the Southern District of New
York, denied plaintiff's motion to amend and granted defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case BRADLEY REPHEN, Plaintiff, v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION d/b/a ONSTAR and GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant, No. 15-cv-5206 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.)

Bradley Rephen entered into a lease agreement for a vehicle
manufactured by General Motors Corporation (GM) d/b/a OnStar and
General Motors LLC. Pursuant to the lease agreement, Rephen
received a free, six-month trial of OnStar services which expired
on April 27, 2015.

In or about March 2015, Rephen received a letter from OnStar
notifying him that it had reason to believe Rephen's vehicle had
been sold or traded and therefore the OnStar services would be
cancelled. Rephen called OnStar and informed a representative that
the March correspondence was inaccurate and that Rephen had
neither sold nor traded the car. The representative stated that
she would correct OnStar's records.

On April 10, 2015, Rephen received an electronic communication
cancellation notice from OnStar, notifying Rephen that his OnStar
services had been deactivated because his vehicle was traded or
sold. On April 22, 2015, Rephen again received a second electronic
communication from OnStar. The email informed Rephen that if he
will not accept the OnStar User Terms and Privacy Statement
immediately, or if he will decline, his OnStar trial and
RemoteLink Key Fob Services will be cancelled and the OnStar
hardware in his vehicle will be deactivated.

Rephen brought an action against GM, alleging claims for
violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350
and breach of contract. Rephen then filed a motion to amend the
amended class action complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant filed a cross-motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), to strike the class action allegations and for
sanctions.

Judge Roman denied plaintiff's motion to amend and granted
defendant's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Roman's opinion and order dated July 26, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/qw8brmfrom Leagle.com.

Bradley Rephen, Plaintiff, represented by:

Edward B. Geller, Esq.
Edward B. Geller, P.C.
1053 Sam Mill River Road, Ste., LL1
Ardsley, NY 10502
Telephone: 914-473-6783

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven Robert Kramer
-- skramer@eckertseamans.com -- Kelly Robreno Koster --
kkoster@eckertseamans.com -- at Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott
LLC


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action in Japan Over HPV Vaccines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zosia Chustecka, writing for Medscape, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on July 27 in Japan against the human
papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, which are given to protect against
cervical cancer.

The lawsuit has been filed against the Japanese government and the
manufacturers of the HPV vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline, which markets
Cervarix, and Merck & Co, which markets Gardasil).

It has been filed by lawyers on behalf of 63 plaintiffs (aged 15
to 25 years) who allege that they have experienced adverse effects
after receiving the vaccine and are demanding compensation of at
least JPY15 million ($140,682) each.

The plaintiffs say they experienced a wide range of health
problems, including headaches, fatigue, and mobility impairment,
according to a report in The Japan Times.

The plaintiffs have filed suits in four district courts in Tokyo,
Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka.  In addition to compensation, the
plaintiffs are demanding that the state set up a nationwide
network of specialists to help them with their symptoms, the
newspaper reports.  In addition, they want it to subsidize
research for finding a cure and to support victims as they seek to
continue their educations and search for jobs.

"This lawsuit aims to bring the victims back to health and ensure
a secure life for them, by clarifying the legal responsibility of
the defendants," Masumi Minaguchi, a lawyer representing the
women, told a news conference in Tokyo.  "We want to prevent any
recurrence of drug-induced illness."

The lawyer also said that the number of plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit was likely to increase, as 180 families so far have
asked for consultations.

Vaccine Was Recommended, and Then Not

The HPV vaccines were first launched in Japan in 2009, and
vaccination programs were funded first by local and then the
central government.

In April 2013, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare
recommended that girls between 12 and 16 years of age should
receive the HPV vaccine and included it in the National
Immunization Program (so it was given for free).

However, the Ministry then withdrew that recommendation a few
months later, in June 2013, after highly publicized reports of
alleged health problems that appeared after vaccination, as
previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

The Japan Times newspaper notes that, according to the Ministry,
side effects have been reported by 2945 women (0.09%) from among
the 3.39 million women who had received the vaccines by the end of
April 2013.

A television report about the class action lawsuit on "NHK World"
says that the plaintiffs argue that the government should not have
recommended and subsidized the HPV vaccines before ensuring that
they were safe.

The TV report notes that the Ministry and GlaxoSmithKline have
refused to comment on the lawsuit but that Merck & Co has said
that "it will present evidence in court that will prove the claims
are baseless."

The TV report also notes that cervical cancer is responsible for
3000 deaths annually in Japan and that the incidence in young
women is increasing, which is causing concern among experts.

Japanese experts in obstetrics and gynecology have been
petitioning for the HPV vaccine program to be reinstated in Japan,
arguing that the current low rates of vaccination could lead in
the future to highly preventable cervical and other HPV-related
cancers.

Speaking recently in a Lancet podcast, Ryo Konno, MD, from Jichi
Medical University, Saitama Medical Center, Japan, emphasized that
in 2013, the Ministry of Health did not clearly communicate
whether there was a causal relationship between the vaccine and
the adverse events.  Health officials said that girls could be
vaccinated if parents understood the risks and efficacy, but the
HPV vaccines could not be actively promoted, he said.

"Health officials were so confused," he said.  "Consequently,
coverage from the vaccine dropped from 70% to only 1%."

Dr Konno has received honoraria from Roche Diagnostics and BD and
is the director of the Executive Board of the Japanese Expert
Board for the Eradication of Cervical Cancer, which has received
unrestricted funding from Qiagen; Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and
GlaxoSmithKline.


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Silverstein Litigation Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Globus Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the Silverstein litigation.

The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purports to represent a
class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February
26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and other relief."

"We believe the allegations to be unfounded, and intend to defend
our rights vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation
cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential
loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the
evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual
related to this litigation."


H. TRADING: Faces "Fouissi" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
REDOUANE FOUISSI and other similarly situated individuals, v. H.
TRADING CORP. d/b/a Steve Market 2 f/k/a Steve Market 2 Inc.;
JALAI HAJYOUSEF; and OMAR HAJJE, Case 1:16-cv-23283-RNS (S.D.
Fla., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

H. TRADING CORP.'s business is categorized under Wholesale Art
Goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


HAYRE-HARTER: "Tacza" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO VILCHEZ TACZA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HAYRE-HARTER RANCHES LLC;
THOMAS HAYRE; MARY LELLEE HARTER; TERENCE HARTER; and MOUNTAIN
PLAINS AGRICULTURAL SERVICE, the Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-
62634-PAS (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2016), seeks to recover damages for
Defendants' violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff worked as an irrigation worker but Defendants
misclassified Plaintiff as an open-range goatherder in order to
pay him less than the required minimum wage rate for the
irrigation work Plaintiff performed for Defendants between 2009
and 2015.

Hayre Harter is a sheep and goat farm located in Sheffield, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Willett, Esq.
          Philip J. Moss, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          510 S. Congress Avenue, Suite 206
          Austin, TX 78704
          Telephone: (512) 474 0007 ext. 107
          Facsimile: (512) 474 0008
          E-mail: cwillett@equaljusticecenter.org
                  pmoss@equaljusticecenter.org

               - and -

          Dermot Lynch, Esq.
          Alex Hood, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          1535 High St., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (970) 329 1044
          Facsimile: (303) 957 2289
          E-mail: dermot@towardsjustice.org
                  alex@towardsjustice.org


HOMESTEAD FORD: Faces "Farinas" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Farinas, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Homestead Ford, Inc., a foreign for profit
corporation, d/b/a "Armstrong Ford of Homestead"; William J.
Armstrong, individually, Case 1:16-cv-23279-UU (UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, August 1, 2016),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Homestead Ford, Inc. is in the Motor Vehicle Dealers industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
     ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
     6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
     Miami, FL 33143
     Phone: 305-665-9211
     Fax: 305-328-4842
     E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


HOUSE OF WU: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Barendse" Class Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH BARENDSE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOUSE OF WU, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00590-UA-
MRM (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2016), is an action for damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to
pay overtime wages and retaliation for opposing unlawful payroll
practices.

The putative class of similarly situated employees consists of all
other non-exempt employees working over 40 hours a week employed
by the Defendant within the last three years.

House of Wu operates a retail business in Ft. Myers, in Lee
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 386-0995
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


ICM GROUP: Settles Illawara Customers' Loan Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate McIlwain, writing for Illawara Mercury, reports that a
Wollongong "payday" lender has agreed to stop handing out the
high-interest, short-term loans, after a successful class action
joined by more than 8000 Illawarra customers.

The case, lodged by Legal Aid NSW against the operators of five
Cash AFX stores, was led by a 33-year-old pensioner who had
borrowed $400 for seven weeks to pay for repairs to his car.

The man was then charged a "cheque-cashing fee" of $102, which was
immediately taken from the loan proceeds by one of the companies
involved in the case.

Wollongong Legal Aid lawyer Matthew Turner said the class action
argued Cash AFX was "breaching five different laws including the
National Credit Code" by charging this fee.

He argued the fee would have been in breach of the credit code as
it would have been in excess of the 48 per cent interest cap which
applies to regulated loans.

The claim included over 8000 people who had obtained payday loans
in similar circumstances to the lead plaintiff over the past five
years.

The defendants -- ICM Group Finance, ICM Group Pty Limited and the
sole director of the companies Michael O'Shea -- initially
rejected these claims but have now agreed to settle the case.

In the terms of settlement, Mr. O'Shea agreed that his companies
would not engage in any further payday lending and would not
collect more than $40,000 in payments on outstanding loans.
However the Cash AFX stores -- in Wollongong, Warrawong, Corrimal,
Warilla and Dapto -- remain free to carry out other business
activities.

"We are pleased that instead of fighting a protracted court case,
the companies and their director agreed to settle the matter and
not to engage in any further payday lending," Mr. Turner said.

"This is an excellent result for the people of the Illawarra.  We
believe credit provision should occur lawfully and be compliant
with the regulations, so being able to stop this practice means a
better outcome for people who want to borrow."

He said payday loans were often given to vulnerable people who
relied on Centrelink payments and needed money for unexpected
expenses urgently.

"It is important that lenders of last resort obey the rules which
limit how much they can charge for such loans, and it is essential
that laws regulating payday lending are enforced to protect
vulnerable borrowers," Mr. Turner said.


INDIANA: DOT Faces Class Action Over Chip & Seal Process
--------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rhoades, writing for Reporter-Times, reports that four
people have been reimbursed by the Indiana Department of
Transportation for damage to their vehicles caused by the chip and
seal process performed on Ind. 67 in the fall of 2014.

If Eric Rogers has his way, all of the nearly 370 people who filed
tort claims will have a chance to collect.  Mr. Rogers' attorney
filed a lawsuit on July 22 in Morgan County Superior Court I
asking to recover damages and requesting that the suit be deemed
class action.

Chip and seal is a process performed by INDOT in which a layer of
tar is applied to fill cracks in a road.  A layer of stone is put
on top of the tar, which is followed by a sealer.  INDOT officials
say the process extends the life of the road before it needs
completely replaced.

Loose gravel, though, was thrown up as cars and trucks passed
through the project, causing damage to vehicles, Ryan Dillon, of
the Dillon Legal Group, wrote in the lawsuit he filed for Rogers.

According to information provided by INDOT, 366 people filed tort
claims against the state over damage to their vehicles.  They
allege the loose stone on the pavement caused their damage. Dillon
said the state only paid four claims and rejected the others.

One of those who was rejected, Steve Litz of Monrovia, sued the
state and won.

On May 20, Morgan County Magistrate Court Judge Sara Dungan ruled
in Mr. Litz' favor and against the state for $537.39 plus court
costs.  Judge Dungan said the state has six months to pay
Mr. Litz, who said he is optimistic about getting his money back.

"It's rewarding to have a judge who understands that the state
simply can't flex its muscle and automatically win," Mr. Litz
said.  "I think this is a good example of why citizens shouldn't
just sit back and let the state take advantage of them."

In his lawsuit, Mr. Dillon is asking Judge Pete Foley to make the
case a class action lawsuit and allow others to file for damages.
Only those who initially filed tort claims and were denied would
be allowed to join a class action lawsuit.

Tort claims had to have been filed within 270 days of the initial
damage.

At this time, no hearing date has been scheduled.


INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Under FLSA, Min. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO DOUGLAS and FAUSTINO LICEAGA, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, v. INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL
SERVICES LLC, ANTHONY BARTOLOMEO, and CHEZ DEGENNARO, jointly and
severally, Case 1:16-cv-06096 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016), was
filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minimum Wage
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL SERVICES LLC --
http://www.innovativeelectricalservices.net/-- provides
electrical services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
     Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
     Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER P.C.
     277 Broadway, Suite 408
     New York, NY 10007-2036
     Phone: (212) 229-2249
     Fax: (212) 229-2246
     E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
             bsherr@zellerlegal.com
             jazeller@zellerlegal.com


JGWPT HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in "Sanders" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sara L. Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to dismiss in the case VALERIO SANDERS, JANEKA HICKS,
KENNETH JENNINGS, and KEVIN RINCK, Plaintiffs, v. JGWPT HOLDINGS,
INC., JGWPT HOLDINGS, LLC, J.G. WENTWORTH LLC, PEACHHI, LLC, PEACH
HOLDINGS, INC., PEACHTREE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, PEACHTREE
SETTLEMENT FUNDING LLC, SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC d/b/a PEACHTREE
SETTLEMENT FUNDING, BRIAN P. MACK, and THE MACK LAW GROUP, P.C.,
Defendants, No. 14 C 9188 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Valerio Sanders, Janeka Hicks, Kenneth Jennings, and
Kevin Rinck all were beneficiaries of periodic annuity payments
paid to them as part of structured settlement contracts who
transferred their rights to annuity payments in exchange for an
upfront lump sum from defendants JGWPT Holdings, Inc., JGWPT
Holdings, LLC, J.G. Wentworth, LLC, PeachHI, LLC, Peach Holdings,
Inc., Peachtree Financial Solutions, LLC, or Peachtree Settlement
Funding LLC or defendant Settlement Funding, LLC d/b/a Peachtree
Settlement Funding.

Defendants are entities engaged in the business of purchasing
structured settlement annuity payments, as well as their
attorneys.

The exchange took place by way of factoring transactions approved
by Illinois courts after defendants Brian P. Mack and The Mack Law
Group, P.C. filed petitions for court orders approving the
transactions. Plaintiffs allege that defendants misled them and
other unsuspecting individuals into selling their annuity payments
for less than they were worth, despite an anti-assignment clause
in their structured settlement contracts, and wrongly obtained
orders approving the transactions under the provisions of the
Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act.

In their second amended complaint, plaintiffs brought federal
claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), conspiracy to
violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d), and state law claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract,
civil conspiracy, joint enterprise, conversion, and unjust
enrichment. The Mack defendants and JGWPT defendants moved to
dismiss all claims in the second amended complaint, and Settlement
Funding, LLC moves to dismiss the claims of Janeka Hicks.

Judge Sara L. Ellis granted in part and denied in part the Mack
defendants' motion to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part
the JGWPT Defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted in part and
denied in part Settlement Funding's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Ellis's opinion and order dated July 26, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/PFI2mDfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com
-- Randall Seth Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- at Holland,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze, L.L.C.; Ryan James Mahoney and David
Cates at Cates Mahoney, LLC; Jeffrey M. Goldberg -- at Jeffrey M.
Goldberg & Associates; Brad Lee Badgley -- at Brad L. Badgley,
P.C.

JGWPT Holdings, Inc., JGWPT Holdings, LLC, J.G. Wentworth, LLC,
Peachhi, LLC, Peach Holdings, Inc., Peachtree Financial Solutions,
LLC, Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC, Settlement Funding LLC,
Defendants, represented by Timothy Charles Sansone
-- tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com -- A. Courtney Cox --
ccox@sandbergphoenix.com -- Anthony L. Martin --
amartin@sandbergphoenix.com -- at Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard
P.C.; Abraham Judson Souza -- asouza@reedsmith.com -- Diane Green-
Kelly -- dgreenkelly@reedsmith.com -- Margaret Grignon -- Maria
Teresa Pellegrini -- mpellegrini@reedsmith.com -- Mark S. Melodia
-- mmelodia@reedsmith.com -- & Michael David Richman --
mdrichman@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP

Mack Law Group, PC and Brian P. Mack, Defendants, represented by
John Francis Grady -- jgrady@gradybell.com -- Lauren F. Catlin --
lcatlin@gradybell.com -- at Grady Bell LLP

J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Abraham Judson Souza -- asouza@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP


JOJOLIA INC: "Apilado" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR APILADO, the Plaintiff, v. EMILNA A VALES, JOJOLIA INC.,
LEONARDO DANAO, JR. and DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No.
RG16825337 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover
damages as a result of Defendant's alleged willful and fraudulent
violations of the Labor Code by failing to: 1) pay proper overtime
wages; 2) pay minimum wage; 3) record, maintain and provide true
and accurate employee time and pay records, 4) provide true and
proper itemized wage statements, 5) report to government agencies
all payments made to employees, 6) pay employment taxes on such
payment, and 7) secure and maintain workers' compensation
insurance.

Jojolia is in the bakery and restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan A. Villanueva, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALLAN A VILLANUEVA
          1001 Bayhill Drive, Suite 200
          San Bruno, CA 94066
          Telephone (650) 616 4144
          Facsimile (650) 479 3086


JT MEAT: Faces "Garcia" Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORIS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JT MEAT & GROCERY CORP., d/b/a FINE FARE
SUPERMARKETS, RETAIL GROCERS GROUP, INC. and KEVIN TAVERA, Case
1:16-cv-06103 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, and related damages for alleged unpaid minimum wage and
unpaid overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the New York Labor Law.

JT Meat and Grocery Corp. operates a supermarket at Bronx, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
     THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
     11 Broadway, Suite 960
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 344-9022
     Fax: (212) 344-0301


JUI LI: Class Cert. Granted in Automotive Sheet Metal Parts Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Wright, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Judge
Lynn Adelman has granted class certification in an aftermarket
automotive sheet metal parts class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

In Fond du Lac Bumper Exchange v. Jui Li Enterprise et al, the
defendants are accused of contriving to fix the cost of the
automotive sheet metal parts -- replacement parts for cars not
contrived by the original manufacturers and distributed through
auto manufacturers' service channels -- and violating the Sherman
Act, an act that guards the public from monopolies.

After submitting the commonality and predominance requirements for
class certification concerning a Sherman Act claim, the
plaintiffs' arguments were accepted.  Allegations include that the
defendants had some sort of conspiracy in motion, there were
effects of the conspiracy evident in the market and that those in
the proposed class were harmed.

The commonality requirement refers to common legal matters and
facts among the class members and the predominance condition
requires there be common questions to all class members, all of
which must be fulfilled by the same evidence and approach during
damages calculations.  The court found these requirements
satisfied through the regression analysis of the plaintiffs'
expert, a common analysis type for class action lawsuits.

"As a general matter, plaintiffs and defendants each submit their
own expert analysis to argue for or against certifying a class. In
this case, plaintiffs presented the court with regression
analysis," Deirdre McEvoy -- dmcevoy@pbwt.com -- counsel in
Patterson Belknap's litigation department, told Legal Newsline in
an email interview.

"That analysis showed what the market would have been like in the
absence of anti-competitive conduct by defendants, and compared
that hypothetical market to the actual market, which they claim
was affected by defendants' conspiracy.

"Many plaintiffs seeking to certify a class offer do some kind of
regression analysis, but expert analysis varies."

In the analysis, the plaintiffs' expert provided Judge Adelman
with a pricing structure analysis to show that the prices of
different automotive products would have actually been lower had
the defendant's restrictions on the market had not been in place.
The defendants' expert's regression analysis also showed the
but-for price -- the estimated price the class members would have
paid if the defendant's anti-competitive conduct was not in
place -- of the automotive parts.

The class is composed of the direct purchasers of the aftermarket
automotive parts.

"The court projected that the class would be composed of 400-500
class members," Mr. McEvoy said.  "Defendants could be liable for
treble damages -- that is, three times the amount of damages they
are found liable for."

In similar cases concerning antitrust lawsuits and auto parts and
installation, defendants have had to pay anywhere from $2 million
to $24 million in criminal fines.


KATE SPADE: Judge Denied Defendant's Bid to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of
California, denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
GAYLIA PICKLES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KATE SPADE AND COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05329-VC (N.D. Cal.)

Laura Marks, Gaylia Pickles, and Donna Vandiver have sued Kate
Spade and Company, alleging Kate Spade has violated California's
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et
seq., California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17500 et seq., California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq., and Texas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 17.46et seq.

Plaintiffs allege that Kate Spade manufactures inferior quality
goods for sale at its outlet stores, while giving shoppers the
false impression that those items were manufactured for and
previously sold at regular Kate Spade boutiques at much higher
prices, such that shoppers wrongly believe they are getting
boutique-quality goods for a bargain.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of California consumers and a
class of Texas consumers. Kate Spade has moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint in its entirety for failure
to state a claim.

Judge Chhabria denied defendant's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Chhabria order dated July 26, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/NnU4DBfrom Leagle.com.

Gaylia Pickles, Plaintiff, represented by David Samuel Markun --
dmarkun@mzclaw.com -- Edward Scott Zusman -- ezusman@mzclaw.com
-- Kevin K. Eng -- keng@mzclaw.com -- Mark A. Ozzello --
mozzello@mzclaw.com -- Ari Yale Basser -- abasser@mzclaw.com -- at
MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE AND COMPTON, LLP

Donna Vandiver and Laura Marks, Plaintiffs, represented by Ari
Yale Basser -- abasser@mzclaw.com -- at MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE AND
COMPTON, LLP; Michelle Eddington; Che Dawn Williamson -- at
Williamson Law Firm

Kate Spade and Company, Defendant, represented by P. Craig Cardon
-- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- Dylan John Price --
dprice@sheppardmullin.com -- Jay Thomas Ramsey --
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP


KBS FLOORING: "Camargo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Gilbert Camargo, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. KBS Flooring LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-1348 (M.D. Fla., July 26, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a flooring business in St. Cloud, Osceola
County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a carpet installer.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Main No.: 813-224-0431
     Direct No.: 813-379-2565
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
             jriley@wfclaw.com


KRAFT FOODS: Court Dismisses CEA Claims on Wash Trading Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, HARRY PLOSS, as Trustee for the HARRY PLOSS
TRUST DTD 8/16/1993, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC. and
MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendants, Civil No. 15 C 2937 (N.D. Ill),
District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted Kraft's motion to
dismiss as to the claims under Section 9(a)(2) of the Commodity
Exchange Act involving the wash trading scheme, dismissing those
claims without prejudice; and denied in part as to the CEA,
Sherman Act, and unjust enrichment claims related to the long
wheat futures scheme.

Harry Ploss brings suit on behalf of himself and a proposed class,
alleging that Kraft Food Group, Inc. and Mondelez Global LLC
manipulated the market by maintaining a large position of wheat
futures in an attempt to influence prices, and not for any
legitimate need for wheat. Ploss also alleges that Kraft
manipulated the market by engaging in unlawful wash trades and
reporting them to the public as legitimate transactions, in order
to create an impression of greater market activity.

Ploss brings seven total counts: (1) manipulation under Section
9(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) for the long wheat
futures scheme; (2) manipulation under Section 6(c)(1) of the CEA
for the long wheat futures scheme; (3) principal-agent liability
under Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the CEA for the long wheat futures
scheme; (4) manipulation under Section 9(a)(2) of the CEA for the
wash trading scheme; (5) manipulation under Section 6(c)(1) of CEA
for the wash trading scheme; (6) violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act; and (7) unjust enrichment.

Kraft moves to dismiss the entire Complaint, arguing that Ploss
has not stated any viable claim.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 27, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/1RGor2 from Leagle.com, Judge Chang reversed the
judgment because the class notice failed in its fundamental
purpose -- to apprise class members of the terms of the proposed
settlement. The erroneous notice injected a fatal flaw into the
entire settlement process and undermines the court's analysis of
the settlement's fairness.

Harry Ploss is represented by Christopher M. McGrath, Esq. --
CMcGrath@lshllp.com -- Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq. --
BJaccarino@lshllp.com -- Christopher Lovell, Esq. --
CLovell@lshllp.com -- and Gary S. Jacobson, Esq. --
GSJacobson@lshllp.com -- LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN & JACOBSON, LLP -
- Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. -- lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- and
Marvin Alan Miller, Esq. -- mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- MILLER LAW
LLC

Robert Wallace, et al. are represented by W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
-- wjbruckner@locklaw.com -- Heidi M. Silton, Esq. --
hmsilton@locklaw.com -- and Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. -- kmbaxter-
kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAEUN PLLP -- Donald Lewis
Sawyer, Esq. -- dsawyer@fklmlaw.com -- Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. --
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com -- and Steven A. Kanner, Esq. --
skanner@fklmlaw.com -- FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC -- and
Christopher Lovell, Esq. -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- LOVELL STEWART
HALEBIAN, LLP

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is represented by Dean Nicholas Panos,
Esq. -- dpanos@jenner.com -- J. Kevin McCall, Esq. --
jmccall@jenner.com -- Nicole Amie Allen, Esq. -- nallen@jenner.com
-- and Thomas Edward Quinn, Esq. -- TQuinn@Jenner.com -- JENNER &
BLOCK LLP

Service List, is represented by Christian Levis, Esq. --
clevis@lowey.com -- Raymond P Girnys, Esq. -- rgirnys@lowey.com
-- Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. -- ghorn@lowey.com -- Peter D. St.
Phillip, Jr., Esq. -- pstphillip@lowey.com -- and Vincent
Briganti, Esq. -- vbriganti@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN &
HART, P.C. -- Anthony F. Fata, Esq. -- afata@caffertyclobes.com
-- and Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Esq. --
jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
SPRENGEL LLP -- Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. -- bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com
-- Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- and
Susan Rogers Schwaiger, Esq. -- sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com --
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. -- Donald Lewis Sawyer, Esq. --
dsawyer@fklmlaw.com -- Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. --
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com -- and Steven A. Kanner, Esq. --
skanner@fklmlaw.com -- FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC --
Zachary Jayson Ziliak, Esq. -- Zachary@ziliak.com -- ZILIAK LAW,
LLC


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Nov. 17 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
settlement of the securities class action lawsuit is subject to
further consideration at the settlement hearing scheduled to be
held on November 17, 2016 and to several contingencies including
final court approval.

On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a
securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was
subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its founder,
former Chief Executive Officer and President, former Chief
Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer
(collectively, the "Kiken Defendants"). On or about September 17,
2014, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and
Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a
securities class action lawsuit (the "Hallandale Lawsuit") in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and
President and its former Chief Financial Officer (collectively,
the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the Kiken Defendants, the
"Defendants"). On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken
Lawsuit with the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the
consolidated action as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation (the "Securities Class Action Litigation").

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that
the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements
that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead
plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements
or omissions related to their compliance with the Lacey Act, the
chemical content of certain of their wood products, and their
supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not
quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint but, on December 21,
2015, the court denied this motion.

On April 27, 2016, the Defendants entered into an agreement in
principle, a Memorandum of Understanding ("Securities Class Action
MOU"), with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action. On June 15, 2016, the Company entered into a
definitive settlement agreement (the "Securities Class Action
Stipulation") and, on July 7, 2016, the court entered an order
granting preliminary approval for the Securities Class Action
Stipulation. The terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation
were consistent with those of the Securities Class Action MOU.
Under the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the
Company, through its insurers, will contribute $26,000 to a
settlement fund that will be used to compensate individuals who
purchased the Company's shares during the period from February 22,
2012 to February 27, 2015. In addition, under the terms of the
Securities Class Action Stipulation, the Company will issue 1
million shares of its common stock to the settlement fund with a
value of approximately $15,420 based on the $15.42 closing price
of the Company's common stock on June 30, 2016. The Company has
classified the loss contingency of $41,420 as accrued securities
class action and the expected insurance proceeds of $26,000 as
insurance receivable on the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet. The amount of loss associated with the issuance of
shares of common stock as a part of the settlement will be
determined based on the trading value of the shares on the date of
issuance, which could increase the recognized loss if the trading
value increases or result in a gain if the trading value
decreases. The Company will record the fair value of the expected
number of shares to be issued in its condensed consolidated
balance sheet based on the closing price of its common stock as of
the reporting date until the liability is settled. The Company
recorded a benefit of $600 within selling, general and
administrative expense during the second quarter of 2016 to
reflect the decrease in the closing price of the Company's common
stock between April 27, 2016, the initial recording of the
liability, and June 30, 2016.

The settlement is subject to further consideration at the
settlement hearing scheduled to be held on November 17, 2016 and
to several contingencies including final court approval. There can
be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved
or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. The ultimate
resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition and results of operations.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Product Liability Case in Expert Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that fact
discovery has closed and expert discovery is now proceeding in the
litigation relating to products liability.

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts
and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde
emissions from the Company's flooring products (collectively, the
"Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various
actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which
although not identical are generally similar, including
negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act
violations, state unfair competition act violations, state
deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to
warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes
consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers
that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The
plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief and various damages, including restitution, actual,
compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive
damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the
plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class
actions. Plaintiffs had not quantified damages sought from the
Company in these class actions.

On June 12, 2015, United States Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring and
consolidating ten of the related federal class actions to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court"). In a series of subsequent conditional
transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to
the Virginia Court. The Company continues to seek to have any
newly filed cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia
Court and ultimately, the Company expects all federal class
actions involving formaldehyde allegations, including any newly
filed cases, to be transferred and consolidated in the Virginia
Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In
re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation.

Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class
Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The
complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its flooring
products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of
consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and
declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied
warranty under California law.

Thereafter, on September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the First
Amended Representative Class Action Complaint ("FARC") in which
they added implied warranty claims under New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law, as well as a federal warranty claim. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The
Virginia Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent
misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred
as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion.
The Company also filed a motion to strike nationwide class
allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not yet ruled. The
Company also filed a motion to strike all personal injury claims
made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed
and the Virginia Court has ordered that no Chinese formaldehyde
class action pending in this lawsuit will seek damages for
personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order does not affect
any claims for personal injury brought solely on an individual
basis. Fact discovery has closed and expert discovery is now
proceeding in this matter.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Steele" Action in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on or
about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of
Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's
allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment,
(v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele
did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (i)
compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to the Company's
breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the
Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer
Packaging and Labelling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety
Act.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Suit Over Abrasion Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend litigation relating to abrasion
claims.

On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and two amended complaints
were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abrasion Plaintiffs") sought to
certify a national class composed of "All Persons in the United
States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand laminate
flooring products from Defendant for personal use in their homes,"
or, in the alternative, 32 statewide classes from California,
North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Connecticut,
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
York, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and
Louisiana. The SAC alleges violations of each of these states'
consumer protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, as well as breach of implied warranty and fraudulent
concealment. The Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged
damages in the SAC but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
sought an order certifying the action as a class action, an order
adopting the Abrasion Plaintiffs' class definitions and finding
that the Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an
order appointing their counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief
prohibiting the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell
laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings,
restitution of all monies it received from the Abrasion Plaintiffs
and class members, damages (actual, compensatory, and
consequential) and punitive damages.

The Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint and the
Company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The court
decided that it would decide the motion only as to the California
plaintiffs, but ordered all the non-California plaintiffs dropped
from the action. The non-California plaintiffs have 60 days to re-
file separate complaints in the Central District of California,
which will then be transferred to the district court located in
the place of residence of each non-California plaintiff whose
claim is refiled.

The Company disputes the Abrasion Plaintiffs' claims and intends
to defend these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from these actions.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend the litigation by Dana Gold.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star
bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that the Company sells is
defective. On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint
that added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold,
"Gold Plaintiffs"). The Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. After holding a hearing and taking the motion under
submission, the court dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims
but allowed certain omission-based claims to proceed. Gold
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015,
and then a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016. In the
Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that the Company
has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by
falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo
Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective nature.
Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class of individuals
in the United States who purchased the Bamboo Product, as well as
seven state subclasses of individuals who are residents of
California, New York, Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo
Product for personal, family, or household use. Gold Plaintiffs
did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a
declaration that the Company's actions violate the law and that
the Company is financially responsible for notifying all purported
class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring the Company to
replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in
structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a
declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the
purported classes, all or part of its profits received from the
sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full
restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members.

The Company filed its answer to the Third Amended Complaint on
February 3, 2016, and discovery in the matter is now proceeding.
The Company disputes the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation,
the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that
must be met for, among other things, class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Ross" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend the litigation by Joseph and Linda
Ross.

On or about February 23, 2016, Joseph Ross and Linda Ross
(collectively, "Ross") filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the Second Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, County of
Washoe. Ross seeks the certification of a class of individuals in
the State of Nevada who purchased certain hardwood flooring
products produced in China (the "Ross Products"). Ross alleges
that the Ross Products are defective due to the Ross Products
being contaminated with certain wood-boring insects. In
particular, Ross's allegations include (i) breach of warranty,
(ii) negligence, (iii) strict liability, (iv) negligent
misrepresentation, (v) willful misconduct, and (vi) unjust
enrichment. In the complaint, Ross seeks (i) general and special
damages according to proof in excess of $50,000, (ii) attorneys'
fees and costs according to proof, (iii) prejudgment and post-
judgment interest on all sums awarded, according to proof at the
maximum legal rate, (iv) costs of the lawsuit incurred, (v)
restitution as authorized by law, (vi) punitive damages as
authorized by law, and (vii) specific performance under the
Company's express warranties.

The Company disputes Ross's claims and intends to defend the
matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification and success on
the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss that may result from this action.


MARYLAND: Court Approves Settlement in Detainees' Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland approved the
Settlement Agreement and the Amendment, and granted requested
attorneys' fees in the case captioned, JEROME DUVALL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor of Maryland, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. ELH-94-2541 (D. Md.).

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for approval of settlement
agreement as amended filed on June 21, 2016, which also includes
an uncontested request for attorneys' fees submitted by
plaintiffs' lawyers as part of the proposed Agreement.  The motion
pertains to a long-running class action initiated by detainees at
the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC), challenging conditions
of confinement. The Amendment was necessitated by the closure in
September 2015 of the Men's Detention Center, which was previously
part of BCDC, and the anticipated closure in 2016 and/or 2017 of
the Women's Detention Center, the Annex, and the Wyatt Building.
Therefore, the parties have amended the Agreement so as to extend
the coverage of most of the provisions in the Settlement Agreement
to pretrial detainees at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake
Center (BCBIC).

The plaintiffs consist of "that class of persons who are now or
who will in the future be confined to the Baltimore City Detention
Center." The defendants "are the persons holding the following
Maryland state offices: Governor, Secretary of the Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services, Commissioner of Pretrial
Detention and Services, Commissioner of Corrections, and the
Warden of the Detention Center."

In her Memorandum Opinion dated June 28, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/0Q0lRW from Leagle.com, Judge Hollander concluded
that the Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements of 18
U.S.C. Sec. 3626(a)(1)(A), in that it is narrowly drawn, extends
no further than necessary to correct the violation of federal
rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
violation of the federal rights of the plaintiffs.

The Court approved the requested attorneys' fees in the amount of
$450,000 finding it satisfactory and reasonable under the lodestar
method and the Johnson factors.

Jerome Duvall, et al. are represented by David Cyrus Fathi, Esq. -
- dfathi@npp-aclu.org -- and Gabriel Baron Eber, Esq. --
geber@npp-aclu.org -- ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT

They are also represented by:

       Debra Lynn Gardner, Esq.
       PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
       1 North Charles Street, Suite 200
       Baltimore, MD 21201
       Tel: (410) 625-9409

            -- and --

       Elizabeth Rose Alexander, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF ELIZABETH ALEXANDER
       1416 Holly Street
       Northwest Washington, DC 20012
       Tel: (202) 291-3774

Thomas Perkins, et al. are represented by:

       Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Esq.
       Laura Mullally, Esq.
       MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
       St. Paul Plaza, 200 St. Paul Place
       Baltimore, MD 21202
       Tel: (410) 576-6300

Brenda M. Shell is represented by:

       Matthew John Fader, Esq.
       Stuart M. Nathan, Esq.
       Laura Mullally, Esq.
       Meghan Kathleen Casey, Esq.
       MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
       St. Paul Plaza, 200 St. Paul Place
       Baltimore, MD 21202
       Tel: (410) 576-6300

Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr. is represented by:

       Stuart M. Nathan, Esq.
       Laura Mullally, Esq.
       Matthew John Fader, Esq.
       Meghan Kathleen Casey, Esq.
       William F. Brockman, Esq.
       MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
       St. Paul Plaza, 200 St. Paul Place
       Baltimore, MD 21202
       Tel: (410) 576-6300


MASSAGE ENVY: Hardwick Appeals Ruling in "Crawford" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Objector-Appellant Clifford L. Hardwick filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Robert Crawford, II, et al.
v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-00153-DMS-BGS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, San Diego.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Crawford, II, et al. v.
Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 16-56118, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case was initiated
in 2012 by plaintiffs Gail Hahn, Chaille Duncan and Alexis
Hernandez against Massage Envy.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company wrongly would not honor monthly 50-minute massages that
customers did not use before they cancelled their membership.
Former members of Massage Envy would receive a six-month
reinstatement of approximately 75 percent of the unused massages.

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT P. CRAWFORD, II, as Personal
Representative to the Estate of Gail Hahn; CHAILLE DUNCAN; and
ALEXIS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated California residents, are represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          William Richard Restis, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: wrr@classactionlaw.com

Objector-Appellant CLIFFORD L. HARDWICK is represented by:

          Jonathan Edward Fortman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
          250 Saint Catherine Street
          Florissant, MO 63031
          Telephone: (314) 522-2312
          Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
          E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com

               - and -

          John C. Kress, Esq.
          THE KRESS LAW FIRM, LLC
          4247 South Grand Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63111
          Telephone: (314) 631-3883
          E-mail: jckress@thekresslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steve A. Miller, Esq.
          STEVE A. MILLER, P.C.
          1625 Larimer Street, Suite 2905
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 892-9933
          E-mail: sampc01@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee, MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, is represented by:

          Cynthia Ricketts, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
          2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1230
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 385-3370
          E-mail: cricketts@srclaw.com

               - and -

          Luanne Sacks, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 549-0580
          Facsimile: (415) 549-0640
          E-mail: lsacks@srclaw.com

               - and -

          Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7656
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6656
          E-mail: kscolnick@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com


MERCK & CO: 400+ Women Join Equal Pay Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Thepharmaletter reports that more than 400 women have come forward
over the past month to join a class action lawsuit against US
pharma giant Merck & Co, lawyers have revealed.

It brings the total number of female employees claiming gender
discrimination to 405.

As well as challenging alleged unfair pay decisions, the women
claim Merck systematically discriminates against female sales
representatives, and pregnant women in particular, in promotions
and other terms and conditions of employment.

David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- chairman of
Sanford Heisler LLP and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said:
"The message sent by these women is clear. Many women across the
country believe that they suffered pay discrimination while
working at Merck.  What started out as one woman against a
corporation has now grown to more than 400."

The case, Smith vs Merck & Co, has gathered pace from a single
lawsuit alleging discrimination, which was filed by Kelli Smith in
2013.  Ms Smith, employed as a Merck sales representative in Toms
River since 2004, claims she was demoted, received lower
performance evaluations and was subject to a hostile work
environment after returning from maternity leave in 2010.

In April this year, the US District Court for the District of
New Jersey ordered the two law firms bringing the lawsuit, to
notify 3,183 female sales representatives across the country be
given notice of their opportunity to join the $250 million Equal
Pay Act lawsuit against Merck.  There are still three weeks left
for current and former female employees to join this class action.

But in a statement, Merck said the company would continue to
vigorously defend itself and remained fully committed to providing
equal employment argued that the case would ultimately not proceed
because it "lacks merit".

"This is a procedural step that is typical in the early stages of
lawsuits of this kind," it said, "and it does not mean any
employees have been treated unfairly.  Merck has a strong anti-
discrimination policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis
of characteristics, such as gender, pregnancy, race, age,
disability and sexual orientation."

The statement added that the company provides multiple avenues for
employees to raise concerns and to ensure that those concerns are
addressed.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Settles TCPA Class Action, Aug. 26 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM.com, reports that according to
papers filed on July 22 in California federal court, Encore
Capital Group, Inc. subsidiary Midland Credit Management Inc.
(Midland), and several related companies (collectively, the
Defendants) have agreed to a settlement in multi-district
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation accusing the
Defendants of violating the TCPA when trying to reach debtors.
The litigation alleged that Defendants violated the TCPA by using
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice to call cell phones without the prior express
consent of the call recipients.

The case, In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Litigation, (United States District Court,
Southern District of California, Case No. 11-md-2286-MMA) arose
out of 3 separate TCPA lawsuits filed in 2010 and 2011.

On October 11, 2011, the separate actions were transferred to the
Southern District of California Court for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Summary of Settlement

Class Counsel submits to the court that the settlement has a value
of at least $20,498,608.00.

The Settlement provides the following benefit to the Class to be
paid by Defendants:

$13,000,000 Credit Component, with pro rata credits to be credited
to the Approved Claimants' accounts held by Defendants.
$2,000,000 Cash Component, with pro rata cash payments to be paid
to the Approved Claimants that do not have existing accounts with
Defendants.

All costs of Notice and Claims Administration presently estimated
to be between $3,098,608 and $3,352,407.

Attorneys' fees and costs of litigation to be paid to Plaintiffs'
counsel, subject to Court approval, in the amount of $2,400,000.
A total of $7,500 in incentive payments is also sought for the
three Class Representatives, at $2,500 each.  That amount will be
paid from the Cash Component of the Settlement Fund.

The Class definition as approved in the Preliminary Approval Order
is as follows:

All persons in the United States who were called on a cellular
telephone by Defendants or their subsidiaries, affiliates or
related companies (other than calls made by Asset Acceptance LLC,
Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. or Propel Financial Services)
using a dialer or by prerecorded voice message without prior
express consent during the period from November 2, 2006 through
August 31, 2014, inclusive. (Editor's note: Asset Acceptance LLC,
Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. or Propel Financial Services are
all entities that have been acquired by ECPG.)

Postcard notices were mailed out originally to 6,266,704 Class
members for whom there were names and addresses in Defendants'
records.  After returns and re-mails, there were 6,034,167 persons
that are believed to have received the notice postcards,
presumably about 96% of those Class members with names and
addresses in Defendants' records.

In accordance with a preliminary approval order from the court the
Claims Administrator put in place a simple, easily followed claims
procedure agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement that permitted
the Class Member to easily file a claim by calling a toll-free 800
telephone number, or file online, without the necessity of mailing
a claim form.  The intent was to make submitting a claim as easy
as possible to encourage the filing of claims.

329,755 class members filed claims. Each of the 329,755 claimants
will receive approximately $23.49 in cash or approximately $58.84
in the form of a credit against what they owe Defendants.

A hearing will be held on August 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM to seek final
approval of the settlement.

insideARM Perspective

July has been a busy month for significant TCPA settlements; this
is the fourth large settlement.


MODESTO CITY, CA: Faces "Beidleman" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHARLES BEIDLEMAN, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals v. CITY OF MODESTO, Case No. 1:16-at-00595
(E.D. Cal., July 28, 2016), is brought pursuant to the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendant
unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon,
liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees.

Mr. Beidleman's action arises from the Defendant's failure to
include all statutorily required forms of compensation in the
"regular rate" used to calculate his overtime compensation.

The City of Modesto is a political subdivision of the state of
California and employed the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Mastagni, Esq.
          Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
          Ace T. Tate, Esq.
          MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, APC
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 446-4692
          Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
          E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
                  istevens@mastagni.com
                  atate@mastagni.com


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Accused by "Beets" Suit of Violating TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE BEETS, on Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly
Situated v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-05642-AB-KS
(C.D. Cal., July 28, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's conduct
in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
and class members on their telephones using an artificial or
prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent
within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Molina Healthcare, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in Long Beach, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Parties in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit are now in discovery.

The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods
Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading
of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to
the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in
its investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint
against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez
Global") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint
alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated
or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of
2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3)
engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of
exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The
CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary
gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act")
or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or
9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of
the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent
injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from
violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of
profits; and costs and fees."

"In December 2015, the court denied Mondelez Global and Kraft
Foods Group's motion to dismiss the CFTC's claims of market
manipulation and attempted manipulation, and the parties are now
in discovery.

"Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat
futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in
the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an
unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment;
costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified
relief.

"In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. In June 2016, the court denied Mondelez
Global and Kraft Foods Group's motion to dismiss, and the parties
are now in discovery.

"It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters;
however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with
Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to
predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in
connection with the CFTC action."


MOTION PICTURE: Faces Class Action Over "Tobacco Imagery" Film
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alice B. Lloyd, writing for The Weekly Standard, reports that a
class action lawsuit against the Motion Picture Association of
America -- claiming "tobacco imagery" in Hollywood movies
brainwashes our youth -- would have every film with as much as
puff receive an R rating.

Among recent films targeting tender young minds with alluring
swirls of smoke, the suit cites 2015 Bond flick Spectre, in which
a skeleton puffs a cigar, and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
They'd slap an R rating on Gandalf the Grey's baroque smoke rings?
Not quite Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones sexily smoking in
outer space.

Lawyers for the MPAA, who created the ratings system in the first
place to avoid legal snarls much like this one, argue a First
Amendment defense, while the complaint claims that Hollywood
studios have known since 2003 that scenes of smoking in movies
with ratings G, PG or PG-13 will lead kids to light up.

Studies from the early 2000s tie onscreen tobacco imagery to
smoking among teen moviegoers whose parents don't smoke.  The
anti-smoking lobby's favorites seem to show that the subjects most
likely to take up smoking in their mid-teens saw a lot of smoky
movies in their preteen years (instead of spending that time at
the library, the country club, or the football field, say) and yet
have nice, non-smoking moms and dads.  These same teens, one would
assume, bummed around town with their no-good friends and ran out
of good ideas -- Gandalf's pipe notwithstanding.

Even with all of cinematic history a click away, the case seems to
casts today's youth as terminal wimps who'll lose interest in
anything illicit enough to merit an R rating -- sex, violence,
foul language . . . and now cigarettes.  Class action plaintiffs
and their lawyers might find that if their suit succeeds, it will
have the opposite effect.


NEW MEXICO: 10th Cir. Affirms Ruling on E-Filing Fee Structure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Gregory A. Phillips of the Court of Appeals, Tenth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Plaintiffs'
right-to-counsel, access-to-the-courts, and equal-protection
claims in the case captioned, STEPHEN R. WHITTINGTON; WHITTCO,
INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHIEF JUSTICE PETRA JIMENEZ MAES;
JUSTICE EDWARD L. CHAVEZ; JUSTICE CHARLES W. DANIELS; JUSTICE
BARBARA J. VIGIL; JUSTICE RICHARD C. BOSSON, in their Official
Capacities as Members of the NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT; and ARTHUR
W. PEPIN, in his Official Capacity as Director of the NEW MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 15-2122 (10th Cir.).

The class-action plaintiffs, Stephen R. Whittington and Whittco,
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
(collectively, Plaintiffs), challenge the constitutionality of New
Mexico's electronic filing (e-filing) fee structure. New Mexico's
e-filing fee structure requires civil litigants who are
represented by attorneys to pay mandatory e-filing fees each time
they electronically file a document in district court. In the
district court, Plaintiffs asserted that the e-filing fee
structure suffers three constitutional infirmities: (1) it
impermissibly burdens their First Amendment right to retain
counsel; (2) it violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to
access the courts; and (3) it violates their Fourteenth Amendment
right to equal-protection.

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and the district court dismissed
Plaintiffs' federal claims.

On appeal, Plaintiffs assert the same arguments against dismissal
as they made to the district court: (1) the e-filing fee is an
impermissible tax on their right to retain counsel; (2) the
e-filing fee is a tax that unconstitutionally burdens their right
to access the courts; and (3) the classifications determining
which litigants pay the fee are not rationally related to a
legitimate state interest.

In his Order and Judgment dated July 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/U9I7T8 from Leagle.com, Judge Phillips found that
(1)Plaintiffs' equal-protection claim fails because Plaintiffs are
not similarly situated to pro se parties who do not use the e-
filing system; (2) the district court appropriately dismissed
Plaintiffs' access-to-the-courts claim because the e-filing fees
are necessary to reimburse New Mexico for the cost and maintenance
of the e-filing system; and (3) that Plaintiffs have standing
because Plaintiffs' challenge meets the three constitutional
standing requirements.


NOVA SCOTIA: Ex-Residents Still Waiting for Settlement Payouts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ritchie, writing for CTV News Atlantic, reports that the
case has been settled for two years, but former residents of the
Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children haven't seen any payout from
their class-action lawsuit.

The settlement was reached back in June of 2014.  The province
will be responsible for $29 million, and another $5 million from
the home. The payouts are based on assessments of harm.

But former resident Stacey Beals says having to retell his story
for the class-action lawsuit made him feel like a victim all over
again.

"I stand disillusioned with this whole process," said Mr. Beals.
"I feel like this whole process has done more harm to me than was
actually done to me."

Mr. Beals says his settlement was originally estimated at
$100,000, but now he's not sure how much he will get.

"I don't know how many people that are actually involved in the
claim," he said.

Lawyer Ray Wagner led the lawsuit, working on the case for more
than a decade.  He says when the class action was settled, there
were about 120 plaintiffs.

"There are approximately 330 claimants that actually came forward
in the claims period," said Mr. Wagner.

Mr. Wagner says the payouts will be less than estimated and
there's only so much to go around.

Mr. Beals says it's reopened old wounds.  He doesn't feel justice
has been done and he wishes he never got involved.

"Take it from me, do your homework read up on it.  Find out, what
does a class action entail," he said.

But other former residents say they're happy to get this final
acknowledgement of the harm that was done.

"I've been hearing from a lot of people.  We're being very
thankful because these are pennies from heaven, because we never
thought we'd even get the apology let alone be compensated
financially," said former resident Tony Smith.

Mr. Smith says he hopes the restorative inquiry will provide more
closure for former residents.


OCEAN DETAILING: "Charles" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Charles, Robinson T. Mertil and Arnaud Alexandre, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v.
Ocean Detailing USA Management, Inc., a Florida corporation and
Russell C. Grande, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-
61775 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wages, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida's
Minimum Wage Law.

Ocean Detailing provides in-house detailing services as well as
onsite detailing services to auto dealers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robin I. Frank, Esq.
     SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A.
     7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
     Boca Raton, FL 33434
     Telephone: (561) 477-7800
     Facsimile: (561) 477-7722
     E-Mail: rifrank@sbwlawfirm.com


PACIFIC PROCESS: "Andrews" Files New Suit Over Unpaid Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW ANDREWS and MIKE PRESTON, each individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. PACIFIC PROCESS SYSTEMS, INC.;
ALAN GEORGE; and JERRY WISE, Case No. 2:16-cv-01135-CB (W.D. Pa.,
July 28, 2016), is brought as a collective action against Pacific
for its alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A lawsuit, which was pending in the District Court, was filed on
September 24, 2014, and styled Matthew Andrews, et al. v. Pacific
Process Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01308-CRE (Pacific I).
After conditional certification of the settlement class in Pacific
I, 82 Pacific employees ultimately joined the class.

The parties to Pacific I entered into a settlement agreement on
June 1, 2015, which called for Pacific to make incremental
payments over the following 18 months.  The Settlement Agreement
was guaranteed by the owners of Pacific, Alan George and Jerry
Wise.

The Plaintiffs allege that Pacific has failed to make payments due
under the Settlement Agreement.  This lawsuit seeks to recover the
payments owed under the Settlement Agreement.  Messrs. Andrews and
Preston each bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other situated persons, who entered a settlement agreement with
Pacific in Pacific I.

Pacific is a California for-profit corporation headquartered in
Bakersfield, California.  Pacific provides a comprehensive range
of well testing and production services for the petroleum industry
around the world.  Pacific provides oilfield services and
equipment for offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration and
production operations worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Telecopier: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Telecopier: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com


PALOS VERDES, CA: Lunada Bay Boys Lose Bid to Dismiss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Barnes, writing for Daily Breeze, reports that a federal
judge has denied the Lunada Bay Boys' first attempts to extract
themselves from a lawsuit seeking to ban them from the Palos
Verdes Estates surfing spot they are accused of ruthlessly
defending from outsiders.

Attorneys for Alan "Jalian" Johnston, Brant Blakeman, Michael Rae
Papayans, Angelo Ferrara and a 17-year-old boy filed motions
earlier in July to dismiss admiralty claims against them in the
unprecedented class-action lawsuit, which was filed in March by El
Segundo police Officer Cory Spencer and surfer Diana Milena Reed.

In a written order on July 22, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero
denied their requests, arguing that because the surfers are
accused of recklessly impeding traffic on the waters, circling
boats and even allegedly running over Mr. Spencer with a surfboard
-- slicing his hand open -- the activity indeed has the potential
to disrupt maritime activity and falls under the jurisdiction of
federal admiralty law.

In essence, the lawsuit has now made it past the first round of
pleadings and will go on to discovery, when Mr. Spencer and
Ms. Reed's attorneys say they will provide witness lists and
evidence detailing decades of threats and intimidation at the
hands of the surfers.

The federal lawsuit seeks to classify the Bay Boys as a criminal
street gang, ban them from the shoreline with a gang injunction
and force tony Palos Verdes Estates and its police force to
prosecute vandalism and harassment cases it has long been accused
of turning a blind eye to.

Attorneys for the city and Police Chief Jeff Kepley successfully
had the lawsuit's California Coastal Act claims against them
dismissed, though Otero would not dismiss other claims.

Ferrara's attorney, Mark Fields, declined to comment on the
lawsuit on July 25.  Others representing the surfers could not be
reached.

Several of the surfers have denied they are gang members and say
localism is a normal part of the competitive nature of surfing and
sports in general.

Mr. Johnston's attorney, Pat Carey, told the Southern California
News Group in May that the lawsuit does not belong in federal
court, and that the characterization of the surfers as gang
members is grossly inaccurate.

"I quite frankly find it disrespectful, as a former prosecutor, to
the real victims of actual street gangs that have plagued the city
of Los Angeles," Mr. Carey said at the time.

Palos Verdes Estates police arrested Johnston in April on
allegations outlined in the lawsuit that he sexually harassed Reed
and exposed himself to her on the beach, but the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Office declined to file charges due to
lack of evidence.

Palos Verdes Estates leaders, who say the affluent community is
under attack by overblown media hype, voted July 12 to tear down a
stone patio illegally constructed by the surfers and used as a
hangout spot.

Kurt Franklin, a member of the legal team that filed the lawsuit,
said he believes he and Torrance attorney Vic Otten will be able
to get the suit certified as a class-action on behalf of all who
have been denied access to the waves over the years.

They also plan to file a lawsuit at the state level for the
Coastal Act claims that Otero dismissed.

"We're confident were going to make improvements to accessibility
at the bay," he said.


PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Court Grants Judgment on Pleadings
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendants' motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, DIANE
HAMILTON, LYNNE P. CUNNINGHAM and CLAIRE KANE, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PARTNERS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., PARTNERS COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE,
INC., THE BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, INC., BRIGHAM AND
WOMEN'S/FAULKNER HOSPITALS, INC., MARTHA'S VINEYARD HOSPITAL,
INC., THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, McLEAN HEALTHCARE, INC.,
THE McLEAN HOSPITAL CORPORATION, NANTUCKET COTTAGE HOSPITAL,
NEWTON-WELLESLEY HOSPITAL, NEWTON-WELLESLEY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
INC., NORTH SHORE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., NORTH SHORE MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., NSMC HEALTHCARE, INC., THE SALEM HOSPITAL, UNION
HOSPITAL AUXILIARY OF LYNN, INC., and FAULKNER HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendants. , Case No. 09-11461-DPW (D. Mass).

Plaintiffs Diane Hamilton, Lynne P. Cunningham and Claire Kane
(collectively, Plaintiffs) brought the action raising federal
claims on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees of a number of healthcare facilities allegedly
affiliated with Partners Healthcare System, Inc. Plaintiffs
contend that their employers maintain policies in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (First Cause) depriving them of
compensation for time worked. Plaintiffs further contend that
their employers' policies violate recordkeeping (Second Cause) and
fiduciary (Third Cause) responsibilities under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and constitute a scheme to
deceive Plaintiffs and deprive them of their wages using mail
fraud in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) (Fourth Cause).

Plaintiffs' claims are premised on allegations that Defendants
maintain pay policies that deny Plaintiffs their compensation for
all hours worked.  In particular, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants (1) automatically deduct thirty minutes of time per day
from each employee's paycheck for meal breaks without ensuring
that such breaks are taken, (2) suffer or permit Plaintiffs to
work before and/or after each scheduled shift without
compensation, and (3) suffer or permit Plaintiffs to attend
compensable training programs without pay.

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on all counts.
Defendants challenge Plaintiffs' standing, citing Plaintiffs'
failure to allege an employment relationship with any particular
defendant. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to plead
facts sufficient to allege plausible FLSA, ERISA, or RICO claims.

In his Memorandum and Order dated July 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/wsIZyl from Leagle.com, Judge Woodlock found that
Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to allege a plausible
claim.

Diane Hamilton, et al. are represented by Jody L. Newman, Esq. --
nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com -- COLLORA LLP, Michael J.
Lingle, Esq. -- mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com -- and Patrick
J. Solomon, Esq. -- psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com -- THOMAS
& SOLOMON LLP; William A. Haddad, Esq. -- whaddad@beckreed.com --
BECK REED RIDEN LLP

Partners Health Care System, Inc., et al are represented by Angelo
Spinola, Esq. -- aspinola@littler.com -- Jerry H. Walters, Jr.,
Esq. -- jwalters@littler.com -- Lisa A. Schreter, Esq. --
lschreter@littler.com -- Anne M. Mellen, Esq. --
amellen@littler.com -- Bradley E. Strawn, Esq. --
bstrawn@littler.com -- Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq. --
ckaczmarek@littler.com -- and David C. Casey, Esq. --
dcasey@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.


PAYPAL INC: December 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a current or former user of PayPal in the United States
who had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and
November 5, 2015, this Notice describes your rights and potential
benefits from a class action settlement.

This website summarizes a proposed class action settlement of
claims brought against PayPal, Inc. ("PayPal") and eBay Inc.
("eBay") (together, "Defendants").  The Settlement resolves a
lawsuit in which Plaintiffs allege that PayPal improperly handled
disputed transactions on PayPal accounts and improperly placed
holds and reserves on accounts or closed or suspended accounts.
Plaintiffs also allege that PayPal failed to provide annual error-
resolution notices and monthly account statements under the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

You are part of the Settlement if you had an active PayPal account
between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015.

You are part of the Settlement and also may be eligible to submit
a Claim for a cash payment if you had a hold or reserve placed on
your account and/or your account was closed or suspended by PayPal
between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015.

The Settlement will require PayPal to implement or maintain
certain business practices and to pay between $3,200,000 and
$4,000,000.  At least $2,240,000, less notice and administration
costs, is expected to be paid to settlement class members who had
holds or reserves placed on their accounts and submit a claim for
payment, and up to an additional $800,000 will be used to make
payments to settlement class members who had holds or reserves
placed on their accounts or whose accounts were closed or
suspended who claim damages.

Settlement Class Counsel will ask the Court for up to $960,000 to
be paid as fees and expenses for investigating the facts,
litigating the case and negotiating the settlement and for service
awards of up to $2,500 for each named class representative.


The two sides disagree on whether Plaintiffs would have won at
trial.

Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read
this website carefully.


YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM If you had an active PayPal account
between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015 and had a hold or
reserve placed on your account, and/or the account was closed or
suspended by PayPal, you are a Claims Class Member.  In order to
receive a Settlement payment, you must timely submit a Claim.

If you had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and
November 5, 2015, but you did not have a hold or reserve placed on
your account, and your account was not closed or suspended by
PayPal, then you are only an Injunctive Relief Class Member, and
you may not submit a Claim for payment.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF If you are a Claims Class Member, you may
exclude yourself from the Claims Class and receive no payment, but
will you will remain in the Settlement.  If you are an Injunctive
Relief Class Member, you may not exclude yourself from the
Settlement.

OBJECT You can write to the Court about why you don't like
the Settlement.

GO TO A HEARING You can ask to speak in Court about the fairness
of the Settlement.

DO NOTHING If you do nothing, you will not receive any payment
and will no longer be able to sue Defendants and the other
Released Parties for the conduct alleged in the lawsuit.

These rights and options--and the deadlines to exercise them--are
explained in the Notice.

The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to
approve the Settlement.  Payments will only be made if the Court
approves the Settlement and after appeals are resolved. Please be
patient.

To qualify for payment, you must be a member of the Claims Class.
To receive a payment, you must submit a Claim Form through the
Settlement Website, www.accountholdsettlement.com
Read the instructions carefully and fill out the Claim Form
completely.  The last day to submit Claim Forms is October 14,
2016.

If you're either an Injunctive Relief Class Member or a Claims
Class Member, you can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an
objection.  You can't ask the Court to order a larger settlement;
the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement agreed to by the
parties.  If the Court denies approval, no settlement
payments will be sent out and PayPal will be under no obligation
to implement or maintain the specified business practices and the
lawsuit will continue.  If that is what you want to happen, you
must object. You may object to the proposed Settlement in writing.
You may also appear at the Final Approval
Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney.  If you
appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying
that attorney.  All objections must be in writing and must: (i)
clearly identify the case name and number (Zepeda v. PayPal, Case
Number 10-cv-02500-SBA); (ii) be submitted to the Court either by
mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, CA 94612, or by filing them in person at any location
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California; (iii) be filed and/or postmarked on or before October
14, 2016; (iv) include your name, address and telephone number;
(v) include an email address associated with your PayPal
account(s); (vi) include a sentence confirming, under penalty of
perjury, that you are a Settlement Class Member; (vii) identify
the factual basis and legal grounds for the objection to the
Settlement; (viii) identify any witnesses whom you may call to
testify at the Final Approval Hearing; and (ix) include copies of
any exhibits you intend to offer into evidence at the Final
Approval Hearing.  By submitting an objection, you agree to sit
for a deposition in your county or other agreed location.

If you are a Claims Class Member, to exclude yourself from the
Claims Class, you must send a personally signed letter by
October 14, 2016 containing the following information: (i) your
name, address and telephone number; (ii) the primary e-mail
address associated with your PayPal account(s); and (iii) the
following statement: I request to be excluded from the Claims
Class in Zepeda v. PayPal, Northern District of California Case
No. 10-cv-02500 SBA.

You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than
October 14, 2016 to:

          Zepeda v. PayPal Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 4259
          Portland, OR 97208-4259

If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement
payment, but you will still be bound by the releases provided to
Defendants by the Injunctive Relief Class.  However, you may be
able to sue (or continue to sue) PayPal in the future for monetary
relief.  If you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in
that case immediately.  You must exclude yourself
to continue your own lawsuit for monetary relief.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on December 14, 2016
at 1:00 p.m. PT at the United States District Court for Northern
District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612,
courtroom 1.  At this hearing the Court will consider whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  If there are
timely and complete objections, the Court will consider them.  The
Court may also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel.  After the
hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement.

The Court has approved the following attorneys to represent you
and other Settlement Class Members in this action: Quantum Legal
LLC; Lexington Law Group; Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
& Lehrman, P.L.; and Seeger Weiss LLP.  These lawyers are called
Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you
want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at
your own expense.

This website summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the precise
terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see the Settlement
Agreement at https://is.gd/BBiTAG or by visiting the office of the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Court holidays.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.


PEAK CAMPUS: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Ads
--------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an
Atlanta, Ga.-based manager of apartment buildings for college
students could face a nationwide class action, after an Illinois
man accused the company of sending him and potentially thousands
of others spam text ads, allegedly in violation of a federal law
governing how and when companies can contact potential customers
on their mobile phones.

On July 25, plaintiff William Truong, identified in the complaint
solely as a resident of Illinois, filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against Peak Campus Management.

According to the company's website, Peak Campus Management
specializes in managing apartment properties in communities
surrounding colleges and universities.  The company boasts 95
properties in 29 states.  In Illinois, Peak Campus's website
advertises buildings located near the University of Illinois at
Chaimpaign-Urbana; Illinois State University in Bloomington-
Normal; Western Illinois University in Macomb; and in Chicago,
near both the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University
of Chicago, among others.

Peak Campus's website does not list rents for its properties in
Illinois.  But according to an article published in 2015 by
DNAInfo.com, rents at the Vue53 property in Hyde Park, which Peak
Campus lists among those in its portfolio, start at $1,400 per
month for unfurnished studio apartments.

The complaint does not definitively state if Mr. Truong was a
tenant at a Peak Campus-managed property, or how Peak Campus may
have acquired his mobile number.

But in the lawsuit, Mr. Truong said Peak Campus has, since 2014,
sent advertisements via text message to him and potentially
thousands of others like him.

He said he received the first message in October 2014, in which
Peak Campus allegedly offered Truong $200 to "renew" a lease at
Peak Campus's Tailor Lofts property near UIC in Chicago.

Mr. Truong said he continued to receive "numerous additional spam
text message advertisements" from Peak Campus "for . . . weeks
thereafter, further invading his privacy."  He alleged the text
message ads were "unauthorized" and violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, as they "were sent en masse through the
use of a short code without the prior express written consent" of
those who received them.

Mr. Truong asked the court to certify a class of additional
plaintiffs across the country, which he estimated could number in
the thousands.

He also asked for the court to award unspecified actual or
statutory damages, plus attorney fees.

Mr. Truong is represented in the action by attorney Michael J.
McMorrow -- mike@mjmcmorrow.com -- of McMorrow Law PC, of Chicago.


PFIZER INC: Settles Securities Class Action Over Arthritis Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Pfizer Inc.
is settling a securities class-action lawsuit accusing it of
keeping investors in the dark about the cardiovascular risks of
the arthritis drugs Celebrex and Bextra, avoiding what could have
been a drawn-out trial in the 12-year-old case.

Pfizer officials were accused in the suit of hiding information
about studies suggesting use of the drugs may increase risks of
heart attacks and strokes.  The case was on track to go before a
jury after the federal appeals court in New York in April ruled
Pfizer must face the claims.

The same court on July 27 put on hold Pfizer's request for a re-
hearing of the appeal so that a lower-court judge could consider
the proposed accord with plaintiffs led by the Teachers'
Retirement System of Louisiana.

Neha Wadhwa, a spokeswoman for New York-based Pfizer, said the
company wasn't admitting to any wrongdoing under the settlement.
"This resolution reflects a desire by the company to avoid the
distraction of continued litigation and focus on the needs of
patients and prescribers," Ms. Wadhwa said in an e-mailed
statement.

Allan Ripp, an outside spokesman for the lead law firm in the
case, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, said the terms of the settlement are
confidential.  He declined to comment further.

Earlier Settlement

In 2009, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle U.S. claims
that the drugmaker improperly marketed Bextra and other drugs. The
total consisted of a $1.3 billion criminal penalty over Bextra
marketing and $1 billion in civil fines in connection with
improper sales of other medicines.

The Louisiana pension fund sued Pfizer in 2004 on behalf of
investors who bought the drugmaker's stock from 2000 to 2005.  It
claimed company executives were improperly touting Celebrex and
Bextra as safer than competing drugs and that those statements
artificially inflated the company's stock price.

Pfizer in 2012 settled a related class-action suit led by Alaska
Electrical Pension Fund, which had accused it of manipulating the
results of a long-term clinical study of Celebrex's effect on the
gastrointestinal system.

The plaintiffs in that case claimed Pfizer released only a
six-month portion of the study in April 2000 after the drug didn't
show the desired reduction in side effects compared with other
drugs.  Pfizer won that case in district court, only to have it
reinstated on appeal in January 2009.

Warning Label

U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials rejected Pfizer's
request in February 2001 to market the drug without the standard
GI warning label, sending the stock down about 9 percent,
according to the complaint.

Pfizer settled hundreds of cases filed by individual plaintiffs in
2008, around the time that Celebrex, in the same class of
medicines as Merck & Co.'s recalled Vioxx, was Pfizer's third-
best-selling drug.  The cases were filed by customers who claimed
they'd been injured.

Pfizer withdrew Bextra in April 2005 after it was tied to a
potentially fatal skin condition.

The original case is In Re: Pfizer Securities Litigation, 1:04-cv-
9866, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan).  The appeal is 14-2853, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (Manhattan).


PHILADELPHIA GAS: Landlords Want Judge to Nullify Gas Liens
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Maykuth, writing for Philly.com, reports that Philadelphia
landlords urged a federal judge on July 26 to nullify all
outstanding gas liens linked to deadbeat tenants, a move PGW said
could drastically alter its business and increase the bills of
customers in good standing.

Lawyers for five landlords asked a federal judge to include all
city landlords in his March ruling, which declared that
Philadelphia Gas Works' manner of placing liens on rental
properties for debts owed by tenants is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner ruled in March that landlords
did not receive due process when the city-owned PGW failed to
provide sufficient notice that their tenants were behind in
payments, and that landlords would be held liable.

A lawyer representing the landlords encouraged Joyner to make a
broad decision and declare the case a class action.

"When a constitutional violation has been found, the court has an
obligation to remedy it," said John J. Grogan, of the Langer
Grogan & Diver law firm, who represented the landlords along with
Irv Ackelsberg.

Lawyers for the city, which owns PGW, argued that the judge's
ruling should pertain only to the landlords named in the lawsuit,
and not be declared a class action.

They also said that if PGW could not collect the debts from
landlords, the $6 million a year the city now recovers from liens
would have to be paid by increasing rates of PGW's other
customers.

"Five hundred thousand PGW customers are going to be affected by a
group of landlords who failed to take responsibility," said the
city's lawyer, Jeffrey M. Scott -- jscott@archerlaw.com -- of the
Archer & Greiner law firm.

While the judge ruled that PGW's method of putting legal
encumbrances on property was unconstitutional, Mr. Scott argued
that the landlords had not proven that an injury had occurred,
prompting a sarcastic response from the judge.

"If a lien were placed on your property, would you feel you were
injured by that, or is that something that would make you happy,
content?" Judge Joyner said.  "Tell me."

PGW, as a municipal utility, has the authority to place liens on
private property to recover uncollected bills.  Investor-owned
utilities, such as Peco, have no equivalent power.  Liens are
legal encumbrances that must be settled when real estate changes
hands.

The suit was brought in 2014 by landlords Lea and Gerard Augustin,
Thomas and Donna McSorley, and Richmond Waterfront Industrial Park
L.L.C., which is owned by investor David Wolf. PGW dunned them for
tenant debts ranging from $1,000 to more than $27,000.  Some
landlords complained that they were unaware of the liens until
they tried to sell their properties.

Judge Joyner's ruling in March rejected PGW's practice of imposing
liens without adequate notice, leaving property owners scant
recourse to defend themselves or to pressure their tenants to pay.

The judge's ruling could affect about 24,000 active gas liens
totaling $27.6 million on residential rental properties, and 4,300
liens totaling $7.5 million on commercial rental properties,
according to testimony.

About three dozen spectators attended the July 26 hearing,
including the plaintiffs and several landlords who said they
wanted to join the class action.  The spectators also included
representatives of the Philadelphia Gas Commission, the city's
oversight body, and some PGW executives.

PGW said that if it were forced to tell landlords that specific
tenants were in arrears it might place the utility into conflict
with PUC regulations protecting the confidentiality of customer
information.

PGW says that landlords are sufficiently notified about tenant
debts through its Landlord Cooperation Program, which holds
registered residential landlords harmless for future tenant
arrearages if PGW has access to the tenants' meters.

But there is no comparable program for commercial landlords.  In
2012, PGW created a Commercial Lien Notification Program, which
gives registered landlords 30 days' notice of a lien on a
commercial property, but landlords say the notifications arrive
too late for them to get tenants to pay. PGW has already decided
to appeal.


PVH CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in "Scott-George" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted in part Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment in the case captioned, JODI
SCOTT-GEORGE, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PVH
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:13-CV-0441-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are former retail store employees of PVH Corporation's
(PVH). Plaintiffs have alleged seven causes of action against PVH
based on violations of California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 510,
512(a), 1194, and 1198. The Court granted class certification of
eight subclasses and appointed Plaintiffs Jodi Scott-George and
Melissa Wiggs as the Class Representatives for subclasses.

Following the Court's order granting class certification,
Defendant moved for summary judgment by asserting that (1)
Plaintiffs cannot impose liability on Retail Stores because they
have sued PVH not its subsidiary, Retail Stores, and have failed
to justify disregarding the corporate form; (2) Plaintiff cannot
succeed on their claim concerning bag checks because carrying a
bag is optional and the time associated with such bag checks is de
minimis; and (3) Plaintiffs seek damages under an outdated section
of California Labor Code Sec.226(a), which imposes penalties for
improperly recorded wage statements.

In his Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/DKjf1y
from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley is not convinced that Plaintiffs
have presented enough evidence to raise a triable issue of fact
under the integrated enterprise test. Specifically, Plaintiffs
fail to produce evidence that would suggest that PVH exercised
day-to-day control over Retail Store's employment decisions.
Summary Judgment is denied as to Plaintiffs' Wage Statement Claim
because Defendant failed to provide any authority that would
support an alternative interpretation. Furthermore, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that
PVH and Retail Stores meet the "integrated enterprise" test
required to pierce the corporate veil between the two companies.
Thus, because Retail Stores is not named as a defendant in this
lawsuit, the Subclasses of this lawsuit must be restricted to
nonexempt employees of PVH.

Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wiggs are represented by Ronald H.
Bae, Esq. -- rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- and Olivia D.
Scharrer, Esq. -- oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- AEQUITAS
LEGAL GROUP

PVH Corporation is represented by Dean Hansell, Esq. --
dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- and Samantha Michele Kantor, Esq.
-- samantha.kantor@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS LLP


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Compensation, Reinstatement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Gonzalez and Maria Hurtado, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pilgrim's
Pride Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00948 (N.D. Fla.,
July 14, 2016), seeks compensation for lost wages, benefits, and
other remuneration, reinstatement of Plaintiffs to positions
comparable to their prior position, with back pay plus interest,
pension rights, and all benefits, front pay, compensatory damages,
including for emotional distress, punitive damages, prejudgment
interest on all monetary recovery obtained, all costs and
attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting these claims and such
further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a food producer and distributor of
poultry with its principal place of business in Greenly, Colorado.
Plaintiffs worked at their Florida facility located at 19740 U.S.,
Live Oak, FL 32060. They claim to be issued debit cards in lieu of
wages. Defendant unreasonably refused to accommodate Gonzales
claim for disability and terminated him for engaging in protected
activity under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida
Civil Rights Act of 1992.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Main No.: 813-224-0431
     Direct No.: 813-379-2565
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             twells@wfclaw.com


PIZZA HUT KANSAS: "Creech" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trina Creech, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02518 (D. Kan., July 25, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unreimbursed business-related
expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas, Inc. owns and operates
approximately 171 Pizza Hut franchise restaurants in nine states,
including Kansas. Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver who
used his own automobile to deliver pizza and other food items to
customers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, Missouri 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

            - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, Missouri 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com


PMZ REAL ESTATE: Judge Allows Fraud Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Modesto Bee reports that a judge in Contra Costa County
refused for a second time to dismiss what could become a class-
action fraud lawsuit against Modesto's PMZ Real Estate.

Four former PMZ clients from San Joaquin County claim they were
played in "a kickback scheme that resulted in PMZ receiving secret
profits," Judge Barry Goode said in a written ruling that the case
will go forward.

The former customers say PMZ agents directed them to a shell
company run by PMZ for natural-hazard reports in 2009 and 2010
home transactions.  That company, Valley NHD, then obtained the
reports from a Concord firm, Disclosure Source, which shared
profits with PMZ, the lawsuit says.

In theory, hundreds or thousands of PMZ's former clients from
Modesto and beyond could join the lawsuit if Judge Goode
eventually deems it worthy of class-action status.

PMZ, the leading property firm in Stanislaus County, has predicted
vindication in the long run.

Natural-hazard reports list property risks such as floods,
wildfires and earthquakes.


RANSOM MEMORIAL: Faces Kansas Suit Under FLSA, Wage Payment Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOY FISCHER and MELISSA BURKHART, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RANSOM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case 6:16-
cv-01305 (D. Kansas, August 1, 2016), was filed under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Ransom Memorial Hospital is a 44-bed acute care medical facility
in Ottawa, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
     Nathan R. Elliott, Esq.
     GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
     218 N. Mosley St.
     Wichita, KS 67202
     Phone: (316) 266-4058
     Fax: (316) 462-5566
     E-mail: sean@graybillhazlewood.com
             nathan@graybillhazlewood.com


REDBACK ENERGY: Faces "Caffey" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CAFFEY, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, DAVID BROKE, MIKE
FERNANDES, PAUL JACOBL, DANTE DOMENICHELLI, PHIL LANCASTER, and
MARK LAYTON, Individually as officers of REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES,
LLC Case 5:16-cv-00777 (W.D. Tex., August 1, 2016), seeks
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC --
http://www.redbackenergyservices.com/-- is a rental and service
company that serves the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a decision is pending
on the motion to dismiss the case, Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor
Co.

In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed
2015), the plaintiff brought a class action against RJR Vapor on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE e-cigarettes. The
plaintiff alleges that RJR Vapor failed to advise users that they
potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The
plaintiff asserts failure to warn claims under California's
Proposition 65, as well as California Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq.
and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief and damages. RJR Vapor moved to dismiss
contending, among other things, that plaintiff's action was
governed in its entirety by Proposition 65 and that the plaintiff
failed to give the 60-day pre-suit notice required by Proposition
65, requiring that the entire case be dismissed with prejudice.
The motion to dismiss was argued on March 2, 2016. A decision is
pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Additive Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the No
Additive/Natural Claim Cases, a hearing on defendants' motions to
dismiss is set for November 30, 2016.

Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC
relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in
the labeling, advertising and promotional materials for NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring
claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative
nationwide and/or state-specific class actions against SFNTC and,
in some instances, RAI. A total of 15 such actions have been filed
in nine U.S. district courts. Each of these cases is discussed
below. In various combinations, plaintiffs in these cases
generally allege violations of state deceptive and unfair trade
practice statutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The actions seek various
categories of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive
relief (including medical monitoring and cessation programs),
interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one action filed a motion
before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") to consolidate these actions before one district court
for pretrial purposes. On April 11, 2016, the JPML ordered that
these cases be consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge
James O. Browning in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico, referred to as the transferee court, and the then-
pending and later-filed cases now are consolidated for pretrial
purposes in that court.

On June 17, 2016, the transferee court entered a scheduling order
providing for the plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by
August 22, 2016; defendants to file motions to dismiss by
September 29, 2016; a hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss on
November 30, 2016; plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification by April 3, 2018; and a hearing on the class
certification motion on July 13-14, 2018. The cases that were
filed in or transferred for pretrial purposes to the transferee
court are as follows:

     * Sproule v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D. Fla., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of Natural
American Spirit brand cigarettes.

     * Brattain v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
N.D. Cal., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of Natural
American Spirit brand cigarettes.

     * Rothman v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D.N.Y., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative class of New York purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and Minnesota subclass) of purchasers
of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Haksal v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf
of a putative nationwide class (and California, Illinois,
Minnesota, and New Mexico subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Cuebas v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class (and New York subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Okstad v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class and sixteen putative state-based
subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin subclasses) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Ruggiero v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.D.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf
of a putative nationwide class (and Maryland subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Waldo v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers
of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Grandison v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
E.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California, Florida and
New York subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes.

     * Gudmundson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
V.I., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative class of U.S. Virgin Islands purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * LeCompte v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf
of a putative class of California purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * White v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a
putative nationwide class of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes.

     * Johnston v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Cole v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class (and North Carolina subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Settlement in "Sateriale" Case Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has approved
the settlement in the case, Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co.

Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed
2009), is a class action against RJR Tobacco on behalf of a
putative class of persons who were unable to redeem "Camel Cash"
after termination of the "Camel Cash" series of promotions for RJR
Tobacco's CAMEL brand cigarettes in 2007. The plaintiffs asserted
claims based on the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Law, breach of contract and
promissory estoppel, and the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
actual damages, costs and expenses. In December 2010, the district
court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss with prejudice and
entered final judgment.

In July 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
referred to as the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and
breach of contract.

On December 19, 2014, the district court declined to certify a
national class, found that the plaintiffs' promissory estoppel
claim could not be tried on a class basis, and, on the plaintiffs'
breach of contract claim, certified a class of "all persons in
California who, as adult smokers, were assigned registration
numbers by RJR Tobacco, collected C-Notes, and held C-Notes as of
October 1, 2006." The parties later agreed to a settlement under
which RJR Tobacco would make available non-tobacco merchandise to
class members for Camel Cash that they held on October 1, 2006,
and pay plaintiffs' counsel $4.75 million in fees and costs.

On May 2, 2016, the court approved the settlement. The non-tobacco
merchandise will be made available to class members from August 1,
2016 to January 31, 2017.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Feinman" Class Suit Dismisssed
--------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiff's counsel in
the case, Feinman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., has voluntarily
dismissed the case.

Feinman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., filed
2015), is a class action against RJR Tobacco on behalf of a
putative class of persons who resided in New York, Iowa or South
Dakota as of October 1, 2006, and as adult smokers, purchased
CAMEL-brand filtered cigarettes along with C-Notes, collected
C-Notes and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006. The plaintiff
alleges breach of contract claims based on the termination of the
"Camel Cash" series of promotions by RJR Tobacco's CAMEL
cigarettes in 2007 and seek actual damages, costs, expenses, and
attorneys' fees. On January 16, 2016, the court conditionally
approved the parties' settlement agreement and dismissal of the
case subject to the court in Sateriale granting its final approval
of that settlement agreement. Pursuant to the Sateriale settlement
agreement, plaintiff's counsel in Feinman voluntarily dismissed
the case on June 16, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Stayed "Young" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has entered an
order staying the case, Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct. Orleans Parish,
La., filed 1997), the plaintiff brought a class action against
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR,
on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though
not themselves cigarette smokers, allegedly suffered injury as a
result of exposure to ETS from cigarettes manufactured by
defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2016, the court
entered an order staying the case, including all discovery,
pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by
the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 76 Filter Cases Pending v. Lorillard
-------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 76 filter
cases.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard
by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of June 30, 2016, Lorillard
Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 76 Filter Cases. Since
January 1, 2013, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of approximately $43.7 million in
settlements to resolve 160 claims asserted in Filter Cases.

Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "DeLisle" Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the jury in a Filter
Case, DeLisle v. A. W. Chesterton Co. (Cir. Ct. Broward County,
Fla., filed 2012), on September 13, 2013, found for the plaintiff
on the negligence and strict liability claims; awarded the
plaintiffs $8 million in compensatory damages; and found Lorillard
Tobacco 22% at fault, Hollingsworth & Vose 22% at fault, and the
other defendants 56% at fault. Punitive damages were not at issue.
On November 6, 2013, the trial court entered final judgment
against Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of $3.52 million.
Lorillard Tobacco appealed to the Fourth DCA. Oral argument
occurred on February 16, 2016. A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Update in Smokeless Tobacco Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in 1999, when the IPIC
litigation was first filed, the named defendants included
manufacturers of smokeless products, including Conwood Company,
LLC (now known as American Snuff Company, LLC) and others. When
the IPIC plaintiffs filed discovery responses in IPIC listing the
products they used, 41 of them listed a smokeless product. Six of
those 41 plaintiffs listed a brand owned by American Snuff (Levi
Garrett). Seven listed a brand (Beechnut) once manufactured by
Lorillard Tobacco (now manufactured by National Tobacco Company).
On December 3, 2001, the IPIC court severed all smokeless claims
and all smokeless defendants from IPIC. There was no order staying
the case during IPIC. In the ensuing 15 years, the plaintiffs in
the severed cases did nothing to pursue the cases. The plaintiffs
now seek to activate various smokeless claims, including certain
plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed in IPIC after severance of
the smokeless claims and whose claims are not counted in the 41
claims described. The court has scheduled a status conference on
July 11, 2016 to address smokeless claims. The defendants will
object to any effort to activate these cases due to the fact that
the plaintiffs took no action for the last 15 years.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in ERISA Litigation Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that briefing is underway in
the plaintiff's appeal in the ERISA Litigation.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The
plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants
removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food
business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco,
as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six
months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November
1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and
Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000,
contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have
retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and
that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of
fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among
other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as
damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent
appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the
liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April
2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing
all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR
Pension Investment Committee. The plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, which the court granted in September 2008.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. On
February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could
have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not
caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have
existed. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district
court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants
did not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was
whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same
decision and remanded the case back to the district court to apply
the "would have standard." On February 18, 2016, the district
court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the
defendants have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a
fiduciary acting with prudence would have divested the NGH and
Nabisco Funds at the time and in the manner that the defendants
did. On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff appealed. Briefing is
underway.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Delaware Shareholder Actions Closed
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Delaware Court of
Chancery has issued an order closing the Delaware shareholder
actions and approving the agreed-upon payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses.

Delaware. Between July 18, 2014 and August 12, 2014, Lorillard
shareholders filed purported class action lawsuits in the Delaware
Court of Chancery relating to the then-proposed merger between
Lorillard and RAI. The lawsuits were captioned In re Lorillard
Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9904-CB, and are referred to as
the Delaware Actions. The plaintiffs alleged that the transaction
offered unfair and inadequate consideration for Lorillard stock
and sought additional disclosure of facts relating to the Merger
in connection with the shareholder vote, higher Merger
consideration, and monetary damages.

RAI and Lorillard subsequently filed supplemental disclosures that
mooted the disclosure claims. These supplemental disclosures
provided additional information regarding the fairness opinion and
financial analyses provided to Lorillard's board of directors by
its financial advisors, the background of the Merger and
alternatives to the Merger that were considered by Lorillard's
board of directors and the timing of discussions regarding the
composition of the board of directors of the combined company and
employment of Lorillard management.

On May 18, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the
Delaware Actions with prejudice as to certain plaintiffs and
without prejudice as to all other plaintiffs and members of the
putative class. The Delaware Court of Chancery retained
jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining the plaintiffs'
counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses. RAI and plaintiffs' counsel then agreed
that, after the entry of an order closing the Delaware Actions,
RAI would pay fees and expenses of $215,000 in full satisfaction
of plaintiffs' counsel's claims for attorneys' fees and expenses.
On June 22, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order
closing the Delaware Actions and approving the agreed-upon payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses. RAI then paid the agreed-upon
attorneys' fees and expenses.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in North Carolina Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a decision is pending
on the appeal in the North Carolina shareholder action.

RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been
named as defendants in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned
Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, et al., brought in North
Carolina state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by
a person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North
Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended
complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The amended complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the RAI
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to RAI
shareholders by approving the BAT Share Purchase and the sharing
of technology with BAT. The amended complaint also alleges that
there were various conflicts of interest in the transaction, and
that RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by its board of directors. The North Carolina Action seeks
injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other
remedies. On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina
Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled
for January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely
opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur
on January 16, 2015.

RAI believed that the North Carolina Action was without merit and
that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina
Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that
lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release the disclosure claims which were or could have been
asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the
partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which it did on January 20, 2015.

On August 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims. The
plaintiff has appealed the dismissal. Oral argument on the appeal
occurred on April 27, 2016, and a decision is pending. On February
17, 2016, the trial court approved the partial settlement,
including the plaintiff's unopposed request for $415,000 in
attorneys' fees and costs. The partial settlement did not affect
the consideration paid to Lorillard shareholders in connection
with the Merger.


RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in "Argabright" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted, in part,
the motion to dismiss all counts under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case captioned, LAWRENCE ARGABRIGHT,
VICTORIA FECHT, and LIBRADO MONTANO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD) (D.N.J.).

In the putative multistate class action, Plaintiff alleges that
Rheem manufactured defective residential heating, ventilating, and
air conditioning (HVAC) systems under the Rheem and Ruud brand
names. Plaintiffs in the proposed class consist of all individuals
who purchased or obtained Defendant's HVAC systems, and the
following claims are asserted in the Complaint: breach of express
and implied warranties and violation the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301, et seq.;claims for fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and strict product
liability; statutory claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J.S.A. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq., the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act,
A.R.S. Sec. 44-1521 et seq., and New York General Business Law
Sec. 349; and claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory relief.

Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts claims for breach of express
warranty (Count I); breach of implied warranty of merchantability
(Count II); violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA)
(Count V); fraudulent concealment (Count III); negligent
misrepresentation (Count IV); strict product liability (Count VI);
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), New York
General Business Law (N.Y. GBL) Sec. 349, and the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act (ACFA) (Counts VII, VIII, & IX); unjust enrichment
(Count X); and declaratory relief (Count XI).

Defendant Rheem Manufacturing move to dismiss all counts under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In his Opinion dated June 28, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/YWuyyR from Leagle.com, Judge Simandle denied motion
to dismiss Count II with respect to Fecht's claim because her
claim is time-barred and Count V because Plaintiff failed to state
a viable state law claim for breach of express warranty and
granted Defendant's motion with respect to the remaining claims.
Count I is dismissed because it is insufficient to plausibly make
out Plaintiffs' claims for breach of warranty.

Lawrence Argabright, et al. are represented by:

       Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
       PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
       6 Harbor Park Dr,
       Port Washington, NY 11050
       Tel: (516)466-6500

Rheem Manufacturing Company is represented by Aaron Van Nostrand,
Esq. -- vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- and David Jay, Esq. --
jayd@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TAURIG, LLP


RIDDELL: Ex-NFL Player Files Class Action Over Helmet Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Roberts, writing for Yahoo! Finance, reports that just
weeks after a US appeals court refused to reconsider its decision
to approve the NFL's concussion settlement with former players,
two new lawsuits have come along over the same issue.  But the new
suits do not target the NFL.

Former running back Paul Hornung, now 80, has filed a complaint
against the helmet-maker Riddell, while former safety
Haruki Nakamura, 30, is suing insurer Lloyd's of London.

Legal experts tell Yahoo Finance that Mr. Nakamura's suit has a
better chance at success.  But both are reminders that the ongoing
debate over football head-injuries is far from resolved, and both
have the potential to shed new light on which parties that do
business with the NFL are liable for NFL head injuries.

Class action against the NFL

In April of last year, a judge approved the NFL's settlement offer
in a class-action lawsuit brought by former players who suffered
concussions.  The deal provides payments for ex-players suffering
from a handful of neurological disorders, giving them a maximum
award of $5 million if they suffer from ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's
disease).  On average, injured players are likely to receive only
$190,000, and many are dissatisfied with the figure. But the only
option remaining for those petitioning for more is the Supreme
Court, which is unlikely to hear the case.

Riddell was named as a co-defendant with the NFL in that same
class-action suit, but was not involved in the settlement
procedure.  The federal judge may still return to Ridell's role in
the lawsuit after all avenues of appeal against the NFL settlement
have been exhausted.

Hornungs against Riddell

The complaint from Paul Hornung and his wife Angela is separate
from the class action.  It accuses Riddell of failing to warn
players that its helmets would not prevent head injuries.

"Riddell's plastic helmet provided no protection for
Paul Hornung's brain," the complaint reads, "yet players,
including Paul Hornung, were led to believe that the innovative
helmets would do so."

Why go after Riddell instead of the NFL? Because in a product
liability case like this one, a plaintiff can only go after the
manufacturer (Riddell), not the employer (NFL) that uses the
product -- unless the employer altered the product in some way.
Product liability cases assert a so-called "failure to warn"
claim; this appeared against Ridell in the class action suit as
well.

Mr. Hornung's complaint will hinge on what kind of warning came
with Riddell's helmets.  For a strict product liability claim, the
plaintiff does not have to prove fraud -- only that the product
did not have an adequate warning.

"There is no knowledge requirement, and there isn't even a
carelessness requirement," explains Geoff Rapp, a law professor at
University of Toledo specializing in torts and sports.  "As long
as you can establish that the product is defective, you don't even
need to claim that they knew or should have known.  If you can
show that the warning was inadequate and didn't communicate all
the dangers, you can win."

There is precedent for Mr. Hornung's complaint.  In 2013 a
Colorado jury awarded $11.5 million to the family of paralyzed
high school football player Rhett Ridolfi.  The jury determined
that Riddell was negligent in not warning players and their
families of the helmet's inability to prevent brain injury, and it
assessed Riddell 27% of the fault, or $3.1 million.  But it did
not agree that Riddell's helmet was defective.

The exact way in which helmets are distributed to players--or were
back when Mr. Hornung played--may become a key, granular issue in
the complaint.  Riddell's responsibility is to put the warning on
the product, "in a way that the end user will see the warning,"
Mr. Rapp says.  "Like when you buy a bike for your kid, there's a
decal stuck right on the body of the bike so you can't possibly
miss it.  The same applies to the helmet, it needs to have a
warning on it or in a place where the players see it.  If it goes
to trial, I think we will get very specific arguments about the
language in the warning. "

The uncertainty about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a
relatively new scientific discovery, helps Riddell and makes
Mr. Hornung's case a tough one for him.  "Obviously you can't warn
about dangers you didn't know exist," says Mr. Rapp.


ROMA SAUSAGE: "Begic" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAFET BEGIC and REDA TAOUFIR, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. ROMA SAUSAGE INC. and STEVEN
BROCCOLI, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 6:16-cv-00937-BKS-TWD
(N.D.N.Y., July 28, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum
wage and overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to
both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former bakery and food prep employees of the
Defendants' sausage company and deli located in Utica, New York.

Roma Sausage Inc. is an active New York corporation with its
principal place of business located in Utica.  Steven Broccoli is
an owner and operator of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com


SAINT-GOBAIN: First PFOA-Related Personal Injury Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Damon, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that the
first lawsuit that claims water contaminated with PFOA led to an
illness has been filed by a New York City firm.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a village resident by attorneys
with Weitz & Luxenburg in federal court on July 27. The complaint
alleges that exposure to the man-made chemical through drinking
water directly caused resident James Donavan to develop illnesses.
Mr. Donavan seeks at least $2.5 million in damages to cover
medical costs and loss of property value.  The complaint also
claims negligence against the two companies the state says is
responsible and calls for a medical monitoring program for area
residents.

The complaint was filed the same day a federal judge appointed the
law firm to lead class action lawsuits against Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics and Honeywell International.  Judge Daniel J.
Stewart on July 27 ordered Weitz & Luxenberg and Faraci Lang to
serve as co-lead interim class counsel for those suits, and Powers
& Santola as liaison counsel for the four related class action
cases.

The personal injury lawsuit is the first one filed since Gov.
Andrew M. Cuomo signed a new law extending the statute of
limitations for cases involving hazardous substance exposure.  The
class action cases are separate and don't address personal injury
directly, but do seek to recover damage to property.

The new law makes it possible for Mr. Donavan to bring a lawsuit
forward, according to Robin L. Greenwald, head of the
Environmental and Consumer Protection Unit. Donavan was diagnosed
more than three years ago.

"It avoids a legal argument and allows us to proceed on the merits
of the case," she told the Banner on July 27.

Greenwald said that while she expects more personal injury cases
will be filed, it's too early to tell whether the court system
would consolidate them.

PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, has been linked to kidney and
testicular cancers, as well as high blood pressure and cholesterol
and thyroid problems.  It turned up in the Hoosick Falls municipal
water supply and numerous private wells. Saint-Gobain and
Honeywell in June signed consent orders with the state which hold
them responsible for contamination.

Donavan lives with an illness that "continues to significantly
hamper and restrict his daily activities and limit life's
pleasures," according to the complaint.

He moved to the village in 1992 and lived in a home served by
public water, according to the complaint.  He met his future wife
Sue, who owned and operated the Falls Diner on Route 22.  From
1997 to 2014, he regularly ate at and drank tap water, which the
complaint notes is adjacent to the former Oak Materials site.

He began experiencing health problems in the mid 1990s.  He was in
his 40s in 2000, when he was diagnosed with high cholesterol. He
was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis which led him to need to
change his diet habits. He suffered a severe reaction to
medication at one point in 2015.

Since February, residents have brought forward four class action
lawsuits against Saint-Gobain and Honeywell.  Competing motions by
plaintiffs were filed to consolidate the cases and appoint law
firms to interim class counsel.

In his order on July 27, Judge Stewart wrote the Weitz-Faraci
group has been retained by the most individuals, worked closely
with the community, and highlighted past experience with
groundwater contamination.

A fifth case that the court also deemed related was not part of
Stewart's order.  A complaint filed by Couch White, LLP for
Hoosick Falls Associates, an entity connected with the local Tops
Friendly Market, seeks $2.1 million for loss of value to the
property on Route 22.  Judge Stewart notes in his order that a
motion to remand the case to trial court is pending.


SAMSUNG: Faces Class Action Over Defective Remote Controls
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Samsung, one of the world's largest makers of televisions and
other electronics, has been hit with a class action lawsuit over
allegedly defective remote controls for its smart TVs, centered on
claims the remotes can overheat and cause the AA batteries inside
to leak potentially dangerous "battery juice."

On July 25, plaintiff Kim Sherwin, identified in the complaint
only as a resident of Illinois, filed her complaint in Chicago
federal court against Samsung Electronics America Inc., a
New Jersey based U.S. affiliate of the Korean international
electronics maker.

Ms. Sherwin is represented in the action by attorneys with the
firm of Edelson PC, of Chicago, and attorney Stefan Coleman, of
Miami, Fla.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Sherwin purchased a 55-inch Samsung
"Smart TV" in 2012 for more than $1,600.  The television purchased
included a special Bluetooth-enabled remote control, which
featured a Qwerty keyboard on one side, purportedly to help users
more easily browse the internet through the Smart TV's web
browser.

Ms. Sherwin said she "was drawn to the television's Qwerty Remote
because its keyboard would her to easily browse the internet on
her TV and other apps."

However, after only a few days, she said the remote's batteries
"quickly depleted," and continued to do so, requiring her to
"regularly replace" the batteries "after low to moderate use . . .
and even after some time when she did not use the remote at all."

About a year later, however, Ms. Sherwin said batteries she
installed "began to leak battery acid . . . and the remote stopped
working."

In 2014, "after using remotes that only gave her basic control" of
the TV, Ms. Sherwin said she purchased a replacement Qwerty remote
for $144, and over the ensuing months, the same problems recurred,
she said.

The lawsuit said Ms. Sherwin's experience was not unique, however,
as many other consumers have reported on online forums and
elsewhere problems with the Qwerty remotes similar to those
alleged by Sherman.  Some, however, also indicate the remotes have
overheated, "sizzled," and one even claimed the battery chamber
"exploded."

According to the lawsuit, the problems were the result of a design
flaw known to Samsung.  The lawsuit alleged Samsung should have
designed the Qwerty remotes to include a rechargeable battery,
more similar to those in use on mobile phones.  Instead, the
lawsuit alleged Samsung opted to power the device using alkaline
batteries knowing the remote would quickly deplete the batteries,
requiring consumers to replace them often at their expense.  They
alleged Samsung also should have known the devices would cause the
batteries to overheat, fail and leak.

The lawsuit has asked the court to approve a nationwide class of
additional claimants, including all those who purchased the Qwerty
remote, and special subclasses who purchased the devices in
Illinois, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington.

The lawsuit alleged Samsung violated consumer fraud laws in each
of those states, and was unjustly enriched.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified statutory and punitive damages under
the laws and an injunction against Samsung, plus attorney fees and
other lawsuit costs.


SCHIFF NUTRITION: "Cochoit" Sues Over Restricted Access
-------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Cochoit, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Schiff Nutrition
International, Inc., Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., Ganeden
Biotech, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-
cv-01371, (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2016), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and
such further relief as may be just.

Defendants claim their Digestive Advantage Products contain a
proprietary bacteria known as Ganaden BC30 that improve and
benefit the digestive and immune health of individuals who
regularly consume them but cannot prove that its proprietary
strain of probiotic bacteria delivers the unique health benefits
claimed in its advertising campaign.

Ganeden Biotech, Inc. is a privately-held company based in
Cleveland, Ohio and sells over-the-counter probiotics in the
United States through its Digestive Advantage (R) line brand of
products. The brand was sold to Schiff and is currently marketed
and distributed by Reckitt Benckiser.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     Skye Resendes, Esq.
     Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Telephone: (619) 696-9006
     Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
            skye@consumersadvocates.com
            mike@consumersadvocates.com


SCOTTRADE: Missouri Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Missouri federal judge has dismissed a group of class action
lawsuits brought against retail brokerage firm Scottrade over a
data breach the company discovered last year.

Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah said in her July 12 memorandum and
order that the plaintiffs' allegations were too speculative.

"Here, although Plaintiffs have alleged that the hackers accessed
Plaintiffs' PII (personal identifying information) and used that
PII for certain illegal business enterprises, Plaintiffs do not
allege any of the PII stolen in the breach has been used to commit
any identity theft, fraud, or any other act that has resulted in
harm to any plaintiff," Judge Mensah wrote in the 19-page ruling.
"Nor do Plaintiffs allege any facts that suggest that the hackers
intend to commit identity theft, fraud, or any other act that
would result in harm to any plaintiff."

The judge said she couldn't determine whether the plaintiffs will
suffer harm in the future without engaging in "considerable
speculation" about the hackers' possible intentions and future
actions.

"Plaintiffs will suffer harm only if the hackers actually intend
to use Plaintiffs' PII to commit identity theft, fraud, or some
other act that might harm Plaintiffs; if the hackers attempt to
use the PII to commit such identity theft, fraud, or other act; if
they actually succeed in doing so; and if the identity theft,
fraud, or other act causes harm to Plaintiffs," she wrote.

Judge Mensah said because of the "uncertainty," she couldn't find
that the plaintiffs face any harm that is "certainly impending."

"This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that more than two
years have passed since the original data breach without a single
alleged instance of identity theft or fraud involving any of
Defendant's customers," the judge noted.

The defendant, Scottrade, is a privately owned financial firm
headquartered in Town and Country, Missouri.  The firm provides
brokerage, banking and retirement planning services to individuals
and businesses.

In October 2015, Scottrade was notified by federal law enforcement
officials that a breach in the company's network occurred between
late 2013 and early 2014, targeting client names and street
addresses.

Contact information was the focus on the incident, the firm said
in a statement; however, Social Security numbers, email addresses
and other sensitive data in the system were accessed.

Scottrade said it had no reason to believe that its trading
platforms or any client funds were compromised.

In response, the firm conducted an internal data forensics
investigation into the incident with assistance from a leading
computer security firm and took "additional steps" to strengthen
its network defenses.

"We appreciate and value the trust you place in us," Scottrade
said in a statement last year.  "We are very sorry that this
happened and for any uncertainty or inconvenience this has caused.
We know that incidents like these are frustrating and we want to
keep you informed about what our forensic investigation has
revealed."

Soon after the firm announced the data breach, several of its
customers filed putative class action lawsuits based on the
breach.

The first was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, then two in the Missouri federal court,
and another in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.  All four were later consolidated before Judge Mensah.

In February, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action
complaint.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged they suffered several
categories of injury or harm related to the data breach: (a)
increased risk of identity theft and identity fraud; (b) the
financial and/or temporal cost of monitoring their credit,
monitoring their financial accounts, and mitigating their damages;
(c) failure to receive the full benefit of their bargain as a
result of receiving brokerage and financial services that were
less valuable than what they paid for; (d) deprivation in the
value of their personal information; and (e) invasion of privacy
and breach of the confidentiality of their personal information.

Scottrade, in response, argued that none of the alleged harms
constituted an injury in fact that is "actual" or "imminent."

The firm argued that the majority of courts faced with similar
allegations have found such alleged harms too speculative or
abstract to satisfy the injury in fact requirement.

Judge Mensah agreed, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013
decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case by following the federal
government's argument that "the claims of the challengers that
they were likely to be targets of surveillance were based too much
on speculation and on a predicted chain of events that might never
occur, so they could not satisfy the constitutional requirement
for being allowed to sue."

"Respondents cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm
on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm
that is not certainly impending," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in
the majority opinion.

The Scottrade plaintiffs argued that instead of relying on Clapper
and similar cases, the federal court should rely on the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Remijas v. Neiman
Marcus Group LLC.

The federal appeals court, in its July 2015 ruling, found that the
risk of harm to the 300,000-plus people whose credit card numbers
were exposed as a result of a 2014 data breach suffered by Neiman
Marcus was "very real and immediate."

But Judge Mensah wasn't buying it.

"The 9,200 fraudulent charges in Remijas demonstrated that the
hackers in that case intended to use, were capable of using, and
were actually using the stolen data to create fraudulent credit
card charges as to some cardholders, which significantly increased
the likelihood that they intended to do the same with regard to
the remaining cardholders and would be capable of doing so," the
judge wrote.  "That fact distinguishes Remijas from the instant
case, in which more than two years have passed with no incidents
of identity theft or other actual harm to the individuals whose
PII was taken."

Judge Mensah dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning that
the plaintiffs can file an amended complaint.


SKULLCANDY INC: "Bernicke" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Karen L. Bernicke, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S. Hoby Darling, Scott Olivet,
Greg Warnock, Rick Alden, Doug Collier, Jeff Kearl, Heidi O'Neill,
Jason Hodell, Skullcandy, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02210
(D. Utah, July 26, 2016), seeks to enjoining, preliminarily and
permanently, the proposed merger and/or rescinding if consummated,
rescissory damages, all damages, reasonable attorneys and experts
fees under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Skullcandy entered into a Plan of Merger with Incipio LLC, through
its affiliate Powder Merger Sub, Inc. to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Skullcandy for $5.75 per share in cash.
Defendants allegedly locked up the deal with provisions that
preclude other bidders from making competing offers, thus limiting
other options and better offers.

Bernicke owns shares of common stock of Skullcandy.

Skullcandy is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 1441 West Ute Boulevard, Suite 250 Park City,
Utah. It produces audio products under two brands: Skullcandy and
Astro Gaming. Through the Skullcandy brand, the Company creates
music-listening products that fuse music, art, fashion, and
sports. Astro Gaming produces audio equipment for the video game
industry, such as headsets and other accessories.

S. Hoby Darling, Scott Olivet, Greg Warnock, Rick Alden, Doug
Collier, Jeff Kearl, Heidi O'Neill and Jason Hodell are members of
Skullcandy's board of directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Levi, Esq.
     Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
     Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171


SOUTH LAFOURCHE: Louisiana Appeals Court Vacates Atty. Fee Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Toni M. Higginbotham of the Louisiana Court of Appeals
denied all preliminary exceptions and motions filed in the court
and vacated that portion of the district court's judgment
concerning attorney fees in the case captioned, JASON AND STACEY
ADAMS, RICHARD RACKI AND ANGELA RACKI, ERNEST KIGER, SR., LORRAINE
CHERAMIE, JOANNE BELLANGER, RAYMOND ORGERON, WAYNE LEE, SR.,
IJNACE ADAMS, JR., JERRY LEDET, DEBRA CHANDLER, EARLY H. HORTON,
RAY LEDET, AND PAMELA GEORGE, v. SOUTH LAFOURCHE LEVEE DISTRICT. 5
CHERS, INC., v. SOUTH LAFOURCHE LEVEE DISTRICT, Case No. 2015 CA
0507, Consolidated With No. 2015 CA 0508 (La. App.).

On January 10, 2011, the Board of Commissioners of the South
Lafourche Levee District (Levee District) adopted Resolution 11-01
(the Resolution), appropriating a permanent levee servitude that
affected 355 tracts of land located on the west bank of the
existing levee along Bayou Lafourche. On September 13, 2011, Jason
Adams and eleven other landowners affected by the Levee District's
appropriation filed a class action lawsuit (hereafter referred to
as the Adams class), contending that the amounts paid and/or
offered according to the Levee District's appraised/assigned
values of all tracts of land were grossly insufficient, and do not
reflect the fair market value of the tracts of land.

On April 20, 2012, the district court certified the Adams class,
defining the class as the owners of 133 tracts and/or those
persons with an ownership interest in the land taken who did not
cash checks issued by the Levee District.

After the trial on the merits for the Adams class action and the 5
Chers lawsuit, the parties submitted post-trial briefs. On
November 10, 2014, the district court issued written reasons for
judgment, signing a judgment on the same day, and finding in favor
of the landowners on the issue of the fair market value
compensation for the appropriated servitude affecting the
landowners' property. The district court collectively awarded
$1,556,378.00 to the Adams class/sub-class (as shown on a
spreadsheet attached to the judgment and subject to a credit for
payments made to the members of the sub-class) and $40,662.00 to 5
Chers.

The Adams class timely filed a "Motion for Partial New Trial on
the Issue of the Credit and/or Motion for Partial Amendment of
Judgment" on November 21, 2014. The Adams class contended that the
spreadsheet attached to the judgment appeared to include checks
that had been issued to landowners who ultimately had opted out of
the Adams class, as well as one check that exceeded the amount
adjudged to be due the landowner.

On January 21, 2015, the Adams class filed its own motion for
appeal from the November 10, 2014 judgment, which the district
court granted on January 28, 2015. The parties in both appeals
dispute the amounts of compensation awarded to the landowners and,
additionally, the Levee District contends that the attorney fees
award is erroneous.

In his Order dated June 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/qY1IUz
from Leagle.com, Judge Higginbotham concluded that the district
court applied the incorrect statute for the attorney fees award in
the case and found it necessary to vacate that portion of the
district court's judgment concerning attorney fees, and remanded
the matter for a hearing so that evidence of reasonable attorney
fees actually incurred by the landowners can be considered by the
district court before attorney fees are awarded.

All costs of the appeal in the amount of $10,663.38 are assessed
to the South Lafourche Levee District.

Jason Adams, et al. are represented by:

       George B. Recile, Esq.
       Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
       CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS
       One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100
       Metairie, LA 70001
       Tel:(504) 217 -2006

5 Chers, Inc. is represented by:

        Jack E. Chappuis, Jr., Esq.
        Francis J. Lobrano, Esq.
        W. Allen Schafer, Esq.
        BELLE CHASSE
                147 Keating Dr
        Belle Chasse, LA 70037-1629
        Plaquemines Parish
        Tel: (504) 433-3100

South Lafourche Levee District is represented by Loulan J. Pitre,
Jr., Esq. -- loulan.pitre@kellyhart.com -- Aimee Williams Hebert,
Esq. -- aimee.hebert@kellyhart.com -- and Jane A. Jackson, Esq. --
attorneyjackson@gmail.com -- LAW OFFICE OF LISA J. JACKSON


STATE STREET: Settles Foreign Exchange Cases for $530 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Healy, writing for Boston Globe, reports that State Street
Corp. will pay $530 million to settle years of regulatory
investigations and private lawsuits alleging that it overcharged
pensions, mutual funds, and other clients on foreign currency
trades.

Under an agreement with federal authorities announced on July 26,
the Boston-based financial services giant will pay $167.4 million
to the Securities and Exchange Commission and $155 million to the
Department of Justice, as well as $50 million to pension clients.

The payouts are aimed at concluding investigations that State
Street has faced since 2009, when Wall Street whistle-blower Harry
Markopolos filed a lawsuit on behalf of the nation's largest
public pension funds, in California.  He later filed additional
lawsuits in Massachusetts and around the country.

"Mutual funds and other registered investment companies should not
face overreaching by the very banks hired to safeguard their
assets," Paul G. Levenson, director of the SEC's Boston regional
office, said in a statement.

State Street said it was settling the cases because "matters of
this nature can drain both time and resources."

The agreements still need approval from a federal court.

The company said it had previously set aside reserves to cover the
costs of litigation and settlement payouts.  It also reserved
funds to pay an additional $147.6 million to resolve private
class-action lawsuits filed by customers over the same issues, the
company said.

State Street was scheduled to release its quarterly earnings on
July 27.

The alleged misconduct took place from 1998 to 2009.  A large
custody bank with major investment clients around the world, State
Street admitted to the US attorney that, despite promising to get
customers the best possible currency trades, it had hidden mark-
ups, which boosted its profits.

"State Street's custody clients, many of whom were public pension
funds, financial institutions, and non-profit organizations, had a
right to expect that State Street would execute transactions in an
honest and forthright manner," US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said in
a statement.  Instead, she said, the company reaped "substantial
profits" at the expense of its custody clients.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. last year agreed to pay $714 million
to settle the government's foreign exchange probes, as well as
private lawsuits.

Mr. Markopolos will earn whistle-blower's fees in the case.  This
was his first major case after he tried repeatedly to alert
authorities to the Bernard Madoff swindle.


SUMMIT ENTERTAIMENT: "Pawelsky" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA PAWELSKY, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SUMMIT ENTERTAIMENT CORP.
d/b/a GENTLEMENS QUARTERS, and PHILLIP TRICOLA, and/or any other
affiliated entities, the Defendants, Case No. 603315/2015 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
illegally retained tips, and improperly withheld wages, pursuant
to the New York Labor Law.

Beginning May 2009, the Defendants have failed to provide the
statutory minimum hourly wage to its entertainment and service
employees.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment under
the name Gentlemens Quarters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


T & B MANAGEMENT: Faces "Chavez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA CHAVEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. T & B MANAGEMENT, LLC and T & B CONCEPTS OF HICKORY,
LLC, each d/b/a HICKORY TAVERN, Case 1:16-cv-01019 (M.D.N.C.,
August 1, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Hickory Tavern Defendants individually and/or collectively
operate and manage approximately 23 casual dining "sports bar"
restaurants in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and
Alabama, including a location in Winston Salem, Forsyth County,
North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul R. Dickinson Jr., Esq.
     LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC
     One Southpark Center
     6060 Piedmont Row Drive South, Suite 140
     Charlotte, NC 28287
     Phone: 704-347-8990
     Fax: 704-347-8929
     E-mail: pauldickinson@lewis-roberts.com

        - and -

     James A. Roberts III, Esq.
     LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC
     3700 Glenwood Ave., Suite 410
     P.O. Box 17529
     Raleigh, NC 27619-7529
     Phone: 919-981-0191
     Fax: 919-981-0199
     E-mail: jimroberts@lewis-roberts.com


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VAIBHAV DOSHI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JODIE POPE MORRISON, and
LEE H. KALOWSKI, Case 1:16-cv-06106 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016),
was filed on behalf of purchasers of Tokai securities between June
24, 2015 and July 25, 2016, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act.

TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for
prostate cancer and other hormonally-driven diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste. 1404
     Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
     Phone: 800-977-7401
     Fax: 800-536-0065
     E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
             brian@goldberglawpc.com


TOWERJAZZ: Court Approves Voluntary Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
TowerJazz, the global specialty foundry leader, on July 28
announced the dismissal of the securities action filed earlier
this year in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, following the plaintiffs request for
voluntary dismissal.  There were no settlement payments or any
other considerations involved in the withdrawal and dismissal of
the lawsuit.  The Company will not bear any financial costs since
all legal and other relevant expenses are covered by its insurance
policy.

The company has and will continue its focus on shareholder value
through smart business growth and commensurate financial
performance.

                        About TowerJazz

Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (NASDAQ: TSEM, TASE:TSEM) --
http://www.towerjazz-- and its fully owned U.S. subsidiaries Jazz
Semiconductor, Inc. and TowerJazz Texas Inc., operate collectively
under the brand name TowerJazz, the global specialty foundry
leader.  TowerJazz manufactures integrated circuits, offering a
broad range of customizable process technologies including: SiGe,
BiCMOS, mixed-signal/CMOS, RF CMOS, CMOS image sensor, integrated
power management (BCD and 700V), and MEMS.  TowerJazz also
provides a world-class design enablement platform for a quick and
accurate design cycle as well as Transfer Optimization and
development Process Services (TOPS) to IDMs and fabless companies
that need to expand capacity.

To provide multi-fab sourcing and extended capacity for its
customers, TowerJazz operates two manufacturing facilities in
Israel (150mm and 200mm), two in the U.S. (200mm) and three
additional facilities in Japan (two 200mm and one 300mm) through
TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co. (TPSCo), established with
Panasonic Corporation of which TowerJazz has the majority holding.
Through TPSCo, TowerJazz provides leading edge 45nm CMOS, 65nm RF
CMOS and 65nm 1.12um pixel technologies, including the most
advanced image sensor technologies.


TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Byles" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MACKIE R. BYLES, MACKIE W. BYLES, ROBERT HOWARD, DAVID GANN, and
BON SCOTT MORRIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, JEFFERY COLWELL
and JOHN RATLIFF, Case No. 7:16-cv-00283-RAJ (W.D. Tex., July 28,
2016), is brought to recover overtime compensation and all other
available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Transglobal Services, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Texas.  Transglobal is a
full service field service provider in the energy industry.
Transglobal primarily provides surveying, right of way and seismic
services to oil and gas producers.  Messrs. Colwell and Ratliff
are the owners and the primary decision-makers of Transglobal.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908-9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


TUCKER ENERGY: "Headrick" Suit Seeks Compensation, Reinstatement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Headrick, Individually and on behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Tucker Energy Services, Inc. and
Tucker Energy Services U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
749 (W.D. Tex., July 25, 2016), seeks overtime wages, monetary,
liquidated damages, civil penalties, prejudgment interests, all
costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting these claims and
such further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Tucker Energy Services, Inc. and Tucker Energy Services U.S.A. are
Texas corporations and licensed to do business in the States of
Texas and Oklahoma with offices at 450 Gears, Suite 800, Houston,
Texas 77067. It operates, maintains, set-ups, disassembles and
repairs equipment at oil wells.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


US BANCORP: Calif. Appeals Court Won't Send Case to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Maria P. Rivera of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration
of the individual claims of plaintiff Scott Williams in the case
captioned, SCOTT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. U.S.
BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case
No. A141199 (Cal. App.).

Williams became employed by USBI as a financial consultant in May
2007.  Williams filed a class action complaint in the present
action on April 23, 2010 against USBI in the San Francisco
Superior Court, alleging causes of action for unpaid overtime,
unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid
business expenses, wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage
statements, and unlawful business practices.  As amended, the
complaint proposed two subclasses: (1) the "Unpaid Wages
Subclass," defined as "All commission paid employees who worked
for Defendants in California from May 9, 2008 until the date of
certification," and (2) the "Unreimbursed Business Expenses
Subclass," defined as "All employees of Defendants who paid for
business-related expenses, including expenses for assistants,
client or prospect beverages or meals, or cell phone expenses, in
California from May 9, 2008 until the date of certification."

USBI demanded arbitration of Williams's individual claims holding
that Williams had signed at the outset of his employment with
USBI, which included an agreement "to arbitrate any dispute, claim
or controversy that may arise between you and your firm, or a
customer, or any other person, that is required to be arbitrated
under the rules of the self-regulatory organizations with which
you are registering." The trial court denied USBI's motion to
compel arbitration and to dismiss the class complaint holding that
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Industry Disputes (FINRA) Rule 13204(d) prohibits
the enforcement of an arbitration agreement with respect to any
claim that is the subject of a putative class action until there
is a determination of class certification made.

On appeal, USBI contends the trial court erred in denying its
motion to compel arbitration. According to USBI, the issue of the
propriety of class certification had already been resolved in the
Burakoff action, to which Williams was a party, and Williams is
barred by principles of collateral estoppel from re-litigating the
issue.

In her Order dated June 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/6YgBuS from Leagle.com, Judge Rivera held that the
Amended Complaint provides numerous factual allegations sufficient
to support a plausible claim of willfulness.  As to the Motion for
Leave to File Sur-Reply, George Mason has failed to demonstrate a
need for a sur-reply because the parties have exhaustively briefed
the issue, thereby providing George Mason with a fair opportunity
to contest Plaintiffs' claims.


VIACOM INC: Engineers Pension Fund Files Lawsuit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 478 PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
SUMNER M. REDSTONE, SHARI REDSTONE, VIACOM INC., NATIONAL
AMUSEMENTS, INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LLC, GEORGE S.
ABRAMS, PHILIPPE DAUMAN, THOMAS E. DOOLEY, CRISTIANA FALCONE
SORRELL, BLYTHE J. MCGARVIE, DEBORAH NORVILLE, CHARLES E.
PHILLIPS, JR., FREDERIC V. SALERNO, WILLIAM SCHWARTZ, NICOLE
SELIGMAN, KENNETH LERER, THOMAS J. MAY, JUDITH MCHALE and RONALD
NELSON, Case No. 12612 (Del. Ch., August 1, 2016), was filed on
behalf of a purported class of holders of shares of Class B common
stock of Viacom Inc.

Viacom Inc. is a "global media brand" company that operates
through two segments, Media Networks and Filmed Entertainment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
     Paul A. Fioravanti Jr., Esq.
     Elizabeth M. McGeever, Esq.
     Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
     PRICKETT JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
     1310 N. King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 888-6500

        - and -

     Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
     Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
     David J. MacIsaac, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP
     1251 Avenue of Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554-1400


VIACOM INC: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Intrusion Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of most of the
plaintiffs' claims, vacated its dismissal of the claim for
intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom, and remanded the case for
further proceedings in the case captioned, IN RE: NICKELODEON
CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION. A.V.; C.A.F.; C.T.F.; M.P.; T.P.;
K.T.; N.J.; T.M.; STEPHANIE FRYAR, Appellants, Case No. 15-1441
(3rd Cir.).

Defendant Viacom owns the children's television station
Nickelodeon. It also operates Nick.com, a website geared towards
children that offers streaming videos and interactive games. A
child registers to use Nick.com by signing up for an account and
choosing a username and password. The plaintiffs allege that
Viacom and Google unlawfully used cookies to track children's web
browsing and video-watching habits on Viacom's websites. They
claim that the defendants collected information about children in
at least four ways in violation of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act, and one for invasion of privacy under New Jersey
law.

In June of 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred six privacy-related suits against Viacom and Google to
the District of New Jersey for consolidation. The plaintiffs in
these cases seek to represent two classes. The first is a class of
"all children under the age of 13 in the United States who visited
the website Nick.com and had Internet cookies that tracked their
communications placed on their computing devices by Viacom and
Google." The second is a class of "all children under the age of
13 in the United States who were registered users of Nick.com and
who engaged with one or more video materials on such site, and who
had their video viewing histories knowingly disclosed by Viacom to
Google."

Shortly after transfer to the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiffs filed their first consolidated complaint. It raised six
claims, including violations of (i) the Wiretap Act, (ii) the
Stored Communications Act, (iii) the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, (iv) the Video Privacy Protection Act, (v) the New
Jersey Computer Related Offenses Act, and (vi) a claim under New
Jersey common law for intrusion upon seclusion.

The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all
of the plaintiffs' claims, three of them with prejudice. The
District Court nonetheless permitted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint revising their claims under the Video Privacy
Protection Act, the New Jersey Computer Related Offenses Act, and
for intrusion upon seclusion. The plaintiffs did so, the
defendants again moved to dismiss, and the District Court
dismissed the case in its entirety.

On appeal, Plaintiffs maintaining they timely filed their
complaint and adequately complied with the delayed discovery rule.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/8Yi4Tg from Leagle.com, Judge Fuentes affirmed the
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims because the plaintiffs failed
to state a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act and the
definition of personally identifiable information in the Act does
not extend to the kind of static digital identifiers allegedly
disclosed by Viacom to Google except the plaintiffs' claim against
Viacom for intrusion upon seclusion  because the plaintiffs have
adequately alleged that Viacom collected personal information
about children despite its promise not to do so and its conduct in
breach of its promise was highly offensive under New Jersey law.

Viacom, Inc. is represented by Seth J. Lapidow, Esq. --
Lapidow@BlankRome.com -- and Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq. --
Orlofsky@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP

Appellee Google, Inc. is represented by Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq.
-- jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com -- and  Joshua N. Howley, Esq. --
jhowley@sillscummis.com -- SILLS, CUMMIS & GROSS P.C.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Target of US-Style Class Action Bill in Korea
------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Jae-won, writing for Korea Times, reports that Rep. Park
Young-sun of the Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK) submitted a
U.S.-style class action bill, targeting German automaker
Volkswagen for refusing to compensate local customers over its
emissions cheating scandal, the four-term lawmaker said on
July 27.

The journalist-turned-politician said that it is urgent to adopt a
class action bill with no limits here so consumers may receive
full compensation from irresponsible companies.  Forty-six
legislators, including Park, signed the bill.

A class action suit is a type of lawsuit where the plaintiff is a
group of people represented collectively by a member of that
group.  It allows the claims of all plaintiffs to be resolved in a
single proceeding, providing all customers the same compensation.

It originated in the U.S. in 1938 and is predominant there.  In
Korea, it was introduced in 2005, but was limited to the
securities business only.

"Volkswagen agreed to pay 17.5 trillion won in compensation to
customers in the U.S., where the class action suit is well-
developed," said Rep. Park in a press conference at the National
Assembly.  "But the company has no plans to compensate our
citizens and seeks to avoid making payments by hiring big local
law firms."

In June, Volkswagen settled with the U.S. government to pay as
much as $15.3 billion after admitting it cheated for years on
diesel emissions tests.

The carmaker agreed to buy back vehicles from consumers and
provide funding that could benefit creators of cleaner
technologies.

Ms. Park's remarks come amid the Korean government's moves to
nullify certification for 79 vehicle models of Audi Volkswagen
Korea, which allegedly manipulated documents on the cars' noise
level, fuel efficiency and emissions.

But the carmaker said that it made some mistakes in the process of
drafting relevant reports during a hearing hosted by the
environment ministry, denying it intentionally manipulated the
documents.

Legal experts welcomed the bill saying the country needs to
strengthen punishment for companies causing societal damage
intentionally.

"A class action should come with punitive damages which impose
much bigger compensation on companies neglecting their duties to
protect customers," said Bae Keum-ja, a veteran attorney who has
led lawsuits against KT&G over the harmfulness of cigarettes.

"If a class action is available in all industries, it can apply to
manufacturers of toxic humidifier disinfectants which are
suspected of ignoring the dangers of their products
intentionally."

Reckitt Benckiser is under investigation by the prosecution as the
British-based firm is accused of selling its toxic humidifier
disinfectant under the brand name of Oxy which has been connected
with more than 100 deaths here.

A special National Assembly committee on the case also
investigated Reckitt Benckiser's local unit and Korean
manufacturers SK Chemical and Aekyung for their alleged
wrongdoings in the scandal.

Representatives of Volkswagen Korea did not respond to repeated
calls from The Korea Times for comments over the class action
bill.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Class Settlement, Plan of Allocation Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Vocera Communications, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Master File No.3: 13-cv-03567 EMC (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the Lead Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of the proposed class action Settlement and
approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation for the net proceeds
of the Settlement.

A copy of the Court's July 29, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ubJ4cN from Leagle.com.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kartikay Mehrotra and Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg
News, report that Volkswagen AG's settlements to get 482,000
emissions-cheating diesel cars off U.S. roads won a preliminary
go-ahead from a federal judge, clearing a path for Germany's
largest automaker around the biggest obstacle to recovery from the
scandal.

The plan for buybacks and a possible fix covers car owners, the
U.S. government and 44 states and will cost the company about
$15.3 billion if the agreements are fully adopted.  That includes
VW's $603 million accord with the states that isn't part of the
settlement before U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in San
Francisco.

"An enormous effort has been devoted to achieving a series of
goals," Judge Breyer said on July 26 in court, where he set a
final approval hearing for Oct. 18.  "I think from what I've seen,
those goals have been achieved, at least preliminarily."

Approval of the agreement advances Volkswagen's push to resolve
more than 1,000 U.S. lawsuits springing from the diesel-cheating
scandal.  The settlement resolves claims over VW and Audi models
made since 2009 with 2.0-liter engines, but still leaves the
automaker without an agreement for 82,000 3.0-liter diesel
engines.  The company also faces additional state lawsuits by
attorneys general in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland that
could add billions of dollars to the carmakers' tab.

The pact eats up almost all of the 16.2 billion euros ($17.8
billion) the company set aside last year to cover the cost of the
scandal worldwide.  In addition to investor class actions in the
U.S. and lawsuits in Germany and South Korea, the company faces
criminal probes in all three countries.  The German carmaker took
a 2.2 billion-euro charge in the second quarter, chiefly related
to legal risks in the U.S.

Volkswagen rose 2.3 percent percent to 127.65 euros as of 9:05
a.m. in Frankfurt trading.  That pared the stock's decline since
the scandal emerged in September to 21 percent, valuing the German
manufacturer at 66.3 billion euros.

'Fair, Reasonable'

"The parties believe that the proposed settlement program will
provide a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution for affected
Volkswagen and Audi customers," VW said in a statement.

The settlement before Breyer includes $10 billion for buybacks,
plus $4.7 billion in government penalties and remediation.  With
or without a fix, there's nothing to stop owners in some states
from driving the polluting cars if they don't like the buyback
terms.

Drivers who participate in the deal will get at least $5,100 each
as part of a buyback program that will begin in October and run
through June 30, 2019, the deadline for the company to get 85
percent of cars recalled.  If it fails to reach that benchmark, it
will have to pay $85 million more into an environmental mitigation
trust for each percentage point of the shortfall.  It will also
have to pay an additional $13.5 million into the trust for each
percentage point it falls below the target in California.

Opt-Out

With the July 26 decision, car owners not satisfied with the
settlement can now file objections with the court.  Those who want
to fight for their claim separately can opt out of the agreement.

Few opt-outs are expected and those that do occur won't hinder the
settlement for others, said Steve Berman, a plaintiff's attorney
in the case who represents almost 14,000 VW owners. "There are
always objections and no settlement is 100 percent perfect for
all," he said.

At least 657 diesel VW owners in Virginia are filing suit against
the company in state court, citing Virginia's warranty and
consumer protection statutes that offer car owners full refunds
and triple the damages, said their attorney, James Feinman.
"Virginia law is crystal clear: these vehicles are illegal to
operate in Virginia," said Mr. Feinman, who started filing new
lawsuits within hours of Judge Breyer approving the settlement.
"The whole thing is a fraud in my mind. The EPA has no
jurisdiction to declare what's legal in Virginia and this issue
has no business being in a district court."

Plaintiffs like those in Virginia will likely be a small sample
among the 1,057 cases included in the class-action dispute.
According to a survey by the online automotive shopping site
CarGurus, 68 percent of 410 respondents felt VW's offer was either
fair or generous.

"It is a good deal for diesel owners and not because VW feels
generous," said Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan law
professor.  "It is because VW could face criminal charges in the
U.S. and wants to appear to be cooperative."

Elizabeth Cabraser, the lead lawyer for car owners, told the judge
on July 26 "the money is a means to an end that cannot be achieved
without a number of parties working together, as they have
throughout the course of negotiations to accomplish a plan that
works together in the real world."

Nitrogen Oxide

The carmaker has yet to come up with a fix for the cars, which
were rigged to meet standards during stationary tests while
emitting up to 40 times the allowable limit for nitrogen oxides
while out on the road.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and California Air Resources Board must approve any fix proposed
by VW.  So, far none of the repairs have met agencies' standards.
A Justice Department lawyer told the judge on July 26 that VW is
expected in August to submit a new proposal for fixing the
3-liter engines.  The models covered by the 2-liter agreement
include: the 2013-15 Beetle; 2010-15 Golf; 2009-15 Jetta; 2012-15
Passat; and Audi A3 from 2010-13 and 2015.

VW is hiring 250 to 300 people to carry out the settlement
requirements, Sharon Nelles, a lawyer for the company, told
Breyer. V W will set up a hotline that will be available seven
days a week, she said.

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


VOYA RETIREMENT: "Dezelan" Files ERISA Class Action in Conn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene Dezelan, individually, on behalf of the Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center 403(b) Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all
similarly situated Plans, Plaintiff, v. Voya Retirement Insurance
And Annuity Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01251 (D. Conn.,
July 27, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as
necessary and appropriate, appropriate equitable relief, including
damages, accounting, surcharge, disgorgement of profits, equitable
lien, constructive trust, or other remedy, attorneys' fees and
expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company is a legal reserve
insurance company authorized under the insurance laws of New York.
Its principal place of business is Windsor, Connecticut.  It sells
group annuity contracts to retirement plans. These contracts
include Stable Value Funds that periodically credit a certain
amount of interest income to retirement plans and the participants
in such plans who invest their retirement plan accounts in SVAs.

Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan, investing her retirement
assets in Stable Value Funds through her Plan. She accuses the
Defendant of excessive enrichment derived from the said fund.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert A. Izard (ct01601)
     Craig A. Raabe (ct04116)
     Christopher M. Barrett
     IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Telephone: (860) 493-6292
     Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
     Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
            craabe@ikrlaw.com
            cbarrett@ikrlaw.com

            - and -

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 463-2101
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
            rjenny@baileyglasser.com


WASHINGTON: Court Grants Class Certification in "Teeter" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington granted Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, B.E. and
A.R., on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. DOROTHY F. TEETER, in her official
capacity as Director of the Washington State Health Care
Authority, Defendant, Case No. C16-0227-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

The matter is brought by Washington Medicaid enrollees who have
contracted Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and not received medication
known as Direct-Acting Antivirals (DAAs) despite the well-
documented success rate of DAA treatment. Plaintiffs bring the
suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging violation of Title XIX of
the Social Security Act (also known as the Medicaid Act).

On May 27, 2016 the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction and ordered the Washington Health Care
Authority (WHCA) enjoined from applying its 2015 policy regarding
the treatment of the HCV. In tandem with their motion for a
preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs move the Court to certify their
class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of "All individuals who (1) Were,
are, or will be enrolled in WHCA's Medicaid Program on or after
October 10, 2014;(2) Require, or are expected to require treatment
for HCV with Harvoni/ledipasvir-sofosbuvir or other similar DAAs
under the current guidelines adopted by the American Association
for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases
Society of America; and(3) Do not meet the coverage criteria for
HCV medication adopted by WHCA, as reflected in Appendix 1 to
Plaintiffs' Complaint. "

The WHCA argues that class certification is "unnecessary" because
the preliminary injunction benefits all class members regardless
of whether they are formally certified.

Plaintiffs argue, however, that necessity is not a required
showing for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

In his Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mJDSJN
from Leagle.com, Judge Coughenour held that certification under
Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate and appointed B.E. and A.R. as class
representatives and appoints Richard E. Spoonemore and Eleanor
Hamburger of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger, Amy L. Crewdson
of Columbia Legal Services, and Kevin Costello of Harvard Law
School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation as class
counsel.

B. E. and A. R., Plaintiffs are represented by Amy Louise
Crewdson, Esq. -- amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL
SERVICES; Kevin Costello, Esq. -- kcostello@law.harvard.edu --
CENTER FOR HEALTH LAW & POLICY INNOVATION

They are also represented by:

       Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
       Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
       SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
       999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650
       Seattle, WA 98104
       Tel: (206)223-0303

Dorothy F. Teeter is represented by:

       Angela D. Coats McCarthy, Esq.
       Jennifer Smith Meyer, Esq.
       Nissa Ann Iversen, Esq.
       WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
       1125 Washington Street SE
       PO Box 40100
       Olympia, WA  98504-0100
       Tel: (360) 753-6200


WESTERN WORLD: Calif. App. Affirms Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Murray, Jr. of the California Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment in favor of Western World Insurance Company
in the case captioned SYLVIA PORTUGAL, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Case
No. C067875 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Sylvia Portugal, as representative of a class of former
employees, filed the underlying action against her former
employer, Carequest, Inc. dba Real Care, an in-home provider of
household services for elderly and disabled persons. Real Care had
commercial general liability (CGL) and professional liability
insurance through Western World Insurance Company (Western). The
underlying action was for unpaid wages, overtime, and penalties.

Western declined to defend or indemnify Real Care in the
underlying lawsuit, contending that plaintiffs did not have
standing under section 11580, subdivision (b)(2), since their
lawsuit was not an action based upon bodily injury, death, or
property damage and the insurance policies did not cover the
employees' claims.

Western moved for summary judgment on two alternative grounds: (1)
Portugal and the class lacked standing to sue under section 11580
because the claims were not based on bodily injury, death, or
property damage; and (2) the lawsuit was for wages and employment
benefits, which were not even potentially covered under the
insurance policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to
Western ruling that Portugal and her class lacked standing under
section 11580, because the underlying claims were for wages and
employment benefits, which were intangible economic interests, not
bodily injury, death, or property damage. The trial court also
found that the underlying claims were not covered occurrences
under the insurance policies or were expressly excluded.

On appeal, Portugal argued triable issues preclude summary
judgment.

In his Opinion dated July 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/r2MqqO from Leagle.com, Judge Murray, Jr. concluded
that Portugal fails to demonstrate that any of her causes of
action may fall within the scope of the policy. Moreover, beyond
the evidence establishing that Portugal's claims are not covered,
Western has conclusively established that all of the claims are
excluded.


WISCONSIN: Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Peterson of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied Plaintiff's
motion to alter or amend the judgment, motion for recusal and
motion for electronic court filing access in the case captioned,
ROBERT TATUM, and all similarly situated DOC/CCI Inmates,
Plaintiff, v. DENNIS CIMPL, CHRISTINE CHARETTE, KELLY DEFORT,
DONNA LENDOWSKI, JACKELINE MALONE, LEPOSAVA MUNNS, KATHY NELSON,
KAREN PALIS, TAMMY SYLVESTER, LISA WENINGER, PATRICIA CURLEY,
"JOHN" HIGGINBOTHAM, DIANE FREMGREN, JEFFREY KREMERS, SUSAN "B.",
ALAN WHITE, SUSAN RAIMER, FRANK REMINGTON, CARLOS ESQUEDA, WILLIAM
CONLEY, PETER OPPENEER, "M." HARDIN, and LINDA MUHAMMAD,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-690-JDP (W.D. Wis.).

Plaintiff Robert Tatum, a prisoner at Wisconsin Secure Program
Facility, brought this proposed civil class action alleging that
defendants, mostly judges and court employees, including clerks
and court reporters, violated his First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights in various ways during plaintiff's
criminal proceedings and civil actions.

In a February 12, 2016, order, the court dismissed the case for
plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted concluding that plaintiff's claims against judges and
related court employees were barred by absolute judicial immunity,
that his claims against various court reporters were barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because they would call his
conviction into question, and his claim against his mother for
taking part in a wide-ranging conspiracy to deprive him of his
rights was implausible.

Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion for an order
requiring the Department of Corrections to unblock access to the
court's electronic docket.

In his Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/dEo2Gu
from Leagle.com, Judge Peterson concluded that plaintiff does not
identify a manifest error in the dismissal order and does not
present a compelling reason to consider allowing him access or
delving deeper into prison policy regarding electronic court
access.


WORLD WRESTLING: Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut denied WWE's motion for
reconsideration of the court's order granting in part and denying
in part defendant's motions to dismiss the Singleton and
McCullough actions in the case captioned, RUSS McCULLOUGH, a/k/a
"Big Russ McCullough", RYAN SAKODA, and MATTHEW R. WEISE, a/k/a
"Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all Others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., Defendant. EVAN SINGLETON and VITO LOGRASSO Plaintiffs, v.
WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. WILLIAM ALBERT
HAYNES III, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendant. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v.
ROBERT WINDHAM, THOMAS BILLINGTON, JAMES WARE, OREAL PERRAS, and
VARIOUS JOHN DOE'S, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-001074 (VLB),
3:15-cv-00425 (VLB), 3:15-cv-01156 (VLB), 3:15-cv-0994 (VLB) (D.
Conn.).

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action are former wrestlers for
World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE), a Connecticut
entertainment company which produces televised wrestling
programming. Plaintiffs allege that they are either suffering from
symptoms of permanent degenerative neurological conditions
resulting from traumatic brain injuries sustained during their
employment as wrestlers for WWE or are at increased risk of
developing such conditions.

In its March 21, 2016, memorandum of opinion and accompanying
Order (the Opinion), the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
they were injured as a result of WWE's negligence in scripting
violent conduct and failing to properly educate, prevent, diagnose
and treat them for concussions. The Court held that plaintiffs
LoGrasso and Singleton plausibly stated a claim that WWE
fraudulently omitted known facts regarding a link between
wrestling activity and permanent brain damage resulting from
traumatic brain injuries. The Court further found that the fraud
claim may not be tolled by the operation of Connecticut's statutes
of limitations and repose.

The Court thereafter entered an Order dismissing WWE's countersuit
against Robert Windham, et al on the basis that the complaint
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as the
Court could not, for the reasons stated in its Opinion, issue a
declaration that WWE was not liable on the basis of Connecticut's
statute of limitations. The Court denied as moot WWE's motion to
discover the identities of the unknown John Doe defendants in
Windham.

In the motion, WWE argues that the Court misapplied the applicable
law and alleged facts in determining that LoGrasso's claims were
not time-barred and in finding that Singleton and LoGrasso
plausibly stated a claim for fraud by omission. WWE also argues
that dismissal of the Windham action was premature and that the
stated basis  --  failure to state a claim for relief  --  was not
the basis of the Windham defendants' Motion to Dismiss which
argued for dismissal on the sole grounds of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

In her Memorandum dated July 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/S4IQVK from Leagle.com, Judge Bryant granted motion
to dismiss the Windham action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction with respect to the claims against the unknown "John
Does" and denied with respect to the claims against the four named
defendants.

Windham, Billington, Ware and Perras are reinstated as defendants
in the consolidated action.

Cassandra Frazier and Michelle James are represented by Erica C.
Mirabella, Esq. -- erica@mirabellaLLC.com -- MIRABELLA LLC;
R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq. -- chrisgil@sidgilreath.com --
GILREATH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC -- Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. --
rapeterson@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP

They are also represented by:

      Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq.
      KYROS LAW OFFICES
      1100 6th Avenue South,
      Suite 229B, Naples, FL 34102
      Tel: (800)934-2921

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is represented by B. John
Casey, Esq. -- john.casey@klgates.com -- Christopher M. Verdini,
Esq. -- christopher.verdini@klgates.com -- Paul R. Genender, Esq.
-- paul.genender@klgates.com -- Stefanie M. Lacy, Esq. --
stephanie.lacy@klgates.com -- Terry Budd, Esq. --
terry.budd@klgates.com -- Curtis B. Krasik, Esq. --
curtis.krasik@klgates.com -- and Jerry S. McDevitt, Esq. --
jerry.mcdevitt@klgates.com -- K&L GATES, LLP; Eugene J. Podesta,
Jr., Esq. -- gpodesta@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON,
BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOVITZ, PC -- Jeffrey Mueller, Esq. --
jmueller@daypitney.com -- Jonathan B. Tropp, Esq. --
jtropp@daypitney.com -- and Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. --
tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP

John Doe's, Various is represented by:

      Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq.
      KYROS LAW OFFICES
      1100 6th Avenue South, Suite 229B
      Naples, FL 34102
      Tel: (800)934-2921


ZUMIES INC: "Bernal" Suit Alleges Unfair Employment Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ZUMIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case 1:16-at-00608 (E.D. Cal., August 1, 2016), alleges
unlawful and unfair employment practices against Defendants.

ZUMIES, INC. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is an online seller of
clothing, shoes, accessories, and gear for skateboarding,
snowboarding, and surf lifestyles for guys, girls, and kids.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
     29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
     Agoura Hills, CA 91301
     Phone: (818) 991-8080
     Fax: (818) 991-8081
     E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
             dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com


* IMF Bentham Sponsors UNSW Class Action Research Project
---------------------------------------------------------
Emma Ryan, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that an Australian
litigation funder has committed $160,000 to a two-year research
initiative with UNSW Law.

IMF Bentham has announced it has agreed to sponsor the IMF Bentham
Class Actions Research Initiative at the UNSW Faculty of Law,
which aims to explore and resolve key issues in class action
practice throughout the nation.

The initiative will examine the operation of class action
settlement distribution schemes in Australia and how to achieve
finality in class action litigation, with the results of the
research to be published on a dedicated website and presented at
conferences and seminars for interested parties.

"IMF is delighted to be able to support ground-breaking research
into practical issues affecting class action litigation in
Australia," said Andrew Saker, IMF managing director.

"Class actions have emerged as an important means to provide
access to justice for consumers and investors.

"The initiative will identify practical ways to enhance the
operation of the class action regime, and we are pleased that UNSW
Law has chosen to collaborate with IMF as its industry partner on
this important project."

Professor George Williams AO, dean of UNSW Law, thanked IMF for
its contribution to the initiative.

"UNSW Law is very pleased to collaborate with IMF Bentham on this
important initiative," he said.

"It matches our aspirations to produce new research on key legal
topics and to have an impact on the future of legal practice
through partnerships with industry leaders."

The initiative will be led by UNSW Law academics Professor
Simone Degeling and Associate Professor Michael Legg.

Professor Degeling specializes in private law, including equity,
trusts, remedies and the law of restitution.

Associate Professor Legg specializes in class actions and has
written a range of articles on civil and regulatory litigation,
class actions and litigation funding in Australia and around the
world.



                            *********

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  * * *