---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 203


                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN: Franchisor Plans Class Suit Over Staff Underpayment
ABM SECURITY: "Macaraeg" Suit Removed to N. District California
ADEPT TECHNOLOGY: "Iannaci" Sues Over Proposed Omron Takeover
AMERIFLOW ENERGY: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ARAMARK FACILITY: "Saldana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

ASHLEY MADISON: AIG, Axis Capital Named in Class Suit
ATHWAL ALMONDS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Corona" Suit Says
ATLANTIS SEAFOOD: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
ATTITUDES RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
AURA CYCLE: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Termination Policies

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BED HANDLES: Re-announced Portable Bed Handle Recall
BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Expands DaVinci Crib Recall
BIO K: "Kunz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages

BLUE CROSS: Faces "Frazier" Suit Over Hepatitis C Benefit Claims
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Haffke" Suit Over Hepatitis C Benefit Claims
BLUE CROSS: Settles Suit on "Most Favored Nation" Pacts
BRECKSVILLE, OH: Resident Sues City Over Illegally Raising Tax
BRP US: Recalls Can-Am All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard

BSH HOME: Recalls Dishwashers Due to Fire Hazard
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Blumstein" Suit in Cal. Over PSP-Price Fixing
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Bowman" Suit in Cal. Over PSP-Price Fixing
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Dravid" Suit in Cal. Over PSP-Price Fixing
DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls Decor Wood Highchairs Due to Fall Hazard

DUPONT: Faces First Trial in C-8 Exposure Class Suit
EL POLLO: Faces "Velazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Probe in Manipulation of US Treasury Auction
IDI INC: Fla. Court Dismisses "Heim" Securities Suit
MARKIT LTD: Has $50MM Deal to Settle Antitrust Class Suit

MARS: Faces Class Suit Aiming to Stop Forced Labor
MASSACHUSETTS: Ex-Worker Sues MBTA Over Personal File Charge
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Stickney" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS: Recalls Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard
NEW YORK CITY: Police Sued for Violation of Protesters' Rights

OAKDALE PROPERTIES: Sued Over Security Deposit Interest Rate
ONTARIO, CA: Support Clawback Violates Human Rights, Suit Says
PENNSYLVANIA: Appeal in Public Defender Funding Case Heard
PIER 1: Recalls Swivel Armchairs Due to Fall Hazard
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Sued Over Cancer Risk in Vuse E-Cigarettes
RONAN, MT: Judge Wants State Court to Consider City Police Case
SCHREIBER FOODS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
SHIVVERS MANUFACTURING: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
SPORTSMANS GUIDE: Recalls Hunting Blinds Due to Fire Hazard

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Alba" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Berenc" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bozzelli" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Conte" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Cua" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Davis" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Drachler" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Federman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Genin" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Goldman" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gradel" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hill" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Howard" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Husserl" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kealy" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices




                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Franchisor Plans Class Suit Over Staff Underpayment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorelle Frazer, writing for SmartCompany.com, reported that
revelations by Fairfax Media and the ABC's Four Corners program of
7-Eleven franchisees manipulating employment records and
underpaying staff are now being investigated by the Fair Work
Ombudsman. The 7-Eleven franchisor has also announced its own
independent review headed by former ACCC chairman Allen Fels, to
examine the claims, but further media reports have detailed "town
hall style" meetings of franchisees and plans of a potential class
action.

This case has put the franchising model under the public
spotlight, particularly the perceived unfair financial pressures
placed on franchisees and, in turn, their staff, to ensure
profitable and viable businesses.

Australia has one of the most regulated franchising sectors in the
world. The mandatory Franchising Code of Conduct aims to provide a
level playing field among franchisees and franchisors. When
disputes occur, the Office of the Franchising Mediation Advisor
may assist with dispute resolution. But beyond this legal
framework how does a franchisor's moral compass guide their
behaviour?

The common defence of franchisors facing such criticism is that
the franchisees carry their brand but are independent businesses,
and therefore the franchisor is not to blame. Franchisors can
claim that they were at all times acting within the Franchising
Code of Conduct and in line with their Franchise Agreements and
disclosures. How franchisees have acted in their role as
businesses and employers is really a matter for them.

While this is true to the letter of the law, will it be enough
when a brand is in crisis? Are there wider moral obligations
incumbent upon franchisors? Should they go beyond the minimum
legal requirements to show leadership in setting the direction and
culture for those who are now ambassadors for their brand?

Many franchisors do take this role very seriously and while
providing "above and beyond" assistance to franchisees may not be
a legal obligation, it does make good business sense. These
franchisors pro-actively support all aspects of their franchisees'
operations, not just the core components of their "franchise
system" but also the wide range of associated business tasks that
a franchisee must manage.

Franchise agreements are, by necessity, "incomplete" contracts to
allow maximum flexibility in a dynamic business environment.
Whilst franchise agreements specify the legal obligations between
franchisors and franchisees and their staff of minimum workplace
terms and conditions required under the Fair Work Act, the "big
picture" moral obligations are harder to define and measure. But
this does not mean that moral responsibility is any less important
or integral to long-term sustainable success in franchising.

When things go wrong at the franchisee level, it is easy for the
franchisor to say that legally "it's not my problem". But it IS
most definitely their problem in terms of public perception of
their business and brand, and also on franchisee and staff
recruitment and retention.

By continually monitoring, encouraging and supporting franchisees,
from start-up to exit, franchisors are investing in the future
health and sustainability of their brand, which is their business
equity. By promoting and achieving best practice at every level,
they are leading with strength, integrity and transparency and
creating the governance standards to ensure a robust and
sustainable franchise brand. After all, franchisees place a great
deal of trust in their franchisor, sometimes investing their life
savings in the franchise, and so they deserve the franchisor's
respect.

This commitment to ongoing leadership and education by franchisors
is even more crucial in a franchise network where a large number
of franchisees and their staff may come from culturally diverse
backgrounds and may not be familiar with the concept of
statutorily legislated minimum wages and conditions and structured
workplace agreements.

The question of the moral obligation exhibited by franchisors
stems back to how they view their corporate responsibility, and if
the core values of their business extends beyond profits to care
for the workplace and personal well-being of everyone involved
with the organisation.

The Fair Work Ombudsman has said it expects franchisors to take
more responsibility and pay greater attention to workplace
compliance by their franchisees.

It is also worth noting that the Fair Work Ombudsman encourages
Proactive Compliance Deeds for businesses to better understand and
comply with workplace laws, and to avoid more adversarial measures
such as litigation. There is no legal requirement to undertake
these deeds, but businesses benefit from improved training,
systems, communication, self-auditing and self-resolution and set
the standards of best practice for their franchisees and their
staff to observe and follow.

A number of franchise groups - including Retail Zoo, Dominos,
McDonald's and Red Rooster - have signed up to this program,
showing there is scope in franchising to go beyond what is legally
required by demonstrating a moral obligation to promoting ethical
corporate behaviour and being an employer of choice.


ABM SECURITY: "Macaraeg" Suit Removed to N. District California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Michael Macaraeg, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and as private attorney
general v. ABM Security Services, Inc., ABM Onsite Services -
West, Inc., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. MSC15-
00758, was removed from the Contra Costa County Superior
Court, State of California to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-04470-MEJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants regularly failed to pay
employees all wages earned and due twice during each calendar
month.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
      Theane Evangelis, Esq.
      Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
      Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
      GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      333 South Grand Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
      Telephone: 213.229.7000
      Facsimile: 213.229.7520
      E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
              tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
              ksmith@gibsondunn.com
              bhamburger@gibsondunn.com


ADEPT TECHNOLOGY: "Iannaci" Sues Over Proposed Omron Takeover
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Iannaci, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Adept Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. RG15787633
(Cal. Super. Ct., September 29, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the public shareholders of Adept Technology, Inc. to enjoin the
proposed transaction in which Omron Corporation will acquire each
share of common stock by means of inadequate and unfair
consideration.

Adept Technology, Inc. is a global, leading provider of
intelligent vision-guided robotics systems and services.

Omron Corporation is a Japanese corporation that manufactures
electronic components equipment and systems used for factory
automation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


AMERIFLOW ENERGY: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Williamson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ameriflow Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00878-CG-SMV (D.N.M., September 30, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40
hours in a workweek.

Ameriflow Energy Services, LLC provides oil and gas well
monitoring services to energy companies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      Udyogi Hangawatte, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: uhangawatte@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. FABER
      4620C Jefferson Lane NE
      Albuquerque, NM 87109
      Telephone: (505) 830-0405
      Facsimile: (505) 830-3641
      E-mail: dan@danielfaber.com


ARAMARK FACILITY: "Saldana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Imelda Saldana, Lucia Gonzalez Balderas and Maria
Cardenas De Mora individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Aramark Facility Services, LLC, Aramark
Facility Services, Inc., Optimum Source, Inc., Joanna
Ogilvie and Megan Ogilvie, Case No. 4:15-cv-02855 (S.D. Tex.,
September 30, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing food service,
facilities and uniform services to hospitals, universities, school
districts, stadiums and other businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


ASHLEY MADISON: AIG, Axis Capital Named in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc. and Axis Capital Holdings Ltd.
have been named as the insurance providers for Avid Life Media
Inc., the Toronto-based company that owns AshleyMadison.com,
according to Bloomberg.

The website, recently victim to a cyber-attack that resulted in
the release of 37 million members' personal data, is now facing a
lawsuit that seeks more than US$500 million in damages.

Sources familiar with the matter claim that AIG provided the
company's D&O policies while Axis covered its cyber liability.

While AIG and Axis both declined to comment on their involvement
with the site, other insurers have stepped forward to remind
businesses about the need to continually re-assess their
commercial coverage, particularly since many insurers are now
seeking policy exclusions as a precaution against risk.

"Numerous class-action litigation cases that have been filed in
the AshleyMadison and similar situations demonstrate the need for
an analysis of existing insurance coverage," Kevin Kalinich,
leader of the cyber-risk team at insurance broker Aon Plc, told
Bloomberg.

Avid Life CEO Noel Biderman resigned quickly after the hack, which
has been linked to at least three suicides in the U.S. and Canada.


ATHWAL ALMONDS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Corona" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isidro Corona and Francisco Saavedra, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Athwal Almonds, Inc., Athwal
Farms, Athwal & Athwal Farms, Athwal & Athwal, Harjeet S. Purewal,
Sarbjit S. Athwal, Case No. 2:15-at-01022 (E.D. Cal., September
30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
compensate non-exempt agricultural and packing shed employees for
all hours worked and failure to pay overtime premium wages for
work performed in the fields, groves and in the packing sheds.

The Defendants are one of the largest almond growers in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
      Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
      Marco A. Palau, Esq.
      Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
      Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
      MALLISON & MARTINEZ
      1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
      Oakland, CA 94612-3547
      Telephone: (510) 832-9999
      Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
      E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
              HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
              MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com
              JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com
              ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com


ATLANTIS SEAFOOD: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Cabrera Galarza v. Atlantis Seafood, LLC and Does 1
through 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC593754 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay hourly employees for all hours worked in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Atlantis Seafood, LLC is in the business of importing and
distributing fresh and frozen seafood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis P. Wilson, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS P. WILSON
      3322 W. Victory Boulevard
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (818)843-1788
      Facsimile: (818) 843-1833
      E-mail: wilsontrialgroup@att.net


ATTITUDES RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel A. Ramirez individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Attitudes Restaurant & Bar, Ltd. and Michael
Siddon, Case No. 1:15-cv-08629 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Kane County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AURA CYCLE: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Termination Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karoly Bieganowski v. Aura Cycle, Aura Cycle LLC, Aura Yoga LLC,
Jay Palauj, Maurizio Pelone, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
BC596259 (Cal. Super Ct., September 30, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged wrongful termination practices in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Defendants provide cycling and yoga classes for its clients in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicolas C. Vrataric, Esq.
      Steven K. Perrin, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF NICOLAS C. VRATARIC
      400 W. Ventura Blvd., Ste. 230
      Camarillo, CA 93010
      Telephone: (805) 484-8604
      Facsimile: (805) 484-8707


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Corbett and Brian Fisher, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-07735 (S.D.N.Y., October 1, 2015) arises from the
Defendants' collusive manipulation of the market for U.S. Treasury
bills, notes, and bond, and derivative financial products based on
these Treasury securities, including Treasury futures and options
traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian
financial services and banking company with its principal place of
business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Kovel, Esq.
      David A. Bishop, Esq.
      Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq.
      Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
      E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
              dbishop@kmllp.com
              lpederson@kmllp.com
              telrod@kmllp.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Smith, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-08634 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2015) arises from the
Defendants' collusive manipulation of the market for U.S. Treasury
bills, notes, and bond, and derivative financial products based on
these Treasury securities, including Treasury futures and options
traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian
financial services and banking company with its principal place of
business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
      David P. Germaine, Esq.
      Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
      VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 224-1500
      Facsimile: (312) 224-1510
      E-mail: JVanek@Vaneklaw.com
              DGermaine@Vaneklaw.com
              ARodriguez@Vaneklaw.com

          - and -

      Paul E. Slater, Esq.
      SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 641-3200
      Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
      E-mail: PES@Sperling-law.com


BED HANDLES: Re-announced Portable Bed Handle Recall
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bed Handles Inc., re-announced the voluntary recall of about
113,000 Portable bed handles. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

When attached to an adult's bed without the use of safety
retention straps, the handle can shift out of place, creating a
dangerous gap between the bed handle and the side of the mattress.
This poses a serious risk of entrapment, strangulation and death.

As previously reported, three other women died after becoming
entrapped between the mattress and the bed handles. They include
an elderly woman, age unknown, who died in an Edina, Minn.
assisted living facility; a 41-year-old disabled woman who died in
a Renton, Wash. adult family home; and an 81-year-old woman who
died in a Vancouver, Wash. managed care facility.

The recall involves adult portable bed handles sold by Bed
Handles, Inc. from 1994 through 2007 that do not have safety
retention straps to secure the bed handle to the bed frame to keep
the bed handle from shifting out of place and creating a dangerous
gap.  Recalled models include the Original Bedside Assistant(R)
(BA10W), the Travel Handles(TM) (BA11W) which is sold as a set of
two bed handles, and the Adjustable Bedside Assistant(R) (AJ1).

The L-shaped bed handles are made out of 3/4 inch tubular steel,
measure 20 inches wide, 16 to 20 inches tall and have 3 ft. poles
that extend under the mattress. The Original Bedside Assistant(R)
(BA10W) and the Travel Handles(TM) (BA11W) have a white handle
with white poles that go under the mattress. The Adjustable
Bedside Assistant(R) (AJ1) is gold in color and has a black
cushioned foam handle. The bed handles are intended to assist
adults with getting in and out of bed by giving them a bar to
grip. Bed Handles, Inc. and the model number are printed on a
white label on the bed handles.

They were sold by home health care stores, drug stores and medical
equipment stores nationwide and in home and health care catalogs
from January 1994 through December 2007 for about $100.  They were
manufactured in the United States.

Consumers should immediately stop using all recalled bed handles
that were sold without safety retention straps. Contact Bed
Handles, Inc. for free safety retention straps to secure the bed
handle to the bed frame, new assembly and installation
instructions for models BA10W, BA11W and AJ1 and a warning label
to attach to the bed handles.  The bed handles should be used only
with the safety retention straps securely in place attaching the
bed handle to the bed frame in order to prevent a gap.

Contact Bed Handles Inc. at 800-725-6903 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or online at
http://bedhandles.com/recall.html.

The original recall was announced on May 20, 2014.


BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Expands DaVinci Crib Recall
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bexco Enterprises Inc., of Montebello, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,000 DaVinci Cribs (in addition, 13
were sold in Canada) (Bexco recalled an additional 11,600 Bexco
cribs in July 2015). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

A metal bracket that connects the mattress support to the crib can
break, creating an uneven sleeping surface or a gap. If this
occurs, a baby can become entrapped in the crib, fall or suffer
lacerations from the broken metal bracket.

The recall includes DaVinci brand full-size cribs including the
Reagan crib (model #M2801), the Emily crib, (model #M4791), the
Jamie crib (model #M7301), and the Jenny Lind crib (model #M7391)
manufactured from May 2012 through December 2012. The model
number, serial number and manufacture date are printed on a label
affixed to the bottom right hand side panel of the crib. Cribs
included in the recall have serial numbers that begin with "N00,"
followed by one of the following numbers.  The previous recall
included the same model numbers, but had different serial numbers.

  Model Number and Name     Serial Number (N00 + number below)
  ---------------------     *new serial numbers added in this
                            recall expansion
                            ----------------------------------
  M2801 Reagan              4959/ 5035/ 5109,
                            *5254, *5350 or *5035
  M4791 Emily               4648/ 4669/ 4962,
                            *5249, *5380, *5534 or *5193
  M7301 Jamie               4954/ 5029
                            *5108 or *5381
  M7391 Jenny Lind          4954/ 4620/ 4669/ 4758/ 4934/ 4994/
                            5041/ 4648
                            *5214, *5100, *5227, *5313, *5382,
                            *5094, *5524 or *5644

The firm has received five additional reports of the mattress
support brackets breaking and detaching. No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target and juvenile products stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com from May 2012 to December 2013 for between $150 and
$250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Bexco for a free replacement mattress support which
includes replacement brackets.  In the meantime, parents are urged
to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for the child,
such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on the
child's age.


BIO K: "Kunz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Susanne Kunz v. Bio K International, Steve Taneman, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC595755 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and double
time compensation, unpaid minimum wage compensation, meal and rest
break damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Bio K International is a Canadian corporation, doing business in
the State of California and engaged in commerce throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Norton, Esq.
      MATTHEW NORTON & ASSOCIATES
      444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 800
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 624-2894
      E-mail: matt@matthew-norton.com

          - and -

      Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
      David D. Deason, Esq.
      DEASON & ARCHBOLD
      17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, CA 92647
      Telephone: (949) 794-9560
      E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
              david@yourlaborlawyers.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Frazier" Suit Over Hepatitis C Benefit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jannette Frazier v. Blue Cross of California, d/b/a Anthem Blue
Cross, et al., Case No. BC596409 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30,
2015) arises out of the un-remediated pattern and practice of
unreasonable and egregious claims investigation procedures,
particularly regarding Hepatitis C patients in stages F0, Fl, or
F2, specifically by repeatedly ignoring treating physicians'
recommendations and using undisclosed criteria at variance with
the Evidence of Coverage ("EOC").

Blue Cross of California is in the business of selling and
marketing insurance products to millions of vulnerable consumers
in California, and across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Bidart, Esq.
      Ricardo Echeverria, Esq.
      Danica Dougherty, Esq.
      Clare H. Lucich, Esq.
      Shernoff Bidart, Esq.
      ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP
      600 South Indian Hill Boulevard
      Claremont, CA 91711
      Telephone: (909) 621-4935
      Facsimile: (909) 625-6915
      E-mail: mbidart@shernoff.com
              recheverria@shernoff.com
              ddougherty@shernoff.com
              clucich@shernoff.com
              mbidart@shernoff.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Haffke" Suit Over Hepatitis C Benefit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Haffke v. Blue Cross of California, d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross,
et al., Case No. BC596408 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2015)
arises out of the un-remediated pattern and practice of
unreasonable and egregious claims investigation procedures,
particularly regarding Hepatitis C patients in stages F0, Fl, or
F2, specifically by repeatedly ignoring treating physicians'
recommendations and using undisclosed criteria at variance with
the Evidence of Coverage ("EOC").

Blue Cross of California is in the business of selling and
marketing insurance products to millions of vulnerable consumers
in California, and across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Bidart, Esq.
      Ricardo Echeverria, Esq.
      Danica Dougherty, Esq.
      Clare H. Lucich, Esq.
      Shernoff Bidart, Esq.
      ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP
      600 South Indian Hill Boulevard
      Claremont, CA 91711
      Telephone: (909) 621-4935
      Facsimile: (909) 625-6915
      E-mail: mbidart@shernoff.com
              recheverria@shernoff.com
              ddougherty@shernoff.com
              clucich@shernoff.com
              mbidart@shernoff.com


BLUE CROSS: Settles Suit on "Most Favored Nation" Pacts
-------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business News, reported
that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has quietly settled one
lawsuit from rival health insurer Aetna Inc. over its past
charging agreements with various Michigan hospitals, but it must
resolve one more from Health Alliance Plan of Michigan on the same
issue.

The litigation is over the so-called "most favored nation"
contracts Blue Cross began adopting with hospitals more than eight
years ago. Those contracts called for hospitals to bill the
insurer at a rate at least equal to any other insurer.

Another form of contract, called "most favored nation plus," also
allegedly caused more than 20 of the state's 131 hospitals to
charge competing insurers at a premium.

The practice was controversial and ultimately brought changes to
the industry. Following a 2010 governmental lawsuit, Michigan
Insurance Commissioner R. Kevin Clinton found most-favored-nation
clauses unenforceable, and the state legislature banned the
practice in March 2013.

But some litigation lingers -- and one possible legacy of most-
favored-nation pacts is more transparency in the way insurers
reimburse hospitals.

A large claim settled

Aetna, which had claimed damages approaching $2 billion in a 2011
federal lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood in
Detroit, quietly settled its case against Blue Cross in May. Terms
of the agreement were not disclosed.

Attorneys at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, representing Aetna in the
case, confirmed the settlement but declined further comment.
Detroit-based Blue Cross also would not comment on the Aetna or
HAP lawsuits.

The state has seen a great deal more insurer participation and
transparency in the ways insurers present their consumer rates,
billing and filing information since the litigation first
surfaced, said Executive Director Rick Murdock of the Michigan
Association of Health Plans.

But it's difficult to determine how much of that change was due to
the end of most-favored nations versus the arrival of Obamacare
and its private insurance exchanges. The organization needs to do
further study on what market forces have recently affected
competition, he said.

"We're seeing some changing dynamics in the individual and small-
business markets for sure," he said. "It's been a more open
process, and we're seeing both more detail and more transparency."
Another claim stalled

The Aetna lawsuit is one of several that surfaced after the
Michigan attorney general and the U.S. Department of Justice filed
a joint lawsuit of their own in 2010 over the contracting
practice. The government agencies agreed to dismiss the original
Justice suit in March 2013, after the ban.

For its part, Aetna had claimed damages of more than $600 million
between 2006 and 2013, which would be tripled to nearly $2 billion
under federal antitrust law, over Blue Cross contracts with
hospitals statewide.

In March, Hood approved a $29.99 million settlement in a separate
lawsuit with various competitor insurance companies, self-insured
companies and employees with co-payments who were treated at the
Michigan hospitals. The settlement involved only the timeframe
during which those most-favored-nation agreements were in effect.

That lawsuit, brought by Hillsdale-based Shane Group Inc. later
absorbed several other suits in federal court.

But Aetna did not participate in the Shane Group settlement, and
HAP of Michigan opted out of it in late 2014 to bring its own
lawsuit before the Shane deal was finalized.

The HAP case has been idle for months, as Blue Cross has tried for
nearly a year to disqualify Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
and one of its attorneys, who had also represented 12 hospitals in
the Aetna lawsuit. Blue Cross claims the law firm's defense of
hospitals, who had previously opposed Aetna's claims of
anticompetitive conduct by Blue Cross, now creates a conflict of
interest in representing HAP on the same claim.

Honigman contends that claim is baseless, and the hospitals have
not objected to its HAP representation. David Ettinger, leader of
the antitrust and trade regulation practice group at Honigman,
declined to comment.

At the time Blue Cross made that claim, however, the Shane class
action and the Aetna lawsuit were still pending in court. Now they
aren't, and the hospitals are not part of the HAP lawsuit itself -
- so it's unclear whether Blue Cross still feels a conflict
exists.

No date is set for Hood to rule. The HAP lawsuit has made no
progress in court since before Aetna's settlement, but it appears
to be the last pending federal antitrust suit against Blue Cross
in Detroit.


BRECKSVILLE, OH: Resident Sues City Over Illegally Raising Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Kilpatrick, writing for Cleveland.com, reported that the city
council of Brecksville last December voted 4-3 to reduce the 100-
percent income tax credit to 87.5 percent and declare the measure
an emergency, so it would take effect immediately. But, the
resident's lawsuit points out, the city charter requires five
votes to pass such a measure.

The tax change was actually for many residents a tax increase. It
raises about $960,000 annually for a planned top-of-the-line
outdoor pool and indoor playing courts at Blossom Hill Park, as
well as for the fire department.

Before the measure passed, residents who worked outside the city,
including Eben "Sandy" McNair, who filed the lawsuit, paid no
income tax to Brecksville. Now they do. For example, residents who
work in Cleveland -- which has the same 2-percent income tax rate
as Brecksville -- pay an extra 12.5 percent of whatever they pay
the cities where they work, to Brecksville.

Mayor Jerry Hruby said in an email that the city will not comment
on pending litigation and will allow "the issues to be aired in a
court of law."

BRECKSVILLE: The city hopes construction on the fire station
repairs will start in April, as part of a multi-leg plan to
renovate the building.

The city voted Sept. 1 to pay City Architecture $16,200 to design
fixes for the apparatus bay, where firefighters park the engines.
The city renovated the western bay in 2004, but the eastern bay
needs work, according to the service department. Brecksville does
not yet have an estimate for how much the work will cost.

Firefighters wash the trucks in the bay, and the constant rush of
water and salt has worn down the concrete and steel. The city will
replace old drains in the bay.

The project will level slab near doors, to keep the sidewalk from
raising and cracking during winter. The design will also look at
ways to fix cracks along a back wall, where the firefighters hang
their hoses out to dry.

In future stages of the project, the city also hopes to replace
the carpet in the firehouse, renovate the kitchen and add aluminum
doors to the buildings. The city hopes to complete the all
renovation work over the next two years.


BRP US: Recalls Can-Am All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BRP US Inc., of Sturtevant, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of
about 240 Youth Model Can-Am all-terrain vehicles. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fuel filter can break and leak, posing a fire hazard.

This recall is for the model years 2015 and 2016 Youth Model Can-
Am TMDS 90TM and DS 90TMX(R) ATVs. The recalled vehicles have an
engine size of 90 cubic centimeters. The vehicles came in black
and yellow. "Can-Am DS" and the engine size are painted in white
on both sides of the vehicle's fairing. "Can-Am" appears in white
letters on both sides of the seat.

BRP has received eight reports of the fuel filter breaking and
leaking at dealerships. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/nw7q953

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Can-Am dealers nationwide from May 2015 through September 2015 for
between $2,800 and $3,800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact a BRP dealer to schedule a free repair. BRP is notifying
registered consumers directly about this recall.


BSH HOME: Recalls Dishwashers Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BSH Home Appliances Corp., of Irvine, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 149,000 Bosch, Gaggenau, Kenmore Elite
and Thermador Dishwashers (in addition, about 45,000 were sold in
Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The power cord can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves power cords supplied with certain Bosch,
Gaggenau, Kenmore Elite and Thermador brand dishwashers that were
manufactured from January 2008 through December 2013. Model and
serial numbers are located on the top side of the dishwashers'
inner door panels. The following brands, models and serial numbers
are being recalled:

  Brand       Model # beginning with       Serial # range
  -----       ----------------------       --------------
  Bosch       SGE63E, SGV63E, SHE68E,      FD 8801 - FD 9312
              SHE7ER, SHE8ER, SHE9ER,
              SHE9PT, SHV58E, SHV68E,
              SHV7ER, SHV9ER, SHV9PT,
              SHX58E, SHX5ER, SHX68E,
              SHX7ER, SHX8ER, SHX9ER,
              SHX9PT, SPE5ES, SPV5ES,
              SPX5ES

  Gaggenau    DF2417,  DF2607, DF2617      FD 8904 - FD 9312
  Thermador   DWHD64,  DWHD65              FD 8908  -  FD 9312

            Model # beginning with    Serial # beginning with
            ----------------------    -----------------------
Kenmore     630.13003, 630.13023,     010 or 013
Elite       630.13993, 630.14003

BSH Home Appliances has received 10 reports of the electrical cord
overheating, including five reports of fire resulting in property
damage. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/o8m2qwn

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at
appliance and specialty retailers, department stores, authorized
builder distributors, home improvement stores nationwide and
online between January 2009 and May 2014 for between $850 and
$2600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the dishwasher and contact
BSH Home Appliances for a free inspection and repair.


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Blumstein" Suit in Cal. Over PSP-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Blumstein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union
Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02186-BEN-DHB
(S.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize or
maintain prices as well as allocate customers, and restrict
capacity within the market for the sale of shelf-stable packaged
seafood products ("PSPs"), including tuna, crab, mackerel, oyster,
salmon, sardines and shrimp

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com
              dejong@whafh.com

          - and -

      Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
              burt@whafh.com

          - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com

          - and -

      Randall S. Newman, Esq.
      RANDALL S. NEWMAN, P.C.
      37 Wall Street, Penthouse D
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 797-3737
      Facsimile: (212) 797-3172
      E-mail: rsn@randallnewman.net

          - and -

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave. South
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
              khriebel@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
      LAURENCE D. PASKOWITZ, ESQ.
      208 East 51st St., Suite 380
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 685-0969
      Facsimile: (212) 685-2306
      E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Bowman" Suit in Cal. Over PSP-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Bowman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union
Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02185-JAH-RBB
(S.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize or
maintain prices as well as allocate customers, and restrict
capacity within the market for the sale of shelf-stable packaged
seafood products ("PSPs"), including tuna, crab, mackerel, oyster,
salmon, sardines and shrimp

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com
              dejong@whafh.com

          - and -

      Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
              burt@whafh.com

          - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com

          - and -

      Randall S. Newman, Esq.
      RANDALL S. NEWMAN, P.C.
      37 Wall Street, Penthouse D
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 797-3737
      Facsimile: (212) 797-3172
      E-mail: rsn@randallnewman.net

          - and -

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave. South
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
              khriebel@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
      LAURENCE D. PASKOWITZ, ESQ.
      208 East 51st St., Suite 380
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 685-0969
      Facsimile: (212) 685-2306
      E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Dravid" Suit in Cal. Over PSP-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vivek Dravid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union
Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02187-L-JLB
(S.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize or
maintain prices as well as allocate customers, and restrict
capacity within the market for the sale of shelf-stable packaged
seafood products ("PSPs"), including tuna, crab, mackerel, oyster,
salmon, sardines and shrimp

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com
              dejong@whafh.com

          - and -

      Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
              burt@whafh.com

          - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com

          - and -

      Randall S. Newman, Esq.
      RANDALL S. NEWMAN, P.C.
      37 Wall Street, Penthouse D
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 797-3737
      Facsimile: (212) 797-3172
      E-mail: rsn@randallnewman.net

          - and -

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave. South
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
              khriebel@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
      LAURENCE D. PASKOWITZ, ESQ.
      208 East 51st St., Suite 380
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 685-0969
      Facsimile: (212) 685-2306
      E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com


DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls Decor Wood Highchairs Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dorel Juvenile Group, of Columbus, Ind., announced a voluntary
recall of about 35,000 Decor Wood Highchair. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A child can remove the highchair's tray, posing a fall hazard.

This recall includes Safety 1st Wood Decor highchairs in three
models: HC144BZF (Casablanca), HC229CZF (Gentle Lace) and HC229CYG
(Black Lace). The model numbers are printed under the highchair
seat. These A-frame black wood highchairs have a removable fabric,
black and white print seat pad with a blue or pink border on the
top and bottom of the seat pad. The highchairs have a white
plastic, detachable tray with a cone-shaped center divider that
fits between a child's legs. "Safety 1st" is printed on the front
center of the tray.

Safety 1st has received 68 reports of children removing the trays
including 11 reports of injuries such as lacerations, chipped
teeth and bruises.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Babies R US and Toys R Us retail stores nationwide and online at
www.Amazon.com, www.BabiesRUs.com, www.ToysRUs.com and
www.Walmart.com and other online retailers from May 2013 through
May 2015 for about $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled highchairs
and contact the firm to receive instructions on receiving a new
tray with labels.


DUPONT: Faces First Trial in C-8 Exposure Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reported that chemical giant
DuPont will face the first trial in litigation from residents near
one of its plants in West Virginia who have accused the company of
sickening them by emitting a toxic chemical that leaked into their
drinking water.

Carla Marie Bartlett is among the approximately 3,500 plaintiffs
who have sued DuPont in federal court in Ohio, saying they
contracted one of six diseases linked to perfluorooctanoic acid,
known as PFOA or C-8. Bartlett said she developed kidney cancer
from contaminated water.

Bartlett's will be the first case to go to trial, in an early test
of potential liability for the allegedly decades-long leak. A
second trial will start Nov. 30.

While DuPont is the named defendant, a recent spin-off of its
performance chemicals segment, Chemours Co, will cover Dupont's
potential liability, according to a Chemours spokeswoman.

The lawsuits center on DuPont's Washington Works plant in
Parkersburg, West Virginia, where the company used C-8 as a
processing aid to make products like Teflon non-stick cookware.

Plaintiffs say DuPont used C-8 at the plant since the 1950s and
continued even after learning that it was potentially toxic and
that it had been discovered in nearby drinking water supplies in
Ohio and West Virginia.

DuPont spokesman Daniel Turner said in a statement that knowledge
about C-8 has evolved over the past 15 years and that the company
has worked with regulators, employees and nearby residents to
assess and address health and safety concerns. The company said it
has phased out use of C-8 in recent years.

In 2001, residents brought a class action against DuPont over C-8
exposure. DuPont settled in 2004, agreeing to fund medical
monitoring programs and install new water treatment systems. It
also agreed to convene a panel of scientists to determine whether
any diseases were linked to C-8.

That panel concluded there was a probable link between C-8 and six
diseases: kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis,
thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high
cholesterol.

Class members with one of those diseases then individually sued
DuPont. The company agreed not to challenge whether C-8 can cause
those diseases, but plaintiffs still must prove it is to blame for
their individual illnesses.

DuPont said it believes Bartlett's exposure to C-8 was
insufficient to cause health problems, and that other factors,
like obesity, may be to blame for her cancer.

A lawyer for Bartlett did not return requests for comment.


EL POLLO: Faces "Velazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Velazquez, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216 (b) v. El Pollo Regio IP, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-
cv-03170-M (N.D. Tex., September 30, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Dallas County,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Probe in Manipulation of US Treasury Auction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
South China Morning Post reported that a New York state regulator
has sought information from banks including Barclays, Deutsche
Bank, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse on potential manipulation of
US Treasury auctions, said a source familiar with the matter.

The Department of Financial Services sent letters to the banks
seeking information on their operations related to Treasury
auctions, the source said.

BNP Paribas and Societe Generale are also among the banks that
received the letters, the source said.

The Financial Times, citing sources, reported that the letters
contained general questions and the probe was in early stages with
no focus on any particular bank.

All the banks are primary dealers in the US$12.5 trillion Treasury
market, authorised to transact directly with the Federal Reserve.

In July, 22 primary dealers including Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs
and HSBC Holdings were sued by the State-Boston Retirement System,
the pension fund for Boston public employees, in a US federal
court in a nationwide class-action suit alleging a conspiracy to
manipulate Treasury auctions.

The activities of a lesser-known hedge fund, Element Capital
Management, had also been under scrutiny from the Treasury
Department, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The fund has been the largest bidder in nearly all of the 62
Treasury note and bond auctions in November-July, many of which
involved sales of more than US$30 billion of debt, the Journal
reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

Element's activity had raised questions because its cumulative
purchases far exceeded its US$6 billion in assets under
management, the Journal said.


IDI INC: Fla. Court Dismisses "Heim" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
IDI, Inc., an information solutions provider, announced that on
September 10, 2015 the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida dismissed the securities class action
lawsuit [Heim v. IDI, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:15-cv-81019] filed
against the Company and certain of its officers. This action was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff with no payment made to
plaintiff or plaintiff's attorneys.

Mr. Derek Dubner, Co-CEO of IDI, Inc. stated, "We have maintained
that this action was frivolous and that we would defend it, and
any like it, vigorously. This lawsuit was premised upon an
Internet article, written by an anonymous and admitted short
seller of IDI's stock, which contained certain misrepresentations
and factual inaccuracies about the Company and certain members of
management. Despite the numerous press releases issued by various
law firms, we are pleased to have secured the dismissal of the
sole lawsuit upon which they rely."

                        About IDI, Inc.

IDI, Inc. is an information solutions provider focused on the
multi-billion dollar data fusion market. IDI delivers otherwise
unattainable insight into the ever-expanding universe of consumer-
and business-centric data. Through proprietary linking technology,
advanced systems architecture, and a massive data repository, IDI
will address the rapidly growing need for actionable intelligence
to support the entirety of the risk management industry, for
purposes including due diligence, risk assessment, fraud detection
and prevention, authentication and verification, and more.
Additionally, IDI's cross-functional core systems and processes
are designed to deliver products and solutions to the marketing
industry and to enable the public and private sectors to layer our
solutions over their unique data sets, providing otherwise
unattainable insight.


MARKIT LTD: Has $50MM Deal to Settle Antitrust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Markit Ltd. with a number of major international investment banks
and ISDA, has been defending a consolidated antitrust class action
in United States District Court in the Southern District of New
York. Markit has reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter, subject to documentation and approval by the court. While
the terms of the settlement agreement are still in negotiation,
Markit expects the settlement agreement to provide for it to pay a
settlement amount of less than $50 million with no injunctive or
other significant non-monetary obligations. The amount will have
no material effect on Markit's financial condition or liquidity.
However, no assurance can be given that a final settlement
agreement will be reached based on the agreement in principle or
at all or, if reached, that the court will approve the final
settlement agreement.


MARS: Faces Class Suit Aiming to Stop Forced Labor
--------------------------------------------------
Ian Urbina, writing for The Seattle Times, reported that federal
lawmakers, State Department officials, fishing and pet-food
companies, and class-action lawyers are stepping up efforts to
combat forced labor at sea.

A group of consumers filed a class-action lawsuit in California
against Mars, accusing the company, among the biggest producers of
seafood-based pet food in the world, of failing to disclose it
depends on forced labor. A similar lawsuit was filed in late
August against Nestle, also a major producer of seafood-based pet
food.

Several lawmakers have also begun trying to address the problem.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., proposed legislation in August
aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in corporate
supply chains. The bill requires larger companies to report in
their financial filings what they are doing to prevent the use of
trafficked workers.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., sent a letter to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which monitors the
oceans, urging the agency to focus not just on illegal fishing but
also on preventing "trafficking and slavery in the fishing
industry."

In late September, the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking,
chaired by Blumenthal and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, is to hold a
briefing about the problem of forced labor in fishing. The panel
plans to discuss ways the U.S. government might adjust its
purchasing policy to reward companies that have better policies to
prevent labor abuses.

Nestle's Fancy Feast cat food was among several major brands of
seafood-based pet food exported to the United States by Thai Union
Frozen Products, Thailand's largest seafood company. Some of the
fish was processed by a subsidiary, Songkla Canning Public Co.,
and was caught on boats using forced labor.

In late July, Secretary of State John Kerry announced his agency's
decision to keep Thailand on the lowest tier of the State
Department rankings on human trafficking, indicating that the
country was not making a significant effort to combat the problem.

"We want to bring to the public's attention the full nature and
scope of a $150 billion illicit trafficking industry," Kerry said
then.

The two class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California were brought by consumers who
had purchased Fancy Feast, or Iams cat food, made by Mars. The
lawsuits accuse the corporations of violating consumer-protection
laws, including false advertising and unfair competition, by
failing to disclose the use of forced labor.

Thai Union Frozen Products said it planned to audit all of its
suppliers to check for labor abuses by December. To better track
conditions on board ships, it intended to significantly reduce the
number of boats from which it buys fish, company officials said.

"Thai Union is completely committed to eradicating human
trafficking in any and every part of our supply chain," said
Sasinan Allmand, a spokeswoman.

"Forced labor has no place in our supply chain," said Keith
Schopp, a spokesman for Nestl Purina, while declining to comment
on the litigation. He added that his company has begun working
with the auditing firm Verit to investigate the problem among its
suppliers in Thailand. The results of that investigation will be
published, he said.

Allyson Park, a spokeswoman for Mars, declined to comment on the
lawsuit.


MASSACHUSETTS: Ex-Worker Sues MBTA Over Personal File Charge
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Planas, writing for Boston Herald, reported that a former
MBTA worker is suing the T over the $7.80 fee she was charged for
a copy of her personnel files, documents that should be free to T
employees, the woman's lawyer said.

Jeanie Williams of Dedham, who began working as a train operator
in 2008 and last worked for the T in customer service last
November, requested her work files in December 2014. She was later
told she would be charged $.20 per page, according to the lawsuit.

In total, Williams was charged $7.80, Williams' lawyer Matthew J.
Fogelman said.

Fogelman said he's filing the class-action civil suit in Suffolk
Superior Court. He said the case is not just about Williams, but
about principle.

"Seven dollars for one employee is one thing. How many thousands
of people over the years have been charged that $7?" Fogelman
said. "Whether you're a Fortune 500 company or whether you're the
MBTA, you need to follow the law. Employees in Massachusetts have
a right to a copy of their personnel file."

MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo stated in an email: "The MBTA hasn't
seen the complaint, and therefore won't be making any comments.
Once the MBTA Law Department receives a copy of the complaint, it
will be reviewed."

Fogelman said he first went to Attorney General Maura Healey's
office with a complaint. Included with the lawsuit was a response
letter from Assistant ?Attorney General Bruce M. Trager to the T's
legal ?department. The letter, dated Feb. 27, 2015, partially
read: "Charging an employee for records to which he or she has a
statutory right to receive does not ?comport with the law."


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Stickney" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Stickney v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02927-JFM (D. Md., September 28, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

          - and -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

          - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

          - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MILLENNIUM OUTDOORS: Recalls Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Millennium Outdoors LLC, of Pearl, Miss., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,400 Millennium Outdoors Fixed Position Tree
stands. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The seat on the tree stand can bend in a downward angle, posing a
fall hazard to the user.

The recall includes the 2015 model M-60 Millennium Outdoors fixed
position tree stand. These fixed position tree stands are used to
hunt from an elevated position. The black metal tree stands
include the main stand platform with a nylon hanging strap
assembly. It has a green canvas seat with a red "M" and
"Millennium Treestand" printed in white letters in the center
affixed with black snaps on the sides. The model number is printed
on the tree stand packaging. The date code MO5100 is stamped on
the top of the back post of the tree stand. The base platform has
a black metal mesh frame.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/oeteeqg

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at B&H
Farm Supply, Farris Brothers, Gander Mountain, Midway USA and
Sportsman's Warehouse from May 2015 through August 2015 for about
$220.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tree stands
and return them to the manufacturer for a replacement stand.


NEW YORK CITY: Police Sued for Violation of Protesters' Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Moynihan, writing for The New York Times, reported that as
the first anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protests
approached three years ago, organizers planned a series of marches
and rallies, including an attempt to block the streets surrounding
the New York Stock Exchange.

The police arrested 185 people that day. Some had refused orders
to leave roadways; others had been standing or walking on
sidewalks, with the police saying at times that they were
obstructing pedestrian traffic.

Four lawyers filed a class-action lawsuit related to those
arrests, saying that New York City had a policy of violating
protesters' constitutional rights and did not properly train
police officers in how to handle political demonstrations, which
are protected by the First Amendment. The complaint seeks to
represent some 200 people arrested on the anniversary, Sept. 17,
2012, and the two preceding days. The lawsuit names the City of
New York; former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg; Raymond W. Kelly, the
former police commissioner; and four police commanders.

Scores of false-arrest lawsuits rooted in Occupy events have been
filed against the city, but this one differs from others because
the plaintiffs are focusing on the assertion that the city had a
deliberate policy of indifference to expressive speech rights.
First Amendment activity is typically entitled to wide latitude
under the law, said Wylie Stecklow, one of the lawyers who filed
the case. But he added that the police have a history of arresting
protesters on disorderly conduct charges when their behavior might
have caused an inconvenience but was not criminal.

"When the Constitution is involved," Mr. Stecklow said, "you need
a real threat to public order, not just a technical violation, to
justify a disorderly conduct charge, and that is not understood by
a vast majority of members of the police force, from police
officer up to chief."

"They did training in disorder control about how to break up mass
protests and did not do training in First Amendment policing," he
added.

A Police Department spokesman did not respond to a request for
comment. A spokesman for the city's Law Department, Nick Paolucci,
said, "We will review the claims and respond accordingly."

Some Occupy lawsuits, like one that accused police officers of
falsely arresting people walking on a sidewalk in the East
Village, have resulted in the city's paying significant
settlements. But others were dismissed, including the first class-
action suit related to Occupy, which included hundreds of people
arrested in 2011 while marching on the Brooklyn Bridge roadway.

Bernard E. Harcourt, a professor at Columbia Law School who has
written about Occupy, said the anniversary lawsuit raised
important questions about how the police could adjust their
practices to allow for peaceful political demonstrations rather
than impeding them.

Another professor, Thomas H. Lee of Fordham University School of
Law, who has an expertise in constitutional law and the federal
courts, said that the complaint was "well written" and could go
forward against the individual commanders. But it would be
difficult to attach liability to the city, he said, because of a
2011 Supreme Court decision that the district attorney's office in
New Orleans was not accountable for failing to train a prosecutor
who withheld exculpatory evidence during a murder trial.

"These plaintiffs are going to have a really tough time making a
case," Mr. Lee said.

Jeffrey G. Smith, who filed the suit with Mr. Stecklow, said their
claim was strengthened by a pattern of officers' making wrongful
arrests dating to the beginning of Occupy and even back to 2004,
when the Republican National Convention was held in New York City.
Mr. Stecklow added that they would draw upon dozens of police
officer depositions from about 20 Occupy cases his firm had filed
that indicated to him that officers were not adequately trained in
how to handle First Amendment activities and did not have a
consistent view of how to apply the law in those settings.

The new lawsuit seeks damages and a court order that would stop
the police from charging people engaged in First Amendment speech
with disorderly conduct absent criminal behavior. It names nine
plaintiffs who said they were arrested while on sidewalks or in a
crosswalk.

Among them is George Packard, a retired Episcopal bishop, who said
he marched south on a sidewalk along Broadway on Sept. 17, 2012,
with a few hundred people. Metal barricades blocked the marchers
from turning east onto Wall Street, he said, and the police
stopped them from continuing.

Mr. Packard said the protesters then sat on the sidewalk and were
arrested. He was charged with disorderly conduct, he said, and
accepted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, in which
charges are dropped if the defendant is not arrested again within
six months. "Any civil discourse was blocked," he said.


OAKDALE PROPERTIES: Sued Over Security Deposit Interest Rate
------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Joyce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kathleen J. Brown, Oakdale Properties, and Brown
Properties, Case No.2015ch14315 (Ill. Ch., September 29, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the City of
Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, specifically by
failing to disclose the required security deposit interest rate
disclosures in their rental agreement.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of owning, leasing and
managing residential apartment buildings and units in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. Flaxman, Esq.
      Jennifer L. Doherty, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone (312) 641-2600


ONTARIO, CA: Support Clawback Violates Human Rights, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Chan, writing for The Star, reported that Anupam Kakkar would
dearly love to help support his two children. But under Ontario's
arcane and outdated laws his children see none of the $645 he
makes in monthly payments to their mother.

Instead, as reported by the Star's Laurie Monsebraaten, the money
is clawed back by the province because his ex is on social
assistance.

That condemns his children to a life of poverty. Under the Ontario
Works program a family of three receives only $1,217 a month.
Under Ontario Disability Support they get $1,801. To put that in
perspective, Statistics Canada set its "low income measure" -- the
poverty line -- for a family of three at almost $3,000 a month
back in 2012.

Clawing back child support payments when families are already
living in such dire circumstances is unacceptable. Ontario needs
to change its rules. Especially in light of a recently launched
$1.9-billion class action suit that says the province's treatment
of parents like Kakkar violates Ontario's Human Rights Code and
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First, the province should consider the example of British
Columbia. Last February that province became the first to make
child support payments fully exempt for families receiving income
and disability assistance.

In other words, if Kakkar's ex and children were living in B.C.
they would be allowed to keep the $645, on top of the social
assistance they already receive.

Failing that sensible approach, the Ontario government could adopt
a proposal recommended by the anti-poverty organization Campaign
2000. That would see child support payments treated as if they
were income earned on top of social assistance. That means
Kakkar's ex and children would receive the first $200 of his
payments without penalty, and 50 cents on the dollar for the rest
of the amount. That would add an extra $422 a month onto their
social assistance income -- a veritable lifeline.

And in most cases it wouldn't even cost the Ontario government
that much in lost potential income. The average child support
payment for two children living on social assistance is only $300
per month.

Contrast that cost to the financial benefits of lifting children
out of poverty. As Anita Khanna of Campaign 2000 explains,
eradicating child poverty sets the stage for success later in life
by improving overall health and educational attainment.
And that saves governments money. Treating the symptoms of
poverty, such as urgent health care, mental health concerns,
shelter costs and the criminal justice system, costs Canada an
estimated $72 billion to $86 billion per year.

The good news: the Wynne government says it is committed to
reforming social assistance in Ontario and will look at the way
that an individual's income is calculated, including child support
payments.

Surely allowing parents to hold onto at least a portion of child
support payments to keep their children out of poverty is a good
first step. It should be done immediately.


PENNSYLVANIA: Appeal in Public Defender Funding Case Heard
----------------------------------------------------------
Paula Reed Ward, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported
that briefs were filed in state Supreme Court late in the appeal
of a class-action lawsuit involving funding for the Luzerne County
public defender's office in a case that could resonate across
Pennsylvania.

The question pending before the state's highest court is whether
three indigent criminal defendants and a former chief public
defender have standing to bring the lawsuit alleging a violation
of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and whether their claims
have merit.

"Poor people, much less poor people charged with crimes, don't
have the clout to convince county leaders to adequately fund
public defender offices, thus making access to courts to fix
systemic constitutional violations vitally important," said Witold
Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of
Pennsylvania.

In April 2012, Mr. Walczak and several other attorneys filed a
class-action lawsuit in state court on behalf of Luzerne County's
chief public defender, Al Flora Jr., and three indigent
defendants, claiming that the office of the public defender could
not adequately represent its clients with the level of funding
that it received.

Among the claims: that the attorneys carried caseloads in excess
of those recommended by the American Bar Association; that there
was insufficient support staff, desks and phone lines; that
defendants were incarcerated for longer periods because public
defenders were forced to continue preliminary hearings because of
a lack of preparation, and that the attorneys, generally, did not
have adequate time and resources to properly represent their
clients.

Under the lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought an injunction forcing the
county to increase funding to the office to hire additional
attorneys and support staff, and to upgrade its office technology.

Although the county judge on the case, Joseph M. Augello, granted
a temporary injunction requiring that a handful of vacancies in
the office be filled, the case was dismissed by the same judge in
October 2013.

He found that Mr. Flora had no standing to bring the complaint,
because he'd been fired by the county -- for which a federal
retaliation lawsuit is now pending -- and neither did the
individual defendants, because it had not been proved that they
had been subjected to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and in October
2014, a three-judge panel of Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, Robert
"Robin" Simpson and Mary Hannah Leavitt ruled in favor of Luzerne
County.

"We conclude that Flora lacks traditional standing because he is
not personally aggrieved by the county's alleged failure to fund
the office of public defender adequately. He is not directly
impacted by the county's actions any more than other individual
citizens. As a result, his interest is not substantial, direct, or
immediate," the Commonwealth Court wrote.

In its 23-page opinion, the panel also found that whether the
indigent defendants are provided effective assistance of counsel
will be addressed in their criminal cases.

"The amended complaint does not allege facts to support the
inference that the indigent clients have or will suffer
irreparable harm, but only the fear that they will not be
adequately represented."

Funding should not be addressed through the courts, the appellate
panel found.

"The funding at any office of public defender presents a series of
political and public policy challenges, as do all programs
established to serve society's less fortunate," wrote Judge
Leavitt. "These questions are better resolved in the political
process, which includes the county's budgetary processes."

The state Supreme Court agreed to take the case, and the
appellants' briefs -- along with four friend-of-the-court briefs
from the American Bar Association, the Innocence Project, the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the
Department of Justice -- were filed.

In its brief, DOJ attorneys wrote that the United States has a
strong interest in ensuring that all jurisdictions are "fulfilling
their constitutional obligation to provide counsel to criminal
defendants facing incarceration who cannot afford an attorney,"
and in 2010 launched the Office for Access to Justice to address
the crisis in indigent defense services.

"The Commonwealth Court's opinion in this case is the only
decision the United States is aware of that concludes that a
Gideon-based civil action for constructive denial of counsel is
not viable at all. It erects a roadblock that will impede indigent
defendants' ability to vindicate their Sixth Amendment right to
counsel."


PIER 1: Recalls Swivel Armchairs Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pier 1 Imports, of Fort Worth, Texas, announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,500 Katerina Swivel Armchairs in the U.S. (in addition,
about 30 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The swivel armchair can tip backward while rocking and consumers
can fall off, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves Pier 1 Imports' Katerina model outdoor patio
swivel armchairs. The chair is black/brown powder-coated aluminum
and swivels and rocks. The chairs measure about 29 inches wide, 32
inches deep and 38 inches high. The chair has SKU number 2899742.
Pier 1 Imports, Katerina and the SKU number are printed on the
chair's hangtag.

Pier 1 Imports has received five reports of the chair tipping over
in stores with consumers in them, including one report of a
consumer who received contusions and scratches.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/obkqx6z

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Pier
1 Imports stores nationwide and online at www.Pier1.com from
December 2014 through July 2015 for between $375 and $580.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled swivel
armchairs and return them to any Pier 1 Imports store for a full
refund or for a store credit.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 53,000 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROV).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The vehicles' fuel tank vent line can be misrouted, causing it to
become pinched. This can cause the fuel tank to pressurize and
leak fuel, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves the following model year 2015 Polaris RZR
recreational off-highway vehicles (ROV): RZR 900, RZR S 900, RZR
900 XC, RZR 4 900, RZR XP 1000 and RZR XP4 1000 recreational off-
highway vehicles.

RZR 900s were sold in black, camouflage, red and white color
schemes. RZR 900s have a "900" decal on the right and left front
fenders and a "RZR" decal on the right and left rear fenders.

RZR 1000s were sold in black, blue, green, orange, red and white
color schemes. RZR 1000s have a "1000 HO" decal on the right and
left front fenders and a "RZR" decal on the right and left rear
fenders.

RZR 900 and 1000 vehicles with the following model names and
Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) are being recalled:

  Model Year 2015 RZR 900
  Model Name          VIN Range(s)
  ----------          ------------
  RZR 900             4XAVBE874FB201435 through 4XAVAA878FB961699
  RZR S 900                     and
  RZR 4 900           3NSVBE870FF361395 through 3NSVBE875FF444241
  RZR 900 XC          VINs are not sequential and not all VINs
                      in the ranges are included in the recall.

  Model Year 2015 RZR 1000
  Model Name          VIN Range(s)
  ----------          ------------
  RZR XP 1000         4XAVFE993FB207778 through 4XAVFE991FB962847
  RZR XP 1000 Mudder  VINs are not sequential and not all VINs in
  RZR XP4 1000        the range are included in the recall.

The VIN is on the driver's side rear frame tube, behind the PVT
cover. Not all VINs in the ranges are included in this recall.

A complete list of recalled vehicles including VINs is available
at www.polaris.com.

Polaris has received four reports of RZR 900s with fuel leaks and
two reports of the vehicles catching on fire, one of which
included a minor burn injury to a consumer. The company received
25 reports of RZR 1000s with fuel leaks. No injuries reported for
RZR 1000s.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/nfyjfr5

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and
Mexico and sold at Polaris dealers nationwide from July 2014
through August 2015. Polaris RZR 900s sold for about $12,800 to
$18,300. Polaris RZR 1000s sold for about $20,300 to $23,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact their local Polaris dealer to schedule a free repair.
Polaris is contacting its customers directly and sending a recall
letter to each registered owner.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Sued Over Cancer Risk in Vuse E-Cigarettes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reported that a
potential class-action lawsuit has been filed in California
against a subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc., claiming that use
of top-selling electronic cigarette Vuse exposes smokers to
"significant amounts of harmful carcinogens."

The lawsuit was filed Sept. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Plaintiff Jerod Harris claims R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. is violating
California law by failing to include a potential carcinogen risk,
particularly exposure to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, in its
marketing and labels. The complaint cites the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

Harris accuses Reynolds Vapor of deceptive and unfair sales of
Vuse in California. He said he would not have purchased Vuse if
labeling had included potential carcinogen risks.

"Defendants' failure to tell consumers that they are buying e-
cigarette products that will expose them to the carcinogenic
toxins ... is a material omission ... that are likely to deceive a
reasonable consumer," according to the complaint.
Reynolds spokesman Bryan Hatchell said the company declined to
comment on the complaint.

Vuse is available at more than 100,000 retail outlets nationwide.
It had a 34 percent market share as measured by all distribution
channels for e-cigs, according to Nielsen data as of July 11.
Nielsen data focuses primarily on convenience-store sales. Data
includes vaporizers, or open vapor products, but those are more
frequently bought at vape shops and tobacco outlet stores.

What has made Reynolds officials so confident in Vuse is their
claim that it provides "the perfect puff, first time, every time"
because of technology that includes a digital microprocessor. That
device works in conjunction with a memory chip to control key
elements from vapor delivery to battery management.

"The law is pretty clear on this: Proposition 65, as invoked by
the plaintiffs, requires labeling of any product marketed in
California with warning of carcinogens and/or reproductive
toxicants," said Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical and executive director
of the pro-business American Council on Science and Health.

"That is, if the product contains the substances alleged, no
matter how infinitesimal the levels, Prop 65 makes no mention of
dose/exposure. It is my belief that most businesses that do
business in California have come to terms with Proposition 65 and
just label everything to avoid litigation penalties and publicity.
"This is not to say that the presence of such chemicals -- in this
case, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde -- actually poses a reasonable
health threat to vapers."

There is no definitive e-cig health study accepted by the
industry, regulators, analysts and advocates. Harris' attorneys
acknowledge that "to date, e-cigarettes are not required to
receive pre-market approval of any kind."

The main questions about e-cigs and vaporizers continue to be how
safe they are, and what role could they play in reducing the risk
from consuming tobacco products.

As the industry, consumers and public-health advocates continue to
wait on the Food and Drug Administration -- five years and
counting -- to answer those questions and issue a second round of
recommended regulations, a cottage industry of U.S. and global
studies have been submitted that either attempt to fill a
scientific information void or promote a preferred regulatory
outcome.

"Accordingly, there has been a lack of data concerning health
effects of e-cigarette use," according to the complaint.
Yet, the complaint cited several published studies as the basis
for its accusations.

In 2014, Reynolds researchers conducted a study of Vuse with
Eurofins-Lancaster Laboratories in which they examined the
constituents in the aerosol produced, including carcinogens,
metals and volatile compounds. Researchers reported the chemicals
were either below the limit of detection or limited by the
quantification of the laboratory methods used.

A study in the journal Addiction, published in June 2014, found
that the vapor used in e-cigs "can contain some of the toxicants
present in tobacco smoke, but at levels which are much lower."
The study by five researchers, two of whom had connections to a
FDA tobacco panel, drew upon 81 different global studies.
In April 2014, the FDA recommended banning sales to those under
age 18, requiring health warning labels, requiring an agency
review of existing and future products, and eliminating more free
samples.

The FDA did not call for an outright ban of e-cigs, which some
anti-tobacco advocates pushed for. The agency did not curtail
Internet sales or current marketing efforts that include
television and social media.

The complaint requests compensatory and punitive damages, an order
requiring Reynolds to add appropriate warning labels to Vuse -- at
least in California -- and for Reynolds Vapor to pay the cost for
notifying potential class-action members.

Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, said
that "under international toxicology standards, exposure to trace
levels of formaldehyde in products, such as medicines, is
perfectly acceptable."

"California's anti-chemical regulators have set their threshold
far lower that the science justifies."


RONAN, MT: Judge Wants State Court to Consider City Police Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Strickland, writing for Daily Inter Lake, reported that a
federal judge has recommended that parts of a federal lawsuit
filed against the Ronan Police Department and other city of Ronan
officials be dismissed and hashed out in state court.

Claims of whether or not law enforcement officers were properly
certified to make arrests should be considered by Lake County
District Court because it raises a question of Montana law, Judge
Jeremiah Lynch said in a Sept. 1 ruling.

"What the judge said was that ?Ronan may or may not have violated
these state laws, but I am not going to make that decision,'"
attorney Tim Bechtold said.

Bechtold is representing Anthony Chaney, a man who was arrested by
off-duty and reserve Ronan police officers on July 14, 2013, after
he restrained his brother, Donald Chaney, who was suffering from a
post-traumatic stress disorder episode. Anthony Chaney was never
charged with a crime for the incident, though Donald Chaney was
booked into Flathead Tribal Jail.

In the lawsuit filed in June 2014 in U.S. District Court, Anthony
Chaney claimed he was cuffed by Trevor Wadsworth, son of longtime
Police Chief Dan Wadsworth, despite the fact that Trevor was
allegedly not properly certified as required by state law. The
lawsuit also alleged that reserve officers who assisted in the
arrest were not properly certified.

Anthony Chaney filed suit against the city of Ronan, Mayor Kim
Aipperspach, former Police Chief Dan Wadsworth, the Ronan Police
Department and officers who made the arrest.

Bechtold said a lawsuit will be filed in Lake County District
Court as soon as paperwork is finalized through the federal court.
"Everything that can be brought in the federal court can be
brought in the state court," Bechtold said.

He said his client also will seek certification so the lawsuit can
be considered a class-action lawsuit. Lynch denied class
certification in the federal lawsuit, concluding people with
claims similar to Chaney's claim likely would raise questions of
state, and not federal law.

Bechtold said approximately two dozen people have contacted his
office with interest in being part of the class-action lawsuit.
The original lawsuit was filed in federal court to avoid the
clogged state court docket to reach a speedier conclusion.

"The idea of getting a faster ruling did not happen," Bechtold
said. "The strategy backfired. We'll get to the bottom of it
eventually. The whole issue is whether or not Ronan was complying
with state statutes. Ronan thought it was, and a lot of people in
the community thought it wasn't. What we don't have is a ruling on
those state rules and statutes."

Ronan City Attorney Kathleen O'Rourke Mullins said she was pleased
with the judge's recommendations.

"The court didn't find anything wrong or distinguishing with the
reserve program and dismissed it," O'Rourke Mullins said.
But attorney Bill Crowley was not as optimistic that questions
about the city of Ronan's former police reserve program had been
resolved. Crowley is specialized counsel for the city of Ronan and
Mayor Kim Aipperspach.

"I don't think the judge made a decision one way or the other on
whether the reserve officer program satisfied state law or not,"
Crowley said.

He said the judge's recommendation to separate the case into two
courts likely means handling of federal concerns still pending
before the federal court will move at a faster pace.
Still pending in federal court are questions about whether or not
Chaney was illegally arrested and subject to excessive force by
officers.


SCHREIBER FOODS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deidre A. McEvoy and Nicole Paschal, writing for Antitrust Update,
reported that the Seventh Circuit upheld the decision of Judge
Robert M. Dow Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granting cheese manufacturer Schreiber Foods
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in an antitrust class action.
The Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that the
plaintiffs, led by a cheese distributor and a dairy farmer and
milk futures trader, lacked evidence to support their claims that
Schreiber conspired with Dairy Farmers of America, a dairy
marketing cooperative, to increase the price of raw milk.

The plaintiffs relied on Schreiber's communications with DFA to
support their claims, but the Seventh Circuit held that those
communications were insufficient to prove a conspiracy.  The Court
stated in its opinion, "Although the two companies were
competitors, DFA was also one of Schreiber's main suppliers, and
Schreiber was one of DFA's largest customers, giving them a number
of legitimate reasons to communicate with each other."  The Court
also noted that the plaintiffs failed to identify a single
communication that suggested a meeting of the minds to fix prices.

Once the Court determined that evidence of the alleged agreement
was ambiguous, it turned to examining whether any evidence could
exclude the possibility that Schreiber was protecting its
independent interests.  In that regard, the plaintiffs argued that
a conspiracy existed based on Schreiber's "unusual" purchases made
on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.  Schreiber purchased all of
the barrel cheese sold through the exchange while DFA purchased
all of the block cheese over the period of a month in the summer
of 2004.  The plaintiffs asserted that Schreiber's and DFA's
parallel purchases caused cheese prices, and as a result milk
futures, to jump and then subsequently fall by record amounts.
However, the Seventh Circuit found it plausible that Schreiber was
merely protecting its own interests through those purchases by
controlling the price spread between block and barrel cheeses,
both of which Schreiber produces.  Thus, the Court concluded that
the plaintiffs' claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
California's Cartwright Act failed.


SHIVVERS MANUFACTURING: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Shivvers Manufacturing Inc., of Corydon, Iowa, announced a
voluntary recall of about 450 Riding lawn mowers. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The gas cap threads do not align with threads of the fuel tanks
opening, which can allow fuel to leak, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Edge, Edge XLT and Wrangler lawn mowers. The
red riding lawn mowers have a gray seat with a foam cushion, black
arm rests and either black or gray joystick or twin lever
steering.  "Country Clipper" and the model name appear in black
letters on the front under the seat and on the sides of the lawn
mower. Recalled Country Clipper model numbers are as follows. The
model number is located on a silver metal plate on the mower's
side rail.

Edge             Edge XLT         Wrangler
----             --------         --------
2348KOJ-410      2448KAJ-455      1841KAJ-410
2452KAJ-410      2452KAJ-455      2348KOJ-410
2652KOJ-410      1452KAT-455      2352KOJ-410
21548KAJ-410     2460KAJ-455      21548KAJ-4100
                  2460KAT-455      21552KAJ-410
                  2648KOJ-455
                  2652KOJ-455
                  2660KOZJ-455

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/py6gakr

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Country Clipper lawn mower dealerships nationwide from June
2015 to September 2015 for between $4,000 and $6,600.

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.


SPORTSMANS GUIDE: Recalls Hunting Blinds Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Sportsmans Guide, of South St. Paul. Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 17,000 Pop-up Hunting Blinds. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Blinds are not made of flame-resistant materials, posing a fire
hazard.

The recalled blinds have a spring-loaded steel frame and a
camouflage-colored heavy-duty 150-denier nylon shell with a full-
side zipper door, three large full-zip windows and four porthole-
style windows with shoot-through mesh. The Guide Gear Ground Pop-
up Blinds measure 60" x 60" x 66" fully assembled. They fold down
to 24" x 2" and fits into a black backpack carry bag. The blinds
weigh 14 lbs. The Magnum Spring-loaded Steel Hunting Ground Blinds
measure 84" x 72" x 78" fully assembled. They fold down to 24" x
4" and fit into a black backpack carry bag. The blinds weigh 20
lbs.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/p44n377

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Sportsmans Guide outlet stores and online at
www.sportsmansguide.com from January 2013 through July 2015 for
between $50 and $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the blinds and contact
Sportsman Guide for a free replacement. Sportsman Guide is
contacting consumers directly.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Alba" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Romeo Alba and Helen Kosik-Westly, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, Audi of America, Inc., and Audi AG, Case No. 3:15-
cv-04492 (N.D. Cal., September 29, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged installation of defeat devices in about
500,000 diesel vehicles that sense when the vehicle is being
tested for emissions and lower pollutant emissions accordingly.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      Alyssa Dang, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-8700
      Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
      E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
              adang@finkelsteinthompson.com

          - and -

      Gordon M. Fauth Jr., Esq.
      Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
      LITIGATION LAW GROUP
      1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101
      Alameda, CA 94501
      Telephone (510) 238-9610
      Facsimile (510) 337-1431
      E-mail: gmf@classlitigation.com
              rlm@classlitigation.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Berenc" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Berenc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01082 (S.D. Ill., September 30, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged installation of defeat devices in about
500,000 diesel vehicles that sense when the vehicle is being
tested for emissions and lower pollutant emissions accordingly.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
      CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
      8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643
      Telephone: (314) 725-7700
      Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
      E-mail: tyiatras@careydanis.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bozzelli" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph V. Bozzelli, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00260 (E.D. Tenn., September 29, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged installation of defeat devices in several Audi
and Volkswagen models sold in the 2009 through 2015 model years
and equipped with the "2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel."

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
      Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
      Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH AND JENNINGS, PLLC
      223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
      E-mail: gerards@BSJFirm.com
              joeyl@BSJFirm.com
              beng@BSJFirm.com

          - and -

      Joseph N. Kravec Jr., Esq.
      Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      E-mail: JKRAVEC@FDPKLAW.COM
              WLISON@FDPKLAW.COM


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Conte" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Conte, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Volkswagen of
America, Inc. and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (d/b/a Volkswagen
Group and/or Volkswagen AG), Case No. 2:15-cv-07139-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
installation of defeat devices in about 500,000 diesel vehicles
that sense when the vehicle is being tested for emissions and
lower pollutant emissions accordingly.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric T. Kanefsky, Esq.
      Thomas R. Calcagni, Esq.
      CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY
      One Newark Center
      1085 Raymond Blvd, 14th Floor
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (862) 772-8149
      E-mail: eric@ck-harris.com
              tcalcagni@ck-harris.com

          - and -

      Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
      ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
      280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 894-7200
      E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Cua" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cua and Lewis Farber, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG and Robert Bosch GMBH, Case No. 2:15-cv-07195-JLL-
JAD (D.N.J., September 30, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on over
482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United
States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Volkswagen USA.

Robert Bosch GmbH is a German multinational engineering and
electronics company, headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
      Michael Jaffe, Esq.
      Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Ave.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: Schmidt@whafh.com
              Jaffe@whafh.com
              Brown@whafh.com
              Kamin@whafh.com

          - and -

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

          - and -

      Stephen DeNittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
      5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      E-mail: Sdenittis@denittislaw.com

          - and -

      Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
      THE WILNER FIRM, P.A.
      444 E. Duval Street
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 446-9817
      E-mail: Rlantinberg@wilnerfirm.com

          - and -

      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
      301 Washington Street, Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 532-2222
      E-mail: Artrip@mastandoartrip.com
              Tony@mastandoartrip.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Davis" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi USA, Case
No. 8:15-cv-01571 (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called
"defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Greenberg, Esq.
      Wayne R. Gross, Esq.
      Michael I. Katz, Esq.
      GREENBERG GROSS LLP
      650 Town Center Drive, Suite 650
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 380-2800
      Facsimile: (949) 383-2801
      E-mail: AGreenberg@GGTrialLaw.com
              WGross@GGTrialLaw.com
              MKatz@GGTrialLaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Drachler" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. Drachler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07131-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 28, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called
"defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States, to create the impression of
high fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low
emissions.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

          - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
      Benjamin Branda, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              enafisi@wbmllp.com
              bbranda@wbmllp.com

          - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0090
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Federman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Federman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07655 (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged installation of defeat devices in
several Audi and Volkswagen models sold in the 2009 through 2015
model years and equipped with the "2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel."

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Byron T. Ball, Esq.
      THE BALL LAW FIRM
      644 S. Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (310) 446-6148
      E-mail: btb@balllawllp.com

          - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 North Pennsylvania
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
              clm@federmanlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Genin" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Genin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07688 (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat
devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold
in the United States, to create the impression of high fuel
efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      711 Van Ness, Suite 500
      San Francisco CA 94102-3229
      Telephone: (415) 982-1776
      Facsimile: (415) 576-1776
      E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
              jezrin@audetlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Goldman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Goldman, Kurt Phillips, and James K. Harris, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07155-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September
29, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional
installation of so-called "defeat devices" in Model Year ("MY")
2009-2015 VW Jettas; MY 2009-2015 VW Beetles; MY 2009-2015 VW
Golfs; MY 2014-2015 VW Passats; and MY 2009-2015 Audi A3s equipped
with 2.0-liter turbocharged diesel ("TDI") engines.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      Louis B. Gerber, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      210 Summit Avenue
      Montvale, NJ 07645
      Telephone: (201) 391-7000
      Facsimile: (201) 307-1088

          - and -

      Howard T. Longman, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com

          - and -

      Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
      Los Angles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 209-2468
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
      E-mail: pbishop@ssbny.com

          - and -

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC
      438 16th St SE
      Washington, DC 20003
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
      E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gradel" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Susan Gradel and Samantha Gradel, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05364-RBS (E.D. Penn., September 29, 2015) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-
called "defeat devices" in certain model year 2009 through 2015
diesel lightweight duty vehicles, to bypass, defeat, or render
inoperative elements of the vehicles' emission control system.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
      E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
              rhonik@golombhonik.com
              kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
              dstanoch@golombhonik.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hill" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Hill, Larry Bragg and Robert Kolb, individually and on
behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00819-CCE-LPA (E.D.N.C.,
September 30, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on over
482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United
States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high
performance with extremely low emissions.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mona L. Wallace, Esq.
      John S. Hughes, Esq.
      WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
      525 N. Main St.
      Salisbury, NC 28144
      Telephone: (704) 633-5244
      E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
              jhughes@wallacegraham.com

          - and -

      Gerald J. Diaz Jr., Esq.
      James R. Segars III, Esq.
      THE DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
      208 Waterford Square, Suite 300
      Madison, MS 39110
      Telephone: (601) 607-3456
      Facsimile: (601) 607-3393
      E-mail: joey@diazlawfirm.com
              tripp@diazlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Howard" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Howard, Andrew Ksenzulak, Brandon Bencomo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-04467-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
September 29, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on over
482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United
States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high
performance with extremely low emissions.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Bracamontes, Esq.
      Ryan J. Vlasak, Esq.
      220 Montgomery Street, Suite 870
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 835-6777
      Facsimile: (415) 835-6780
      E-mail: mbracamontes@bvlawsf.com
              rvlasak@bvlawsf.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Husserl" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Husserl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07184-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 30, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat
devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold
in the United States, to create the impression of high fuel
efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

          - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
      Benjamin Branda, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              enafisi@wbmllp.com
              bbranda@wbmllp.com

          - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0090
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kealy" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Kealy, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03487-MHC (N.D. Ga., September 30, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged installation of defeat devices in several Audi
and Volkswagen models sold in the 2009 through 2015 model years
and equipped with the "2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel."

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam P. Princenthal, Esq.
      Matthew T. Wilson,Esq.
      PRINCENTHAL & MAY, LLC
      5901 Peachtree Dunwoody Road
      Building A, Suite 525
      Sandy Springs, GA 30328
      Telephone: (678) 534-1980
      E-mail: adam@princemay.com
              matthew@princemay.com

          - and -

      Michael J. Brickman, Esq.
      Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd. (29464)
      Post Office Box 1007
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      E-mail: mbrickman@rpwb.com
              nfields@rpwb.com



                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2015. 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  * * *