---

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

           Thursday, February 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 40


                            Headlines


AAA PLATING: "Magana" Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: Claim Filing Deadline May 20
ALARM AND ELECTRONICS: Violated FLSA, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims
ALLIED HEALTH: "Santiago" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
ALLVALLEY BATTERY: "Kaishchyan" Suit Claims Labor Code Violations

AMERICAN HONDA: Violated Warranty Act, "Kojikian" Suit Claims
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Caldera" Suit Over TCPA Violation
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Motion to Require of Appeal Bond Granted in Part
BABO BOTANICALS: "Nicotra" Asserts Misleading Business Practices
BACTOLAC PHARMA: "Cohen" Suit Seeks Damages from False Labeling

BAER'S FURNITURE: "Gray" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
BARNIV MAINTENANCE: Faces Suit for Violation of N.Y. Labor Law
BIG WATER RESORT: May 16 Fairness Hearing on $1.25MM Settlement
CABOT OIL: Jury Hears Opening Statements in Gas Well Suit
CALDERA MEDICAL: May 2 Transvaginal Mesh Claims Deadline Set

CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Podigal" Suit Over FCDPA Violation
CHATEAU SEAFOOD INC: "Kaimova" Suit seeks Minimum Pay
CHRISTCHURCH, NZ: CTV Earthquake Victims Seek Accountability
CNOVA N.V.: Faces "Stevenson" Securities Class Action in NY
COLUMBIA ORGANIC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Rios" Suit Claims

CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES: "Reynolds" Class Settlement Okayed
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Aliano" Consumer Suit Over Algal-900 DHA
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: May 28 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
DAMGAARD LANDSCAPE: Violated FLSA & IMWL, "Corona" Suit Claims
DAVISON DESIGN: Faces "Mims" Suit For Breach of Contract

DELBERT SERVICES: Arbitration Ruling Reversed in "Hayes" Suit
DENSO: U.S Auto Dealers, Consumers Sue Over Alleged Price-Fixing
DIRECT GENERAL: Court Terminates "Black" Labor Suit
EOS PRODUCTS: "Everett" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
ERIN ENERGY: "Johnson" Suit Claims Violation of Corporation Law

FIRST NATIONAL: SIM Scam Victims Urged to Join Class Action
FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Class Actions Face Potential Pitfalls
FLOWERS FOODS: Violated FLSA & UTPA, "McCurley" Suit Claims
FRESNO, CA: Judge Declines Bid to Unseal Expert Reports
FORD: Recalls F150 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk

FORD: Recalls F750 and F650 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
FORD: Recalls Transit 2015 Models Due to Defective Rear Shafts
FREEDOM GROUP: Judge Hears Arguments in Sandy Hook Shooting
GALENA BIOPHARMA: April 21 Settlement Approval Hearing
GENERAL MOTORS: Violated CCLRA & UCL, "Mendoza" Suit Claims

GRANT AND WEBER: "Schwartz" Sues over Illegal Collection Calls
HERSHEY CANADA: Recalls Glosette Brand Raisins Due to Peanut
HHGREGG INC: "Adiyeh" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
HIGH END: Faces "Kel-Mar" Lawsuit Alleging Breach of Contract
HORSESHOE CLEVELAND: Violated FLSA & OMFWSA, "Alvarez" Suit Says

IC: Recalls Multiple School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
IC: Recalls Multiple School Bus Models Due to Defective Bearing
ILLINOIS: Suit v. Dept of Lottery Seeks Income From Winnings
ILLINOIS: Four Prisons Face Class Action Over Inmate Abuses
INCA POOL CORP: "Garrecoa" Action Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages

IZZY'S STEAKS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit for FLSA Violation
J & J AIR: Faces "Zurlo" Suit Alleging Cal. Labor Code Violation
JEEP: Recalls Patriot and Compass 2015 Models Due to Fire Risk
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $72 Million in Talcum Suit
KASPOL TRADING: Recalls Garlic Sauce Due to Egg and Milk

KINCAID INC: "Dominguez" Action Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Mulder" Suit Over Phantom Markdowns Dismissed
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sheriff Baca Pleads Guilty to Lying in Probe
MC2 MODEL: Models File Class Action in New York
MCCAIN FOODS: Recalls Fried Potato Products

MCCLINTON ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Dismuke" Suit Claims
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Violated NJCFA, "Marron" Suit Claims
MERCEDES: Faces Second Class Action Over Clean Diesel Vehicles
MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 SCHOOL BUS 2016 Model
MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Spencer" Class Action in Portland

MODEL SERVICE: Bid for Conditional Cert. Granted in Part
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Poeschek, et al., File Concussion Class Action
NEWCREST: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $36 Million
NEXSCENE: Recalls LED String Fairy Lights Due to Fire Hazard
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "DeMaria" Amended Complaint Dismissed

NOBILIS HEALTH: "Schott" Sues Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports
OMEGA EMPIRE: "Barahona" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Violated Clayton Act, Comfort's Suit Claims
PIE ONTARIO: Recalls Pepperoni Pie Due to Gluten, Milk, & Mustard
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Violated Labor Code, "Mathein" Suit Claims

PIZZA HUT: May File Redacted Copy of Settlement Agreement
PMLRA PIZZA: "Reeves" Suit Seeks Service Charges Under MGL
PRIME TIME: Recalls 2016 Travel Trailers Due to Crash Risk
RED ROBIN GOURMET: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Brackley" Suit Claims
REX PERFORMANCE: "Slaght" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages

ROADRUNNER PIZZA: Violated Labor Code, "Ruiz" Suit Claims
ROCKPILE ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Campbell" Suit Claims
ROMAGICA CORP: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Moran" Suit Claims
SAFEWAY INC: Violated CCLRA & CUCL, "Shiner" Suit Claims
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Suit Seeks to Enjoin GSW Arena Construction

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: State's Motion to Dismiss Granted In Part
SCRANTON, PA: Rental Registration Fee Class Action Hearing Set
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Clinitek Novus 10 Urinalysis Cassette
SIMI VALLEY: Faces "Jones" Suit for Alleged Labor Code Violations
SPASO SPORTS: Recalls 2015 Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard

SPOTIFY: Memo Reveals Takedown of Camper van Beethoven's Catalog
STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Class Action for A$200 Million
STAR SCIENTIFIC: N.D. Ill. Court Dismisses "Baldwin" Case
SUNEDISON INC: Motion to Consolidate Denied
SUZUKI: Recalls 2014, 2015 Motorcycle Models Due to Fire Risk

SUZUKI: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Crash Risk
TAX LAW ADVOCATES: Violated TCPA, "Meyer" Suit Claims
TOSHIBA MEDICAL: Recalls RADREX-I Products
UBER: Driver Background Check in Spotlight After Recent Shooting
UNIT PETROLEUM: Consul Properties Class Suit Dismissed

VICTORIAN PAPER: Recalls Tealight Holders Due to Fire Hazard
WASHINGTON: Defendants' Motion for Qualified Immunity Denied
WHIRLPOOL: Environmental Class Action Dismissed After Settlement
XL FOODS: August 17 E. Coli Claims Filing Deadline Set
ZIMBABWE: National Park Faces Class Action Lake Chivero

* Class Actions Among Issues on Agenda for Competition Lawyers
* John Goodson Aided Law Firms to Get State Auditor Contract


                            *********


AAA PLATING: "Magana" Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Magana, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. AAA Plating & Inspection, Inc., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No: BC610206
(Cal. Super. Ct., County Of Los Angeles, February 11, 2016), seeks
overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest
periods, penalties, interest and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs under the California Labor Code and California Code of
Regulations.

Defendants, AAA PLATING & INSPECTION, INC., a California
corporation, offers a wide variety of plating and processing
services, including anodizing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, California 90211
     Phone: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310)553-3603


AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: Claim Filing Deadline May 20
------------------------------------------------
The Ontario and Quebec Courts have appointed RicePoint
Administration Inc. as the administrator of the settlement, which
was reached in the class action against Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited
arising from the company's alleged failure to disclose operational
issues at its Goldex mine before the mine's closure in 2011.

The company has agreed to pay $17 million.  The settlement is a
compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability
or wrong doing by the company.

To be eligible for compensation, class members must submit a
completed claim form to RicePoint Administration no later than May
20, 2016.

For more information about rights and how to exercise them, see
the long-form notice available online at
http://www.siskinds.com/agnico-eagle-mines-ltd-2/or toll-free at
1-800-461-6166 x2380

Agnico-Eagle, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, development, and production of mineral properties in
Canada, Finland, and Mexico.


ALARM AND ELECTRONICS: Violated FLSA, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Alarm and Electronics Systems, LLC, a
Florida Liability Company, and Michael P. Donnelly, individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20251-MGC (S.D. Fla., January 20,
2016), seeks to recover payment of all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs of suit, and for all proper relief including prejudgment
interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Alarm & Electronics is a trusted name in the security industry.
The company, is privately owned, licensed and certified by the
State of Florida and Underwriters Laboratory since 1982. The
Company's line of business includes protecting both large and
small residential and commercial structures, government
facilities, high tech sensitive telecommunications buildings, and
manufacturing and shipping venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W 70th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617 6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617 6018
          E-Mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


ALLIED HEALTH: "Santiago" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emilia Santiago, Rosario Castillo Valdez, and Natalia Abreu,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Allied Health Services, Inc. and John
Does No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00446 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 20, 2016), Seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay
rights, and damages including but not limited to compensatory,
punitive and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements
and attorneys' fees provided by Fair Labor Standards Act.

Allied Health Services was founded in 1985. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prescription drugs,
proprietary drugs, and non-prescription medicines. The Company is
a New York Corporation, with its principal place of business
located at 2322 Arthur Avenue, Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
          New York, NY  10017
          Telephone: (212) 286 1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688 3078
          Email: wcrand@wcrand.com


ALLVALLEY BATTERY: "Kaishchyan" Suit Claims Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khachik Kaishchyan, an individual, v. Allvalley Battery Service,
Inc., a corporation; Ammari Auto Center, an entity of unknown
form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No: BC 610183 (Cal.
Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, February 11, 2016), alleges
failure to pay wages and overtime, meal-period liability, rest-
break liability, and Labor Code violation.

Defendants specialize in providing vehicle service and repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Yeremian, Esq.
     Michele Jackson, Esq.
     DAVIDYEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: (818) 230-8380
     Fax: (818) 230-0308
     E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
             michele@yeremianlaw.com



AMERICAN HONDA: Violated Warranty Act, "Kojikian" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Armen G. Kojikian, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Time Traders,
Inc., as a California Corporation, on behalf of itself, all other
similarly situation, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC606322 (Cal Super
Ct., County of Los Angeles, Central District, January 8, 2016),
was filed against the Defendant for personal injuries or property
damage resulting from defects in Defendant's pattern and practice
of fraudulently, unfairly, deceptively, and unlawfully marketing,
advertising, promoting and leasing/selling various vehicles that
were defective in that they have excessive oil consumption,
pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California
Unfair Competition Act, and Business and Professions Code.

American Honda Motor Company is a California corporation with its
national headquarters in Torrance, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
          THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
          801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818)553 1000
          Facsimile: (818)553 1005
          E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Caldera" Suit Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Armando Caldera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, plaintiff, v. American Medical Collection
Agency a.k.a. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00381 (C.D. Cal., January 18, 2016),
seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq.

Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular telephone via an automatic
telephone dialing system and was charged for that call. It was to
collect a debt that was not his, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
             abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com

                - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Motion to Require of Appeal Bond Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan granted in part and denied in
part Plaintiffs' motion to require the posting of appeal bond by
Ross Muller, who objects to the approval of the settlement reached
in the case, FRANCISCO RENE MARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 13-23656-CIV-
O'SULLIVAN, (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiffs initially sought an order requiring Mr. Mueller to
post a $10,000 appeal bond to account for estimated appellate
costs and continued settlement administration costs during the
length of the appeal period.

In his response, Mr. Mueller states: "Objector does not oppose a
bond of less than or equal to $5,000, class counsel's estimate of
taxable costs under Rule 39(e)."

In their reply, the Plaintiffs assert that "to avoid further
litigation on this issue, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter
an Order under FRAP 7 and 8 requiring Objector-Appellant Muller to
post an appeal bond totaling $5,000 to account for expected
appellate costs as well as the administrative costs of continued
settlement administration during the length of the appeal period."

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/N5iwvhfrom Leagle.com, Judge O'Sullivan said Mr.
Mueller must post a $5,000 appeal bond with the Clerk of the Court
within 20 days of the Order. The Court finds that the imposition
of an appeal bond is warranted.

Based on the questionable nature of the objections previously
asserted by Mr. Mueller, the Court believes it is unlikely that
Mr. Mueller will prevail in his appeal. The Court will not make a
finding that Mr. Mueller has engaged in bad faith or vexatious
conduct based on the record at this time. Nonetheless, having
reviewed Mr. Mueller's objections in this case and in a prior
class action the undersigned concludes that the third factor is
either neutral or weighs more in favor of imposing a bond.

The Court notes that Mr. Mueller asserts that he does not have the
financial means to pay a large bond and while Mr. Mueller does not
adequately support this statement in his declaration, it is
sufficient to raise the issue of whether Mr. Mueller would be able
to pay appellate costs if he is unsuccessful on appeal. The
Plaintiffs have shown that Mr. Mueller's counsel has engaged in
similar objections to class action settlements in the past.

John Campbell, Esq. of Campbell Law, LLC Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
-- amm@kttlaw.com -- David R. Matz, Esq. -- drm@kttlaw.com --
Robert William Rodriguez, Esq. -- robertwrodriguez@rgmail.com --
of Robert W. Rodriguez, P.A. -- Tal J Lifshitz, Esq. --
tjl@kttlaw.com -- and Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq. --
tr@kttlaw.com -- of  Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton -- Howard
Mitchell Bushman, Esq. -- hbushman@harkeclasby.com -- and Lance
August Harke, Esq. -- lharke@harkeclasby.com -- of Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Francisco Rene Marty

Brandon R. Keel, Esq. -- brandon.keel@skadden.com -- and David R.
Pehlke, Esq. -- david.pehlke@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP and Stanley Howard Wakshlag, Esq. --
swakshalg@kennynachwlater.com -- of Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. serve
as counsel for Defendant Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC


BABO BOTANICALS: "Nicotra" Asserts Misleading Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Nicotra, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated and John Does (1-100), on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Babo Botanicals, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00296-ADS-
GRB (E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2016), seeks to remedy the deceptive
and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to
the marketing and sales of Babo Botanicals Calming Baby Lotion,
Babo Botanicals 3-in-1 Calming Shampoo, Bubble Bath and Wash, Babo
Botanicals Moisturizing Baby Bubble Bath and Wash, Babo Botanicals
Moisturizing Baby Shampoo and Wash, Babo Botanicals Moisturizing
Baby Lotion, Babo Botanicals Miracle Moisturizing Cream, Babo
Botanicals Smoothing Shampoo and Wash, Babo Botanicals Smoothing
Detangling Spray, Babo Botanicals Lice Repel Botanicals Lice Repel
Shampoo, Babo Botanicals Swim & Sport Conditioner, Babo Botanicals
30 SPF Clear Zinc Sunscreen-Fragrance Free, Babo Botanicals Swim &
Sport Shampoo & Wash, and Babo Botanicals 30 SPF Clear Zinc
Sunscreen, throughout the State of New York and the country.

The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products
using a marketing and advertising campaign that is centered around
claims appealing to health conscious consumers that their Products
offer "Natural Solutions" and/or were "Natural" and/or "All
Natural".

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Jean M. Sedlak, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 722 4266
          Facsimile: (888) 749 7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  sedlakj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


BACTOLAC PHARMA: "Cohen" Suit Seeks Damages from False Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barry A. Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
Absolute Nutrition, LLC a/k/a Absolute Nutrition, Nutritional
Sciences, LLC, Gregg Scully, Alan Nathan; and
John Doe Corporations 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00131-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, January20, 2016), seeks to
recover damages and costs as a result of Defendants' false and
misleading labeling and advertising of its Garcinia cambogia-
containing Product.

Garcinia cambogia is a plant, native to Indonesia, that contains
HCA as its active nutrient. Garcinia cambogia has been the focus
of weight-loss industry promotions following its introduction on
an episode of the Dr. Oz Show that aired on television in October
2012.

Bactolac Pharmaceutical provides contract manufacturing services
for nutraceutical products. The company offers vitamin contract
manufacturing, nutritional supplement manufacturing, vitamin and
vitamin product manufacturing, nutraceutical contract
manufacturing, contract supplement packaging, and herbal contract
manufacturing services. The company also provides herbal products,
custom vitamins, private label vitamins, dietary supplements,
herbal vitamins, sports supplement, and nutritional supplements.
The Company is located at Hauppauge, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FINE
          3684 Silsby Road
          University Heights, OH 44118
          Telephone: (216) 320 9950
          Facsimile: (216) 320 9953
          Email: mfine@ohioconsumerlawyer.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891 9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300 7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


BAER'S FURNITURE: "Gray" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Gray, by and through the undersigned counsel and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Baer's Furniture Co., Inc., Ronald W. Baer, individually, and
Gary Peacock, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-
60097-MGC (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, damages for retaliation, liquidated damages, post-
judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and costs from
Defendants, for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Baer's Furniture, a Florida corporation, owns and operates a chain
of home furnishing stores in Florida. It provides living, bedroom,
dining, entertainment, office, and outdoor furniture, as well as
mattresses; and professional interior design services and
consultations. The company also serves shoppers from the
Caribbean, including Freeport and Nassau, Bahamas, the Cayman
Islands, the Virgin Islands, the Florida Keys, and more. It sells
products online. The Company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida with store locations in
Casselberry, Winter Garden, Boca Raton, Dania Beach, Fort
Lauderdale, Ft. Myers, Miami, Naples, North Palm Beach, and
Pembroke Pines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
          Wells Fargo Building
          4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
          Hollywood, Florida 33021
          Telephone: (954) 780-8228
          Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
          E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com


BARNIV MAINTENANCE: Faces Suit for Violation of N.Y. Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zdisla W. Kwiakowski, Bolesla W Pirog, Robert Redlinski, Jan
Wysinski and Zdisla W Zatorksi, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Barniv Maintenance LLC and Jack
Weinreb, Case no: 501943/2016 (N.Y.Sup., County of Kings, February
11, 2016), seeks class-wide redress against the Defendants for
alleged failure to provide overtime wages in violation of the New
York Labor Law.

Barniv Maintenance is a construction company located at
292 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Portesy, Esq.
     SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
     445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 420-9300


BIG WATER RESORT: May 16 Fairness Hearing on $1.25MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton approved the class settlement
reached in the case, William Reed, Donna Reed, Bonnie Youmans,
Jane Yates, Phillip Caulder all individually and for the benefit
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Big
Water Resort, LLC, TLC Holdings, LLC, Richard Clark, James
Thigpen, Jimmy "Steve" Lovell, and Ocoee, LLC. Defendants. Big
Water Resort, LLC; TLC Holdings, LLC, Richard Clark, James
Thigpen, Jimmy "Steve" Lovell; Ocoee, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v. M.B. Hutson, a/k/a M.B. Hudson, Third-Party Defendant, Civil
Action No. 2:14-cv-01583-DCN, (D. S.C.)

This case involves allegations that Plaintiffs and all Big Water
Resort Club members were harmed by the conversion of the Big Water
Resort from a private club to a public club. The class
representatives are individuals who purchased memberships in the
Big Water Club or Big Water Resort, a recreational vehicle park
and campground in Summerton, South Carolina. The class
representatives each entered into substantially similar membership
agreements with Big Water Resort, which was responsible for the
daily operations and the marketing of the club.

Defendants Clark, Thigpen, and Lovell are the sole members of
Defendants TLC Holdings, LLC and Big Water Resort. Defendant TLC
Holdings owns the land and improvements upon which Big Water
Resort is situated.

The parties mediated this litigation in October 2015, and reached
as settlement at the mediation.

The salient terms of the settlement are:

     -- Defendants will pay into escrow $1,000,000 for the
        creation of a Settlement Fund.

     -- The Settlement Fund will be paid to Class Members who
        submit a timely and complete Claim Form in an amount
        which is a percentage equal to the amount paid by a class
        member for their membership agreement, divided by the
        total amount of the Membership Agreement purchase price
        for all Class Members for all membership agreements of
        the Class Members including any of the 31 persons who
        submit proof of 2011 dues payments.

     -- Any unclaimed funds after the expiration of the claim
        period will be refunded to the Defendants from the escrow
        account.

     -- Defendants will provide to Class Members who submit a
        timely and complete Claim Form a Gift Certificate
        redeemable for credits to be used for camping at Sandy
        Shores Resort at the current (general public) rental rate
        at the time of use.  The total dollar amount allotted to
        Gift Certificates is $250,000 redeemable on a claims made
        based on the same formula as the Cash component.

In his Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/bSfak4from Leagle.com, Judge Norton granted the
joint motion for class settlement. The Court gives preliminary
approval of the Comprehensive Settlement Term Sheet contingent on
final approval at the Final Fairness Hearing. The Court approves
the notice and claims procedure proposed by the Parties and
described in the Comprehensive Settlement Term Sheet, the Proposed
Notice handed up at the hearing and attachments to the Joint
Motion for Class Settlement. The Court approves the notice and
claims procedure proposed by the Parties and described in the
Comprehensive Settlement Term Sheet, the Proposed Notice handed up
at the hearing and attachments to the Joint Motion for Class
Settlement.

The Court appoints William Reed, Donna Reed, Bonnie Youmans, Jane
Yates, and Phillip Caulder as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class. The Court appoints Richardson, Patrick,
Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, and Finkel Law Firm, LLC, together to
act as Class Counsel and to administer the settlement.

The Court schedules a Final Fairness Hearing for May 16, 2016 at
10:00 a.m. and a Final Appeals and Distribution Hearing on
September 1, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

At the Final Fairness Hearing, the Court will determine whether 1)
the proposed Class Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable
and should be approved by the Court, 2) Class Counsel's requested
attorney's fees and costs are reasonable and should be reimbursed
from the settlement proceeds, and 3) whether the Named Plaintiffs'
Incentive Payments are fair and reasonable.

Brady Ryan Thomas, Esq. -- bthomas@rpwb.com -- Christopher James
Moore, Esq. -- cmoore@rpwb.com -- and Terry Edward Richardson,
Jr., Esq. -- trichardson@rpwb.com -- of Richardson Patrick
Westbrook and Brickman Carl David Hiller, Esq. Harry L Goldberg,
Esq. and  William R Padget, Esq. of Finkel Law Firm serve as
counsel for Plaintiff William Reed

Carlyle Richardson Cromer, Esq. -- ccromer@turnerpadget.com --
John Smith Wilkerson, III, Esq. -- jwilkerson@turnerpadget.com Jon
Rene Josey, Esq.  Morgan S Templeton, Esq. --
Morgan.Templeton@WallTempleton.com -- Richard S Dukes, Jr., Esq.
-- rdukes@turnerpadget.com -- and R Wayne Byrd, Esq. --
wbyrd@turnerpadget.com -- of Turner Padget Graham and Laney serve
as counsel for Defendant Big Water Resort LLC


CABOT OIL: Jury Hears Opening Statements in Gas Well Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two families who accuse one of
the largest natural gas drillers in Pennsylvania of polluting
their well water are trying to persuade a federal jury to hold the
company accountable.

Opening statements were made on Feb. 23 in a bitter and long-
running federal lawsuit that pits homeowners in the village of
Dimock against Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.

Dimock was the scene of the most highly publicized case of methane
contamination to emerge from the early days of Pennsylvania's
natural-gas drilling boom.  State regulators blamed faulty gas
wells drilled by Cabot for leaking combustible methane into
Dimock's groundwater.  Cabot has consistently denied
responsibility.

The rural community became a national battleground in
environmental activists' fight against fracking -- the technique
that allows drilling companies to extract huge volumes of oil and
natural gas from rock formations deep underground -- and its
plight was featured in the Emmy-winning 2010 documentary
"Gasland."

Dozens of plaintiffs settled with Cabot in 2012, but two
homeowners opted to take their claims to court.

"We haven't had clean water since my son was in kindergarten. He's
now in seventh grade," one of the plaintiffs, Monica Marta-Ely,
said outside court on Feb. 22, when jurors were selected.  "It's
not a normal way of life."

Leslie Lewis, the families' attorney, said in opening statements
that her clients' water was clean and drinkable until Cabot
drilled two natural gas wells near their homes in 2008.
Stephen Dillard, Cabot's attorney, told jurors the problems
started before Cabot began drilling -- and continue to this day,
some six years after Cabot plugged the wells.

"One would expect . . . when we filled the wells with cement and
shut them down, the problem should go away," Mr. Dillard said,
according to The Times-Tribune of Scranton.  "Yet here we are, six
years later, and the complaints continue."

Residents first reported problems with their wells in 2008.  The
water that came out of their faucets turned cloudy, foamy and
discolored, and smelled and tasted foul. Homeowners, all of whom
had leased their land to Cabot, said the water made them sick with
symptoms that included vomiting, dizziness and skin rashes.

After a water well exploded on New Year's Day 2009, a state
investigation found that Cabot had allowed gas to escape into the
region's groundwater supplies, contaminating at least 18
residential water wells.

Cabot asserts the methane in the residents' wells is naturally
occurring.


CALDERA MEDICAL: May 2 Transvaginal Mesh Claims Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS WITH CLAIMS REGARDING
TRANSVAGINAL MESH DEVICES MANUFACTURED BY CALDERA MEDICAL, INC.

The Court in Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc.,
U.S.D.C., Central District of California Case No. 2:15-cv-00393,
authorized this Notice.  This is not a solicitation.

You may be entitled to a payment from a class action Settlement.
A Class Settlement has been reached in connection with lawsuits
and unfiled claims against Caldera Medical, Inc. ("Caldera").  The
claims being settled relate to injuries allegedly caused by
transvaginal mesh ("TVM") devices manufactured, marketed, sold and
distributed by Caldera and its affiliates and suppliers under the
following trade names: T-Sling(R), Desara(R), Ascend(R),
Hydrix(R), POPmesh(R), and Vertessa(R).  These claims are
collectively referred to as "Transvaginal Mesh Medical Product
Claims" or "Caldera TVM Claims."

If approved by the Court, the Class Settlement will create a cash
Settlement Fund of $11.75 million for the benefit of claimants
asserting Caldera TVM Claims.

The claimants assert that Caldera manufactured, marketed, sold,
and distributed TVM devices that it knew or should have known were
hazardous and dangerous to patients who were implanted with them.
Caldera denied and continues to deny that it did anything wrong.
The principle reasons for the Class Settlement are to maximize the
share of Caldera's limited resources that are paid to claimants,
and to eliminate the expense, uncertainty and risk of further
litigation.

Anyone who has filed a lawsuit asserting any claim against Caldera
relating to injuries allegedly caused by a Caldera TVM device, or
who has entered into a tolling agreement with Caldera relating to
the filing of such claims, is automatically a member of the
Settlement Class and is entitled to submit a Claim Form seeking a
payment from the Settlement Fund.

If you have not filed a lawsuit or entered into a tolling
agreement, you still may be entitled to participate in the
Settlement if you or someone in your family was implanted with a
TVM device manufactured, marketed, sold, or distributed by
Caldera, and you believe that the Caldera TVM device has caused
any injuries.  To join the Settlement Class and request a payment
from the Settlement Fund, you will need to submit a Claim Form.

Whether or not you have already filed a lawsuit or entered into a
tolling agreement, you must file a Claim Form to get payment.
Anyone entitled to submit a Claim Form who does not do so will not
be able to receive any cash available under the Settlement, sue
Caldera for Transvaginal Mesh Medical Product Claims, or be part
of any other lawsuit against Caldera asserting TVM claims.

A more detailed Class Notice is being provided to claimants who
already have asserted claims against Caldera.  If you believe you
are a Class Member, but did not receive the Class Notice, you may
log on to www.calderaclaims.com or call toll-free: 1-800-683-4872,
to request a copy of the Class Notice and a Claim Form.  You also
may request these materials by writing to the settlement
administrator at The Settlement Alliance, Attn: Caldera Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 92040, Southlake, TX 76092.

Claim Forms must be received or postmarked by May 2nd, 2016. You
Must Act Now To Protect Your Rights.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Podigal" Suit Over FCDPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Podrigal on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services LLC
f/k/a Veldos, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00258-KAM-PK
(E.D.N.Y., January 18, 2016), seeks statutory and actual damages,
attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred and other
relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made collection calls that
fail to disclose the nature and intent of the call as well as the
identity of the caller.

Central Credit Services LLC, formerly known as Veldos, LLC is a
collection agency based in Ramsey, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      Maxim Maximov, LLP
      1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, New York 11229
      Tel: (718) 395-3459
      Fax: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


CHATEAU SEAFOOD INC: "Kaimova" Suit seeks Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Kaimova, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chateau Seafood Inc., Stanley
Yunayev and Yousef A. Shafei, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00260-
BMC (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, and unpaid spread of hours
owed in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked as a cook, food preparer, bus person and
dishwasher. She allegedly did not receive a regular wage but only
tips from customers.

Chateau Seafood Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized
and existing under the laws of New York doing business as Chateau
De Captain with principal place of business at 2570 Coney Island
Ave., Brooklyn, New York 11223. Yunayev and Shafei are co-owners
and managers of the said establishment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Alison Genova, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, New York 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082


CHRISTCHURCH, NZ: CTV Earthquake Victims Seek Accountability
------------------------------------------------------------
Channel NewsAsia reports that the New Zealand city of Christchurch
came to a standstill on Feb. 22 to mark the fifth anniversary of a
devastating earthquake that left 185 dead, amid anger about
accountability and insurance delays.

The 6.3-tremor in 2011 was one of the country's deadliest
disasters and the city stopped for a minute's silence to mark the
moment when much of New Zealand's second largest city was
destroyed.

Throughout the day people cast flowers into the Avon River which
meanders through the city in a poignant "River of Flowers"
memorial, while players wore black armbands at the cricket Test
between New Zealand and Australia being played at Hagley Oval.

"Today we reflect on the Christchurch earthquake, remember those
we lost and look forward with optimism to the future," Prime
Minister John Key said as he led tributes with a message on
Twitter.

"Today we remember the events of five years ago in Christchurch
and those who lost their lives.  But we also reflect on how far
we've come, what's been achieved and look forward to the future
with a renewed sense of optimism."

However, Mr. Key's words jarred with many people angered that no
one has yet been held accountable for the buildings that collapsed
and not all home insurance claims have been settled.

Maan Alkaisi's wife was one of 115 people killed in the CTV
building that collapsed and he has been campaigning for
accountability ever since an inquiry found it did not meet
construction standards.

"The fact that after five years there is nothing; how do you
explain that?" Mr. Alkaisi told the New Zealand Herald.

The families of the CTV victims attempted to launch a class action
lawsuit, but were informed New Zealand's justice system could not
support such a case, Mr. Alkaisi said.  They were told police were
responsible for finding criminal liability.

PROTEST RALLY

Ann Brower, the only survivor among nine people on a bus crushed
under a collapsed building, remains furious that the local council
had failed to cordon off the area after it was damaged in an
earthquake five months earlier.

"It wasn't the earthquake that killed all the people on the bus,
it was the building," she told Radio New Zealand.

"And it was the city council's lack of requiring the building
owner to fix it, and the city council's lack of bringing it down,
and the city council's lack of putting up a fence.  No, no, no, it
was not an accident."

A city council spokesman said they were still awaiting the outcome
of the police investigation into buildings that failed and could
not comment until it was completed.

On Feb. 21, nearly 1,000 Christchurch residents attended a protest
rally to air their frustration over insurance delays.

Insurance industry critic Sarah Miles, who wrote a book about the
management of the catastrophe called "The Christchurch Fiasco",
said thousands of people had been affected by failed repairs,
delayed settlements and cash settlements that fell short.

The government minister responsible for overseeing the earthquake
recovery, Gerry Brownlee, said much of the work had been done.

"Most insurance claims are resolved, most of the demolitions are
done, most of the infrastructure repair is complete," he said.

Since February 22, 2011 nearly 14,000 quakes have been recorded in
the Christchurch area including 13 in the 24 hours to 12:51 p.m.
on Feb. 22.

Most of the shakes have been minor although a week ago there was a
reminder of how powerful they could be when 5.8 tremor knocked
items of shelves and sent a cliff face plunging into the sea.


CNOVA N.V.: Faces "Stevenson" Securities Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
William J. Stevenson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cnova N.V., Vitor Faga De
Almeida, German Quiroga, Emmanuel Grenier, Jean Charles Naouri,
L¡bano Miranda Barroso, Eleazar de Carvalho Filho, Didier Leveque,
Ronaldo Iabrudi Dos Santos Pereira, Arnaud Strasser,
Fernando Tracanella, Nicolas Woussen, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., HSBC Securities
(USA) INC., Natixis Securities Americas LLC, and SG Americas
Securities, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00444 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 20, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act, as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

On November 19, 2014, Cnova priced its IPO of 26,800,000 shares,
at a price of $7.00 per share, exclusive of the underwriters'
over-allotment option to purchase 4,020,000 additional shares. On
December 18, 2015, after the market closed, Cnova issued a press
release entitled "Cnova N.V. Initiates a Review of Inventory in
Brazil".  In relevant part, the Company disclosed that its Board
of Directors engaged legal advisors and external forensic
accountants to perform a review of issues related to inventory
management. According to the Company, the issues involve the
handling of product returns and damaged product inventory at
distribution centers of Cnova's Brazilian subsidiary, Cnova
Com‚rcio Eletronico S.A. (Cnova Brazil).

Cnova N.V. operates as an e-Commerce company in Europe, Latin
America, Asia, and Africa. It operates in two segments, Cdiscount
and Cnova Brazil. The company offers televisions, mobile phones,
tablet computers, DVD/CD players, MP3 players, cameras, and home
entertainment and stereo systems, as well as various accessories
and other consumer electronic products under third party brands
and private labels, such as Continental Edison and Oceanic. The
Company is headquartered at Schiphol, Netherlands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638 4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638 4867


COLUMBIA ORGANIC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Rios" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Aldo Rios and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. Columbia Organic
Holdings, LLC d/b/a Freefoods NYC, Free Foods NYC 150 EAST 52nd
Street, LLC d/b/a Freefoods NYC, Matthew Kenney, Michael
Sansburger and Peter [LNU], the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00443-LGS (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid "spread of hours" premium, statutory penalties,
damages for unreasonably delayed payments, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and costs and disbursements, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Columbia Organic Holdings is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of New York, with a principal place of business and
address at 45th Street, New York, New York. The Company had gross
revenues in excess of $500,000.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Xee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES: "Reynolds" Class Settlement Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon granted Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for class certification and for preliminary
approval of class action settlement in the case, KENNETH M.
REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC., and C. J. TIGHE,
Defendants, No. 8:15CV168, (D. Neb.)

This is an action for damages and injunctive relief under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.
(FDCPA) and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), Neb. Rev.
Stat. Section 59-1601, et seq.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated February 1, 2016,
is available at http://is.gd/DR3yytfrom Leagle.com.

The Settlement agreement provides that the defendants pay to the
Class a total Settlement Fund of $15,000, representing maximum
statutory damages available under the FDCPA in this case. Further
the defendants agree to pay the amount of $17,500 as statutory
damages under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. Defendants
also agree to pay $4,000 as statutory damages to plaintiff Kenneth
M. Reynolds as class representative and as an incentive award, and
to pay the costs of administration including the costs of class
notice by first class mail and class administration.

O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. of HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM Pamela A.
Car, Esq. and William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. of CAR, REINBRECHT LAW
FIRM serve as counsel for Plaintiff Kenneth M. Reynolds

Douglas E. Quinn, Esq. -- dquinn@mcgrathnorth.com -- of MCGRATH,
NORTH LAW FIRM serves as counsel for Defendant Credit Bureau
Services, Inc.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Aliano" Consumer Suit Over Algal-900 DHA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ALIANO v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., 2016CH02021 (Circ. Ill., Cook
County, February 11, 2016), alleges unlawful, unfair, and
deceptive business practices by ignoring scientific evidence and
misrepresenting to consumers that Algal-900 DHA can improve brain
and memory function, and that DHA has been clinically proven to do
so, in order to induce consumers to reasonably rely on those
misrepresentations and purchase Defendant's Product.

Defendant owns and operates over 7,000 CVS stores in the United
States and over 270 stores in the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
     Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     Maebetty Kirby, Edq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, Illinois 60602
     Phone: (312) 440-0020
     Fax: (312) 440-4180
     E-mail: maebetty@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             tom@attorneyzim.com
             amy@attorneyzim.com
             jordan@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: May 28 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZATION OF A DATA BREACH CLASS ACTION CONCERNING THE LOSS OF
THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF CUSTOMERS WHO IN MARCH 2008 LEASED A
CHRYSLER, DODGE OR JEEP VEHICLE FROM DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL
SERVICES CANADA INC. (NOW KNOWN AS TD AUTO FINANCE SERVICES INC.)

Introduction:

In March 2008, a Data Tape containing the personal information of
all DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. ("Chrysler
Financial") vehicle lease customers across Canada was lost
(approximately 239,277 customers).  The personal information on
the lost or stolen Data Tape contained some or all of the
following information: the customer's name, address, phone
number, social insurance number, date of birth, as well as other
information related to the status and history of the customer's
credit file with Chrysler Financial.

If, on or before March 12, 2008, you leased a vehicle from
Chrysler Financial (including, without limitation: Chrysler, Dodge
or Jeep vehicles), your personal information was likely included
in the lost Data Tape.  You may also have received a notification
letter from Chrysler Financial in March or April 2008, informing
you of the loss of your personal information.

1. TAKE NOTICE that on January 19, 2015, the Honourable
Mr. Justice Lacoursiere of the Superior Court of Quebec authorized
the bringing of a class action against Defendant
TD Auto Finance Services Inc., formally DaimlerChrysler Financial
Services Canada Inc. ("Chrysler Financial" or "Defendant"), and
ascribed the status of representative to Mr. Maxime Belley
("Petitioner" or "Plaintiff") to act on behalf of the following
Group:

All persons (including their estates, executors, or personal
representatives), consumers, corporations, firms, businesses, and
other organizations, in all of Canada, whose personal information
was stored or saved on a data tape, which was lost by Respondent
while in transit on or about March 12, 2008.

2. This class action will be brought in the Province of Quebec,
District of Montreal.

3. The principal questions of facts and law that will be dealt
with collectively are the following:

a. Was Defendant negligent in the handling of and subsequent loss
of the personal information of the Group members?

b. Is Defendant liable to pay damages to the Group members as a
result of the loss of said information, including actual monetary
losses incurred, lost time, inconvenience, anxiety and other moral
and/or punitive damages caused by the loss of said information,
and if so in what amount?

4. The conclusions sought by this authorized class action are the
following:

GRANT Plaintiffs' action against Defendant;

CONDEMN Defendant to pay to the members of the Group compensatory
damages for all monetary losses caused as a result of Defendant's
loss of the members' personal information;

CONDEMN Defendant to pay to the members of the Group compensatory
and/or moral damages in the amount to be determined by the Court
as a result of Defendant's loss of said members' personal
information;

CONDEMN Defendant to pay an amount in punitive/exemplary damages
to every Group member, in the amount to be determined by the
Court, with interest as well as the additional indemnity;

GRANT the class action of Petitioner on behalf of all the members
of the Group;

ORDER the treatment of individual claims of each member of the
Group in accordance with the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure;

THE WHOLE with interest and additional indemnity provided for in
the Civil Code of Quebec and with full costs and expenses,
including expert's fees and publication fees to advise members;

5. If you wish to exclude yourself from the class action, you must
notify the clerk of the Court no later than May 28, 2016, by
registered or certified mail at the following address:
Clerk

Superior Court of Quebec
1 Notre-Dame Street East
Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 1B6

You must state that you wish to exclude yourself from the class
action of Maxime Belley v. TD Auto Finance Services Inc. (case
number 500-06-000615-126).

6. A Class Member who has not requested his exclusion by May 28,
2016 will be bound by any judgment rendered in the class action.

7. If you wish to remain included in the class action, you have
nothing to do.

8. As a Class Member, you have the right to intervene in the
present class action, in the manner provided for by law. If you do
so, you will not be called upon to pay any costs.

9. For further information about this class action, you may
contact class counsel and, if possible, provide your email or
other address:

Mtre David Assor
Lex Group Inc.
4101 Sherbrooke St. West
Westmount, Quebec H3Z 1A7
Phone: (514) 451-5500 ext. 321
Fax: (514) 875-8218
Email: davidassor@lexgroup.ca
Website: www.lexgroup.ca

THE PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS HAS BEEN APPROVED
AND ORDERED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC.


DAMGAARD LANDSCAPE: Violated FLSA & IMWL, "Corona" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Corona, Victor Corona, and Miguel Corona, on behalf of
themselves, and all other similarly situated plaintiffs known and
unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. Damgaard Landscape Management a/k/a
Otto Damgaard Sons, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00819
(N.D. Ill. Eastern Division, January 20, 2016), seeks liquidated
damages and unpaid back wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

Damgaard Landscape Management provides landscaping, gardening,
snowplowing, and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450

               - and -

          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER
          ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784 3541


DAVISON DESIGN: Faces "Mims" Suit For Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Mims, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Davison Design & Development, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00092-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., January 18,
2016), seeks restitution, statutory enhanced damages, reasonable
and necessary attorneys' fees and costs, equitable and injunctive
relief for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith
and fair dealing pursuant to California Business and Professions
Code Sec. 17200.

Plaintiff agreed to pay $795 in exchange for representation and
pre-developmental services in relation to Plaintiff's "Pillow-
Talk" invention and idea, which, however, was never realized as
promised.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             ml@kazlg.com

            - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228

           - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


DELBERT SERVICES: Arbitration Ruling Reversed in "Hayes" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The arbitration agreement between debt collector Delbert Services
Corporation and each of the individual debtors is unenforceable,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled.

The case before the Fourth Circuit is, JAMES HAYES; DEBERA GRANT;
HERBERT WHITE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DELBERT SERVICES CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER; NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS; CENTER FOR
RESPONSIBLE LENDING, Amici Supporting Appellants. JAMES HAYES;
DEBERA GRANT; HERBERT WHITE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DELBERT
SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW
CENTER; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS;
CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING, Amici Supporting Appellees, Nos.
15-1170, 15-1217, (4th Cir.)

James Hayes, the lead Plaintiff-Appellant, received a payday loan
from a lender called Western Sky Financial, LLC. Defendant-
Appellee Delbert Services Corporation later became the servicing
agent for Hayes's loan. Because Delbert's debt collection
practices allegedly violated federal law, Hayes initiated a
putative class action against Delbert. Claiming that Hayes and his
fellow Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate any disputes related to
their loans, Delbert moved to compel arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 4. The District Court
granted Delbert's motion.

Hayes and the other Plaintiffs appealed from the order compelling
arbitration. Delbert conditionally appealed the orders declining
to enforce the forum selection clause and denying the
applicability of tribal exhaustion.

In his Decision dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/qBmNSDfrom Leagle.com, Circuit Judge J Harvie
Wilkinson III, who wrote the decision, reversed the District
Court's order compelling arbitration and remanded for further
proceedings.

"We both respect and appreciate the support of Congress and the
Supreme Court for an arbitration procedure that reduces the costs
and delays of civil litigation. Our review of the record leads us
to conclude, however, that the arbitration agreement in this case
is unenforceable. The agreement purportedly fashions a system of
alternative dispute resolution while simultaneously rendering that
system all but impotent through a categorical rejection of the
requirements of state and federal law. The FAA does not protect
the sort of arbitration agreement that unambiguously forbids an
arbitrator from even applying the applicable law. We therefore
reverse the district court's order compelling arbitration and
remand for further proceedings," Judge Wilkinson held.

Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq. -- matt@guptawessler.com -- of GUPTA
WESSLER PLLC serves as counsel for Hayes et al.

Brian Jason Fischer, Esq. -- bfischer@jenner.com -- of JENNER &
BLOCK LLP serves as counsel for Delbert.


DENSO: U.S Auto Dealers, Consumers Sue Over Alleged Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Greimel, writing for Automotive News, reports that U.S. auto
dealers and consumers are suing parts makers, saying they paid
more for their vehicles because of price-fixing by the suppliers.

The civil suits follow numerous criminal cases filed by the
federal government over price-fixing.  Those resulted in corporate
fines and prison time for managers at the accused suppliers. The
civil suits could be exponentially more costly to the suppliers in
question.

In a procedural move in December, many of the plaintiffs
consolidated their separate cases into two suits -- one each for
dealerships and consumers -- with their legal focus centered on
Japan's largest automotive supplier: Denso Corp.

It spells more bad news for many of the 23 defendants.  If the
cases go to trial and a jury agrees with the plaintiffs, the
suppliers could face penalties up to triple the actual damages.

What's more, because numerous suppliers are being wrapped into the
same suits as alleged co-conspirators, they would be liable not
only for the damages caused by their own price fixing but also for
the damages of the other suppliers, lawyers said.

That could dramatically ratchet up their payouts.

Denso was targeted as the ringleader of a wider conspiracy because
of its size and reach.  It does business with dozens of other
suppliers and auto manufacturers, plaintiff lawyers said.

"Denso is the center of the conspiratorial conduct," said
Steven Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- an attorney at the
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy law firm outside San Francisco who
represents consumer plaintiffs.

"Denso was sufficiently big and powerful that even those companies
that might say "We prefer not to do this' could be forced to
because Denso could then take retribution on the company that
refused to cooperate," Mr. Williams said.

Denso spokesperson Yu Matsuda said the company could not comment
on pending legal matters.

The two suits, each seeking class-action status, were filed in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in
Detroit under Judge Marianne Battani.  One suit was filed on
behalf of auto dealer plaintiffs, the other on behalf of
consumers.  They mirror each other in their accusations.

The more than 40 dealerships named as plaintiffs in that lawsuit
include Capitol Toyota and Capitol Chevrolet-Cadillac, of Salem,
Ore.; Steve Landers Toyota, of Little Rock, Ark.; McGrath
Automotive Group, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Lee Honda, of Auburn,
Maine; Thornhill GM Superstore, of Chapmanville, W. Va.; and
Stephen Wade Toyota, of St. George, Utah.

Defendants include Denso and other parts makers that have
allegedly done business with Denso, many of which have already
been fingered in the Department of Justice's ongoing criminal
crackdown.  But the list includes some suppliers that have not yet
been publicly charged by the Justice Department, such as Calsonic
Kansei Corp., Delphi Automotive, Keihin Corp. and Mahle Behr GmbH.
(For a full listing of dealership plaintiffs and supplier
defendants, go to autonews.com/pricefix.)

Judge Battani is to decide in March whether the cases can be
consolidated.

If that happens, it would reduce the number of class-action suits
against automotive parts suppliers to around 15 cases from the
more than 30 already being pursued, Mr. Williams said.

Several civil cases are expected to proceed independently against
other suppliers in such fields such as bearings, seat belts,
airbags and anti-vibration rubber parts, he said.

The scope of the Denso conspiracy only came into focus after the
Justice Department and antitrust authorities in other countries
escalated their crackdown on price fixing among mainly Japanese
suppliers.

"Now that we have had the curtain pulled back, we can see the
picture more clearly," Mr. Williams said.

The dealer and consumer class actions that seek to be consolidated
allege a horizontal conspiracy, in which Denso, the world's
fourth-largest supplier, acted as a clearinghouse for bid rigging
and market allocation among the others.

The parts span everything from instrument panel clusters and
alternators to radiators and fuel injection systems.

The bid rigging affected costs in vehicles made by numerous
carmakers including Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Fuji Heavy Industries
(maker of Subaru vehicles), General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, the
plaintiffs claim.

The plaintiffs cite what they call the Japanese business practice
of shouken, meaning "respecting commercial rights" or "respecting
incumbency."  The understanding was if one supplier had an
existing relationship with an automaker, the others wouldn't
muscle in on that territory.  They would "pretend" to compete but
ensure their bids were too high, the suits claim.

Suppliers also allocated business among themselves geographically,
the suits say.

Those and other practices unfairly drove up prices paid by dealers
and consumers for their cars, the proposed class actions say.

The plaintiffs have not yet determined how much they will seek in
restitution.  That will depend on how much the suppliers sold to
the automakers and how much they overcharged, lawyers say.

But the filings cite former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's
estimate that the conspiracies affected more than $5 billion in
automotive parts sold to U.S. car manufacturers and more than 25
million cars purchased by American consumers.

Williams said the money involved could be "well in excess of that
number" because the alleged fixing covered a decade.  Said
Mr. Williams: "We're talking about an enormous amount of
commerce."

Crying foul

Dealerships that are suing suppliers for price-fixing

Landers Toyota (Ark.)

Empire Nissan of Santa Rosa (Calif.)

V.I.P. Motor Cars (Calif.)

Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck (Fla.)

John Lee Nissan (Fla.)

Cutter Chevrolet (Hawaii)

Honda Windward (Hawaii)

McGrath Automotive Group (Iowa)

Green Team of Clay Center (Kan.)

Lee Toyota of Topsham (Maine)

Lee Honda (Maine)

Commonwealth Chevrolet (Mass.)

Commonwealth Kia (Mass.)

Commonwealth Honda (Mass.)

Commonwealth Nissan (Mass.)

Commonwealth Volkswagen (Mass.)

Hodges Subaru (Mich.)

Patsy Lou Chevrolet (Mich.)

Superstore Automotive (Minn.)

Cannon Nissan of Jackson (Miss.)

Hammett Motor Co. (Miss.)

John O'Neil Johnson Toyota (Miss.)

Frank Ancona Honda (Kan.)

Lee's Summit Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (Mo.)

Lee's Summit Nissan (Mo.)

Archer-Perdue Suzuki (Neb.)

Todd Archer Hyundai (Neb.)

Bill Pearce Honda (Nev.)

Champion Chevrolet (Nev.)

Don Weir's Reno Dodge (Nev.)

Pitre Buick GMC (N.M.)

Hartley Buick GMC Truck (N.Y.)

Westfield Dodge City (N.Y.)

John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep (N.C.)

Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac (Ore.)

Capitol Toyota (Ore.)

Landers McLarty Fayetteville (Tenn.)

Salt Lake Valley Buick GMC (Utah)

Stephen Wade Toyota (Utah)

Apex Motor Corp. (Vt.)

Shearer Automotive Enterprises III Inc. (Vt.)

Ramey Motors Inc. (W. Va.)

Thornhill GM Superstore (W. Va.)

Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru (Wis.)

Source: Court documents


Playing defense

Suppliers that are being sued

Denso

Aisan

Aisin Seiki

Alps

Bosch

Calsonic

Continental

Delphi

Diamond

Keihin

Koito

Mahle Behr

Mikuni

Mitsuba

Melco

Mitsubishi Heavy

NGK

Sanden

Showa Denko

Stanley

Tokai Rika

Toyo Denso

Valeo


DIRECT GENERAL: Court Terminates "Black" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge William H. Steele dismissed a job discrimination and
retaliation lawsuit filed by Kimberly Black against Direct
General, Inc., and Gary Reynolds.  The case was filed Sept. 24,
2014, and was terminated Feb. 18, 2016, pursuant to the Court's
judgment.

The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed with
prejudice.  The plaintiff shall have and recover nothing of the
defendants, the Court ruled.

According the case docket, Ms. Black immediately lodged an appeal
from the Court's ruling.

Early this month, Judge Steele granted in part Defendants' motion
in limine. The Plaintiff and her witnesses are precluded from
suggesting to the jury -- by evidence, comment or otherwise
-- the existence of other lawsuits against the Defendants,
including the class action.

Defendants filed five motions in limine.  The Defendants seek
exclusion of evidence "regarding other lawsuits and judgments,"
specifically a class action lawsuit. The Defendants raise: (1) the
prior bad acts exclusion (Fed. R. Evid. Rule 404(b)); (2)
irrelevance (Rule 402); (3) hearsay (Rule 802); and (4) prejudice
(Rule 403).

The Defendants object that a witness was not identified until she
was listed by the Plaintiff in the final pretrial document.  In an
Order dated February 2, 2016 available at http://is.gd/ItDa94from
Leagle.com, Judge Steele held that the Defendants correctly point
out that this is a grossly tardy disclosure. The Plaintiff does
not oppose the motion. The Plaintiff is precluded from calling
Martha Lester as a trial witness. The Plaintiff is precluded from
offering evidence that is not relevant to her remaining FLSA
claim.

The Plaintiff's ability to offer such evidence to the Court,
following any jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, remains
open, and to that extent the motion in limine is denied. The Court
does not rule that such evidence is admissible, but the Defendants
have failed to show that it is not admissible. Accordingly, their
motion in limine is denied.

The case, KIMBERLY BLACK, Plaintiff, v. GARY REYNOLDS, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-0442-WS-N, (S.D. Ala.).

Kimberly Black, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Natalie Renee Bolling, Esq. -- nbolling@bakerdonelson.com --
Rachel V. Barlotta, Esq. -- rbarlotta@bakerdonelson.com -- and
Sharonda Childs, Esq. -- schilds@bakerdonelson.com -- of Baker
Donelson serve as counsel for Defendant Gary Reynolds


EOS PRODUCTS: "Everett" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
-----------------------------------------------------
Ashundrae Everett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EOS Products, LLC, and Does 1-10
the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00140-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., Tampa
Division, January 20, 2016), seeks to recover damages, punitive
damages, injunctive relief, costs, attorneys' fees, and other
available relief, pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

Eos Products provides beauty products. It offers lip balms, hand
lotions, body lotions, and shave creams. The company offers its
products through online stores and retailers in the United States
and Canada. The Company was founded in 2006 and is based in New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Calvert, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Blvd, Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390 1000
          Facsimile: (239) 390 0055
          Email: dcalvert@yourlawyer.com


ERIN ENERGY: "Johnson" Suit Claims Violation of Corporation Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Johnston, v. Kase L. Lawal, Lee P. Brown, William J.
Campbell, Dudu Hlatshwayo, John Hofmeister, Ira Wayne Mcconnell,
Hazel R. O'Leary, and Erin Energy Corporation, Case No. 11985
(Del.Ch. Ct., February 11, 2016), alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties and seeking appropriate injunctive relief and a declaratory
judgment against defendants, including Erin Energy, that a certain
provision of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, is in
violation of Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, specifically, Article III, Section 3.6 of the Bylaws that
states, in part, that any Erin Energy director "may be removed,
but only for cause."

The Defendants are members of the Erin Energy board of directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
     ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
     919 Market Street, Suite 1401
     Citizens Bank Center
     P.O. Box 1070
     Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
     Phone: (302) 656-4433
     E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com

        - and -

     Carl L. Stine, Esq.
     Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 759-4600
     E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
             FQian@wolfpopper.com


FIRST NATIONAL: SIM Scam Victims Urged to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ivor Powell, writing IOL, reports that after nearly six weeks in
which Cape Town audiologist Gail Jacklin failed to get answers to
her questions after her online identity was stolen over New Year
and more than R300, 000 fraudulently siphoned off from First
National Bank accounts using her MTN contract smartphone to effect
the transfer of funds, MTN concluded its investigations and
informed Jacklin they were not at fault.

The cellular giant's security systems allegedly failed to prevent
the unauthorized and fraudlulent "swopping" of the SIM card in Ms.
Jacklin's MTN contract phone.  Such a SIM swop allows fraudsters
to bypass bank security measures intended to guarantee a client's
identity.

MTN said: "MTN wishes to reiterate that it cannot be held liable
for any fraud that may have been committed on your bank account,
as such fraud can only be committed where a fraudster has your
bank card/account number, your internet banking PIN and password.

"Accordingly, MTN accepts no liability with regard to this kind of
fraud as it is not caused by any action on the side of MTN."

"I don't think that is good enough. I mean where does the buck
stop?" Ms. Jacklin protested to Weekend Argus.

FNB said it was "at an advanced stage of the investigation", and
would "engage with the customer directly as soon as the
investigation is finalized".

Still unanswered is how, where and on what basis Ms. Jacklin's SIM
was swopped.

A MTN forensic investigator told Ms. Jacklin the SIM swop had been
traced to a dealership in Bronkhorstspruit, and the operators of
the dealership questioned, although this was not confirmed to
Weekend Argus.

These operators reportedly claimed their system had gone down at
the time the SIM swop occurred and the MTN investigators
reportedly confirmed the dealership had recorded problems around
this time.

"But what does any of this have to do with me?" Ms. Jacklin asked.
"What it says is their systems have been compromised -- that MTN
is failing to protect its own networks as well as its customers."

Graham De Vries, MTN corporate services executive told Weekend
Argus: "We are looking unto the matter and will provide feedback
of the outcome to the customer as soon as the investigation is
done."

A follow-up question regarding an undertaking given by MTN -- as
reported on the website Mybroadband -- that (among other
provisions) it was implementing as an anti-fraud measure a "SIM
swop delay until the legitimate customer has confirmed the request
via SMS" -- was unanswered at the time of publication.

Ms. Jacklin said she was not approached about a SIM swop and had
not authorised it.

Ms. Jacklin claims her private FNB account was defrauded of about
R120 000 in addition to more than R200 000 already stolen from the
audiology practice's business account after she approached FNB to
block the account.

She said it was reopened by a bank employee (identity known) who
neglected to reblock it when Ms. Jacklin's passwords could not be
changed.

"I don't see how I can be held accountable for this failure,"
Ms. Jacklin argued.

The received wisdom regarding this kind of fraud is that it often
involves a so-called "phishing" scam where customer access details
are shared with the crooks by gullible clients responding to
emails purporting to be official communiques from banks.

Alternatively a "key-logger" (a program recording keystrokes and
transmitting these to identity thieves) or other mirroring spyware
might have been introduced into the victim's devices, giving
fraudsters access to passwords and other confidential information.

Ms. Jacklin said neither police nor bank investigators had
examined her devices to check if and how her security was
compromised.

FNB said: "We advise clients of the appropriate scans that can be
done to their devices to determine if malware exists on their
devices before they can attempt to reset their password.

"While our investigation is not yet finalized, our preliminary
findings do not indicate the presence of a key logger."

Leading forensic scientist David Klatzow, who is familiar with the
Jacklin case said: "The apparent lack of enthusiasm in the
investigation -- coupled with the intimate knowledge of the inner
workings of the bank and the cellular provider -- do little to
dispel a suspicion that this might well have been an inside job.

"In these cases, the overriding concern of the banks and cellphone
companies seems to be not being held liable.

"I'll be advising victims of this kind of abuse to join forces and
institute a class action."

Timeline of a cyber-crime

Gail Jacklin's tribulations date back to the second last day of
last year, when much of the country -- criminals excluded -- had
closed shop in festive mood.

She tried -- from a seaside retreat on the South Coast -- to log
in to FNB's internet banking website on December 30.  Twice, she
was rejected when the system failed to recognize her PIN/password.

A little later on the same day, her MTN contract cellphone stopped
functioning, registering a persistent "no service" message.

After attempts to sort out the glitch by rebooting the handset
failed, Ms. Jacklin called the MTN helpline the next day --
New Year's Eve.  The consultant said the account was to be
"refreshed" and would soon be functioning again.

This did not happen. On New Year's Day, Ms. Jacklin returned to
Cape Town, where she was contacted by a distraught Shannon Kruyt,
one of her partners in her Claremont Audiology practice.
Ms. Kruyt told her the company's FNB account had been hacked and
more than R200 000 fraudulently transferred.

Records indicated Ms. Jacklin's MTN cellphone number had been used
to process the one-time-passwords (OTPs) required to authorize a
once-off transfers of funds.

Ms. Jacklin called FNB's fraud reporting line to lock her FNB
accounts (both company and private) to prevent any further
transfers of funds.

Her cellphone, meanwhile continued to show the "no service"
message, but with cellular dealerships shut on January 1, there
was nothing further that could be done.

On January 2, after opening a case at Claremont Police Station,
Ms. Jacklin (as advised by the FNB fraud unit) went to the
Claremont branch of FNB to change the access details on her
private account. This had not yet been hacked by this time.

However Ms. Jacklin's identity could not be verified via her
cellphone, which still had no service, and the process was
aborted.

Next stop was MTN's Claremont branch, where it was discovered a
SIM swop had been done on Ms. Jacklin's cellphone, this not having
been picked up by the MTN call centre, and measures were taken to
reactivate Ms. Jacklin's SIM.

That evening a torrent of notifications streamed in as
Ms. Jacklin's service was restored. She discovered her private FNB
account had been defrauded of R120 000 after the failed attempt to
change her details.

Ms. Jacklin has been in contact with MTN and FNB personnel, as
well as the police.

Fraudsters just four steps away from your cash

Experts say SIM swop internet banking fraud is a four-stage
process.

First the prospective victim's customer access codes have to be
obtained.  This is usually done by "phishing" -- conning or
scamming the fraudsters' target into revealing passwords and
(where applicable) customer-selected PIN numbers.  Sometimes this
involves a fraudster posing by email as an agent of the bank and
requiring the customer to confirm information.

A more sophisticated version uses link in the email which takes
the victim to a fake website copied from the bank's.

Alternatively, malware can be introduced into the software of a
computer or smartphone, giving the fraudster access to protected
contents.

This content is sold to the next level of scamsters on what is
known as the "Dark Market".  At this point, accounts compliant
with Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica) regulations, which
require well-verified identities for all bank accounts, need to be
accessed.

According to investigators, this is done by "renting" Fica-
registered accounts from legitimate holders -- usually poor people
-- who are not able to identify them.

Finally, the victim's passwords are matched with his or her
cellphone and a SIM swop engineered.  At this point the fraud
comes into play.  The fraudster enters the internet banking
account and makes a series of one-off payments.

The bank then sends out one-time-passwords to authenticate the
transaction.  These are received on a SIM-swopped cellphone and
"authenticated".  And the money is withdrawn.

Accounts can also be hacked by bank employees, especially if they
act in concert with accomplices in cellphone companies.


FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Class Actions Face Potential Pitfalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Ridley, writing for MLive reports that lawyers may be in for
a "battle royale" as lawsuits continue to mount over the city's
water crisis.

Attorneys Ven Johnson and Steven Liddle were the most-recent to
enter the fray as they filed a new federal class-action lawsuit
over what they claimed is "the now infamous poisoning of Flint's
residents with lead from Flint's pipes and service lines."

The lawsuit joins a handful of others already filed in local,
state and federal courts over everything from lead poisoning and
Legionnaires' Disease to forgiving water payments.

Television commercials in the Flint area that continue to
advertise legal services for those affected by the lead-tainted
water hint that more may be on the way.

But, Christopher Hastings, a professor at Western Michigan
University's Cooley Law School, said lawyers representing the
city's residents may have to duke it out among themselves before
they ever get a chance to take on the local and state agencies
they accuse in their lawsuits.

If multiple class-action cases are filed over largely the same
accusations, Hastings said it could ultimately fall onto the
courts to decide which lawyers would represent the class moving
forward.

"The courts have to figure out a way to get all these classes
together in the same place," Mr. Hastings said.

Even if the class is certified, which faces potential pitfalls due
to the varied effects the crisis has had on residents, it could be
a challenge for the attorneys to overcome some of the obstacles
that come with suing government agencies, particularly rules
involving governmental immunity.

"Sovereign immunity is a substantial issue in all the cases I've
looked at," Mr. Hastings said.

One way around immunity is to claim government workers were
grossly negligent, or acted carelessly in reckless disregard for
the safety or lives of others, in their handling of the crisis.

Mr. Hastings said attorneys may be able to meet that standard for
the local officials involved, but it could prove difficult for
state officials.

In response, Mr. Hastings said attorneys are using "more creative
legal theories," such as allegations of Constitutional violations,
to overcome that hurdle.

He added that if the case only moves forward against the city and
city officials, the plaintiffs would effectively be suing
themselves since tax increases to cover the expense of the case.

"This whole thing is a bloody mess," Mr. Hastings said.


FLOWERS FOODS: Violated FLSA & UTPA, "McCurley" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul McCurley III, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Derst Baking Company, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00194-
JMC (D. S. Car., Orangeburg Division, January 20, 2016), seeks
damages in an amount equal to three times the full amount of the
unpaid, earned wages, plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees as
the court may allow, pursuant to Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act.

Flowers Foods is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of
business in Thomasville, Georgia. Flowers Foods hires individuals,
whom it classifies as independent contractors, to distribute its
products by delivering them to commercial retailers and stocking
the products on store shelves. The Company employs distributors in
31 states throughout the southern and eastern parts of the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry E. Richardson Jr., Esq.
          Chris Moore, Esq.
          James F. Walsh Jr., Esq.
          RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK
          & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1730 Jackson Street
          Post Office Box 1368
          Barnwell, SC 29812
          Telephone: (803) 541 7850
          Facsimile: (803) 541 9625


FRESNO, CA: Judge Declines Bid to Unseal Expert Reports
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill denied the motion to unseal the
expert reports in the case, QUENTIN HALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant, No. 1:11-cv-2047-LJO-BAM, (E.D. Cal.)

This now settled and closed case concerned a class action against
the County of Fresno for alleged constitutional violations at the
Fresno County Jail.

Plaintiffs' claims were based on allegations that County
Defendants failed to provide adequate medical, mental health, and
dental care to inmates, failed to protect inmates with health
issues from violence from other inmates, and discriminated against
inmates with health issues.  Plaintiffs sought declaratory and
injunctive relief to remedy a number of allegedly dangerous and
unconstitutional conditions at the jail.

Dominic Hanna moves to intervene in order to move to unseal
records in the closed case. The Magistrate Judge denied Hanna's
motion to unseal and therefore denied as moot his motion to
intervene. Hanna now moves for reconsideration of that order.

In his Memorandum Decision and Order dated February 1, 2016
available at http://is.gd/O4okC1from Leagle.com, Judge O'Neill
denied Hanna's motion for reconsideration.

The Court concludes that the compelling interest of maintaining
the integrity of the judicial system outweighs Hanna's and the
public's interests in unsealing the expert reports.

Donald Specter, Esq.  of Prison Law Office; Mary Kathryn Kelley,
Esq. -- mkkelley@cooley.com -- Maureen Alger, Esq. --
malger@cooley.com -- Monique R Sherman, Esq. --
msherman@cooley.com -- and Shannon Leigh Sorrells, Esq. --
ssorrells@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP; Melinda R. Bird, Esq. --
melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org --  Monisha Ann Coelho, Esq. -
- mcoelho@kalaralaw.com -- and Srividya Seshan Panchalam, Esq. of
Disability Rights California; and Kelly Jean Knapp, Esq. --
kknapp@prisonlaw.com -- of Prison Law Office serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Quentin Hall

Michael Gary Woods, Esq. -- mike.woods@mccormickbarstow.com -- of
McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte and Carruth LLP serves as counsel
for Defendant County of Fresno


FORD: Recalls F150 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 555
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015607TC
ID number: 2015607
Manufacturer recall number: 15C17

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) 210 - Seat Belt Anchorages
and (CMVSS) 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. Front seat belt anchorages
may have pretensioner cables that were not properly crimped and
may fail to conform to CMVSS 209 assembly performance standards,
and the strength requirements of the CMVSS 210 standard. These
issues could result in the belts not adequately restraining
occupants in a crash, increasing the risk of injury. Correction:
Dealers will replace front driver and/or passenger seat belt
retractors and pretensioners.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  FORD       F150        2015


FORD: Recalls F750 and F650 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 10
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015609TC
ID number: 2015609
Manufacturer recall number: 15S38

On certain vehicles equipped with air brakes and rear air
suspension, the rear service brake and parking brake air lines
could contact the rear axle housing during vehicle operation,
causing the lines to wear. Over time, this could result in an air
leak in the service or parking brake lines. An air leak in the
parking brake lines could result in inadvertent parking brake
application. An air leak in the rear service brake line could
affect rear service brake performance, potentially resulting in a
loss of rear service brake function. These conditions could
increase the risk of crash causing injury and/or damage to
property: Correction: Dealers will inspect air lines for damage
and repair as necessary, as well as install revised rear brake
chambers.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  FORD       F750        2016
  FORD       F650        2016


FORD: Recalls Transit 2015 Models Due to Defective Rear Shafts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Powertrain
Units affected: 95
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015608TC
ID number: 2015608
Manufacturer recall number: 15S37

Certain vehicles equipped with dual rear wheels may have been
manufactured with defective rear drive axle shafts. Under certain
conditions, these axles could fracture and break without warning.
This could result in a loss of motive power or cause unintended
vehicle movement when the transmission shift lever is placed in
the Park position, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace both
rear axle shafts.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  FORD       TRANSIT     2015


FREEDOM GROUP: Judge Hears Arguments in Sandy Hook Shooting
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that lawyers for a gun maker and
families of some Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre victims
squared off in a Connecticut courtroom on Feb. 22 over whether a
federal law prevents the families' wrongful death lawsuit
targeting the AR-15 rifle used to kill 20 children and six adults
in the 2012 shooting.

Judge Barbara Bellis in Bridgeport heard arguments but didn't
issue a ruling on Feb. 22.  She said she would rule within the
next two months on whether the lawsuit should go forward toward
trial or be dismissed.

The families of nine children and adults killed at the Newtown
school and a teacher who survived the attack say the AR-15 is a
highly lethal military weapon that should not be sold to the
public.  They're suing Freedom Group, the Madison, North Carolina,
parent company of Bushmaster Firearms, which made the AR-15 used
in the school shooting.

Lawyers for Freedom Group said the company is protected by a 2005
federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over
criminal use of their products.  They said Congress passed the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act after determining such
lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the victims' families, said their
lawsuit is believed to be the first to be filed under an exception
listed in the federal law that allows litigation against companies
that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be
used in a way that risks injury to others.  The families are
seeking unspecified monetary damages and hope the lawsuit
persuades gun companies to not sell AR-15s to the public.

"This is an instrument of war designed for the battlefield that is
marketed and sold to the general public," said Mark Barden, whose
son Daniel was killed in the massacre.  "We're just asking for
accountability."

Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan died in the shooting, said the
plaintiffs are hoping to prevent AR-15s from being used in other
mass shootings.

"He chose the AR-15," she said of Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza,
"because he was aware of how many shots it could get out, how
lethal it was, the way it was designed, that it would serve his
objective of killing as many people as possible in the shortest
time possible."

State police say Mr. Lanza, 20, killed his victims with a
Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, an AR-15 model, on Dec. 14, 2012.
Mr. Lanza killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home
with a different gun before going to the school a few miles away,
and then killed himself as police arrived.  Nancy Lanza legally
bought the rifle, state police said.

Debate over the 2005 law has resurfaced in this year's
presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton has criticized fellow
Democrat Bernie Sanders' support of the 2005 law when it passed.
Sanders is now backing a bill to repeal the law.

Gun rights advocates posted to social media and gave interviews
with traditional media on Feb. 22 criticizing the Newtown
families' lawsuit.

"It is unconscionable for plaintiffs to assert that a company who
manufactures a legal product would do so with any fore-thought
that it was somehow acceptable to commit murder with their
products," Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens
Defense League, told Hartford-area station WFSB-TV.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: April 21 Settlement Approval Hearing
------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company committed to
the development and commercialization of targeted oncology
therapeutics that address major unmet medical needs, on Feb. 16
disclosed that on February 4, 2016, the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon (the "Court") issued an order
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement by and among the
Company, the Court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and all named
defendants in the shareholder derivative action entitled In Re
Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 3:10-cv-
00382-SI (the "Settlement").

A hearing to determine whether the Court should issue an order of
final approval of the Settlement has been scheduled for April 21,
2016, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 13B of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S.
Courthouse, 1000 SW Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon.  Pursuant to
the Court's order, any objections to the Settlement must be filed
in writing with the Clerk of the Court at least fourteen (14) days
before April 21, 2016.  Pursuant to the Court's order, any such
objections must comply with the terms and conditions set forth in
the Notice to Current Galena Stockholders (the "Notice"), which is
further described below.

Additional information concerning the terms of the proposed
Settlement, the September 4, 2013 hearing, and the requirements
for objections can be found in the Summary Notice of Settlement of
Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Action and Settlement Hearing
(the "Summary Notice"), which appears below, in the Amended
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, a copy of which was
attached as an exhibit to a Form 8-K filed by the Company with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16,
2016, and in the Notice, which is accessible for viewing on the
Company's website at:

          http://investors.galenabiopharma.com/investors

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION


In re GALENA BIOPHARMA INC.
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION :

Case No.: 3:14-cv-00382-SI
LEAD

3:14-cv-00514-SI
3:14-cv-00516-SI
3:15-cv-01465-SI


This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS. :

SUMMARY NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC. DERIVATIVE
ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO: ALL OWNERS OF GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC. ("GALENA" OR THE
"COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 ("CURRENT GALENA
SHAREHOLDERS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties to the above-captioned
stockholder derivative action, as set forth in In re Galena
Biopharma Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:14-cv-382-SI
(the "Action"), have reached a settlement (the "Settlement") to
resolve the issues raised in the Action.  The parties have entered
into an Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the
"Stipulation") dated February 1, 2016 setting forth the terms of
the Settlement.1 The Settlement, if approved by the Court, would
fully, finally and forever resolve the Action on the terms set
forth in the Stipulation.

   1 Unless otherwise defined, all capitalized terms contained in
this Summary Notice shall have the same definitions as set forth
in the Stipulation.

The Action and Settlement address claims alleging that certain
current and former directors and officers of Galena breached their
fiduciary duties by hiring a stock promotion firm to artificially
increase the share price of Galena stock and then improperly
profiting from that stock price increase.  As part of the
Settlement, Galena's directors' and officers' insurers have paid
or caused to be paid the amount of fifteen million dollars
($15,000,000) to the Company.  In addition, defendants Hillsberg,
Kriegsman, Nisi, Galliker, Chin and Ashton shall forfeit all of
the stock options granted to them by Galena in November 2013
totaling 1,200,000 shares. Galena has implemented or, to the
extent Galena has not done so, will implement certain corporate
governance reforms as specifically set forth at Exhibit A of the
Stipulation.  Finally, defendant Mark Ahn has forfeited certain
contractual severance payments valued at approximately $880,000,
as well as 1,181,250 stock options with an intrinsic value of
approximately $503,062, and Galena shall cancel any and all
outstanding stock options awarded to Lidingo Holdings LLC in
August 2013.

After negotiation of the principal terms of the Settlement,
Plaintiffs' Counsel and Galena, with the substantial assistance
and oversight of an experienced mediator, separately negotiated at
arm's-length the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be
awarded by the Court to Plaintiffs' Counsel.  In recognition of
the substantial benefits provided to Galena and Current Galena
Stockholders as a result of the initiation, prosecution, pendency,
and settlement of the Action, Galena D&O insurance carriers shall,
upon Court approval, pursuant to the timetable provided in the
Stipulation, pay or cause to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses in the total amount of five million
dollars ($5,000,000) (the "Fee Award").   Plaintiffs' Counsel may
also apply on behalf of Plaintiffs for incentive awards in the
amount of $5,000 each (the "Incentive Awards") based on the
substantial benefits they have helped to create for Galena and
Current Galena Stockholders.  The Incentive Awards shall be funded
from the Fee Award, to the extent that the Settlement is approved
in whole or part.  The Fee Award is also the result of Galena and
the Board's acceptance of a mediator's proposal.  The current
Board, in the exercise of its independent business judgment, has
agreed to the Fee Award, and the Parties mutually agree that the
Fee Award is fair and reasonable in light of the substantial
benefits conferred upon Galena and Current Galena Stockholders by
this Settlement.

The Individual Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, all
allegations of wrongdoing and that they have any liability on the
claims asserted in the Action.  Galena also has denied and
continues to deny the claims in the Action.

PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon (the "Court"), a
hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held before the
Honorable Michael H. Simon on Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 11:00
a.m. in Courtroom 13B of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse,
1000 SW Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204: (i) to determine
whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement are fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of Galena and the
Current Galena Stockholders; (ii) to determine whether the Final
Order and Judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with
prejudice, releasing the Released Claims, and enjoining and/or
barring prosecution of any and all Released Claims; (iii) to
determine whether the Fee Award and Incentive Awards should be
approved; and (iv) to consider such other matters as may properly
come before the Court.  The Settlement Hearing may be continued by
the Court at the Settlement Hearing, or at any adjourned session
thereof without further notice to Current Galena Stockholders.

A detailed Notice of Settlement of Galena Biopharma, Inc.
Derivative Action and Settlement Hearing (the "Notice") describing
in greater detail the Action, the proposed Settlement, Fee Award,
and Incentive Awards and the rights of Current Galena Stockholders
with regard to the Settlement, Fee Award, and Incentive Awards is
available on Galena's website at https://www.galenabiopharma.com
The Stipulation is also available on Galena's website at
https://www.galenabiopharma.com and may be inspected at the Office
of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District
of Oregon located at the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, 1000
S.W. Third Ave., Portland, OR 97204, during regular business hours
of each business day.

If you are a Current Galena Stockholder, your rights to pursue
certain derivative claims on behalf of Galena may be affected by
the Settlement.  Any Current Galena Stockholder wishing to assert
an objection to the Settlement, Fee Award, or Incentive Awards
must, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing,
(1) file with the Clerk of the Court a written objection to the
Settlement, Fee Award, or Incentive Awards setting forth: (a) the
nature of the objection; (b) proof of ownership of Galena common
stock through the date of the Settlement Hearing, including the
number of shares of Galena common stock held by the shareholder
and the date(s) of purchase; and (c) any documentation in support
of such objection; and (2) if a Current Galena Stockholder intends
to appear and requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, such
shareholder must have, in addition to the requirements of (1)
above, filed with the Clerk of Court: (a) a written notice of such
shareholder's intention to appear; (b) a statement that indicates
the basis for such appearance; and (c) the identities of any
witnesses the shareholder intends to call at the Settlement
Hearing and a statement as to the subjects of their testimony.

Current Galena Stockholders have the right to object to the
Settlement, Fee Award, and Incentive Awards in the manner provided
herein, and failure to object in the manner provided in the Notice
at least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing will
be deemed a waiver of all objections.  Any Current Galena
Stockholder who fails to properly object will be bound by the
Final Order and Judgment to be entered and the releases to be
given, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Any inquiries regarding the Settlement, Fee Award, Incentive
Awards or the Action should be directed to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

BRETT D. STECKER
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
22 Cassatt Ave
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 225-2677

ROBIN WINCHESTER
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR GALENA REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

                     About Galena Biopharma

Galena Biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.galenabiopharma.com-- is a
biopharmaceutical company committed to the development and
commercialization of targeted oncology therapeutics that address
major unmet medical needs.  Galena's development portfolio is
focused primarily on addressing the rapidly growing patient
populations of cancer survivors by harnessing the power of the
immune system to prevent cancer recurrence.  The Company's
pipeline consists of multiple mid- to late-stage clinical assets,
including novel cancer immunotherapy programs led by NeuVax(TM)
(nelipepimut-S) and GALE-301.  NeuVax is currently in a pivotal,
Phase 3 clinical trial with several concurrent Phase 2 trials
ongoing both as a single agent and in combination with other
therapies.  GALE-301 is in a Phase 2a clinical trial in ovarian
and endometrial cancers and in a Phase 1b given sequentially with
GALE-302.


GENERAL MOTORS: Violated CCLRA & UCL, "Mendoza" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Briana Mendoza, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, and Does 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00404 (C.D. Cal.,
January 19, 2016), seeks to recover monetary gains taken by the
alleged unlawful practice of the Defendant's refusal to resolve
defects for consumers until dangerous steering wheel malfunction
occurred, pursuant to the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Unfair Competition Law, Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

General Motors, commonly known as GM, is an American multinational
corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that designs,
manufactures, markets and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts
and sells financial services. General Motors produces vehicles in
37 countries under thirteen brands: Alpheon, Chevrolet, Buick,
GMC, Cadillac, Holden, HSV, Opel, Vauxhall, Wuling, Baojun, Jie
Fang, UzDaewoo. General Motors holds a 20% stake in IMM, and a 77%
stake in GM Korea.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram v. Parekh, Esq.
          Header Baker Dobbs, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Third Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536 1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536 1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  byp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com


GRANT AND WEBER: "Schwartz" Sues over Illegal Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
MORDECHAI SCHWARTZ on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Grant & Weber, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00257-SJ-JO (E.D.N.Y., January 18, 2016), seeks
statutory and actual damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses
and costs incurred and other relief for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made collection calls that
fail to disclose the nature and intent of the call as well as the
identity of the caller and the accurate amount of the debt.

Grant & Weber, Inc. is a collection agency based in Henderson,
Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      Maxim Maximov, LLP
      1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, New York 11229
      Tel: (718) 395-3459
      Fax: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


HERSHEY CANADA: Recalls Glosette Brand Raisins Due to Peanut
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Hershey Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10253

Hershey Canada Inc. is recalling certain Glosette brand Raisins
from the marketplace because they may contain peanut which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut should not
consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand     Common    Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name      name      ----    product        ----
  ----      ------            ----------
  Glosette  Raisins   50 g  67CFB XXXX BB    09 2016
                            67DFB XXXX BB    09 2016
                            67KFB XXXX BB    09 2016
                            67LFB XXXX BB    09 2016
                            where X can be   0 68000 00228 8
                            variable

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/HGqoTr


HHGREGG INC: "Adiyeh" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emad Adiyeh and Allan Turnquist, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. Hhgregg, Inc.
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00094-NBF (W.D. Penn., January 20,
2016), seeks all relief available including overtime wages, unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's
fees and litigation expenses, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. It is an appliance, consumer
electronics and furniture retailer. The Defendant operates
approximately 228 stores in 20 states, including Alabama,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
West Virginia and Wisconsin. For the fiscal year 2015 (ending May
2015), Defendant's net sales were nearly 2.13 billion dollars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884 2492

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Susan H. Stern, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934 9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934 9220


HIGH END: Faces "Kel-Mar" Lawsuit Alleging Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kel-Mar Interiors, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated as Lien Law Trust Beneficiaries of the Trust
which HIGH END NEW YORK, INC. is a Trustee, v. High End New York,
Inc. d/b/a "High End Electrical Contracting Corporation" and Mark
Ramdeen, Case No: 650702/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of New York,
February 11, 2016), alleges breach of contract, violation of New
York Lien Law, and unjust enrichment.

High End New York, Inc. offers repair and related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Albert Rizzo, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT RIZZO,P.C.
     830 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 679-5799
     E-mail: arizzo@rizzolawoffices.com


HORSESHOE CLEVELAND: Violated FLSA & OMFWSA, "Alvarez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Horseshoe Cleveland Management, LLC
d/b/a Horseshoe Casino Cleveland c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorporating
Service, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00138 (N.D. Ohio, Eastern
Division, January 20, 2016), seeks to recover actual damages for
unpaid wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid
wages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate,
attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, and additional relief
as the Court deems just and proper, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Defendant is a management company licensed to operate
Horseshoe Casino Cleveland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696 5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696 7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


IC: Recalls Multiple School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 147
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015611TC
ID number: 2015611
Manufacturer recall number: 15E-068

On certain school busses equipped with a Ricon S-Series wheelchair
lift, the platform could potentially crack due to bent knuckle
link arms and/or defective bearing. Overtime, the platform could
separate of the rear portion of the pivot plate making the lift
inoperable and putting the lift operator at risk of injury.
Correction: Owners will need to make an appointment with the local
Ricon Dealer to have the lift inspected and repaired.

  Make     Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----            ----------------------
  IC       CE SCHOOL BUS    2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
                            2013, 2014
  IC       BE SCHOOL BUS    2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
                            2013, 2014, 2015
  IC       AE SCHOOL BUS    2013, 2014, 2015


IC: Recalls Multiple School Bus Models Due to Defective Bearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 15
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015612TC
ID number: 2015612
Manufacturer recall number: 15E-068

On certain buses equipped with a Ricon S-Series wheelchair lift,
the platform could potentially crack due to bent knuckle link arms
and/or defective bearing. Overtime, the platform could separate of
the rear portion of the pivot plate making the lift inoperable and
putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Owners
will need to make an appointment with the local Ricon Dealer to
have the lift inspected and repaired.

  Make     Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----                ----------------------
  IC       BE COMMERCIAL BUS    2010
  IC       CE COMMERCIAL BUS    2007
  IC       FE COMMERCIAL BUS    2008
  IC       RE COMMERCIAL BUS    2009


ILLINOIS: Suit v. Dept of Lottery Seeks Income From Winnings
------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Rasche, Daniel Chasteen, Howard Robert Anderson, Edward
Wastag, Michael Chesniak, Albert Cundari, Byron Herrera, George
Inniss, Joseph Joost, Ikem Mikhail, Luis Ivan Morales, Jesus
Navarro, Vincent Ortega, Robert Pitts, Doel Polanco, Joseph Raddi,
Joseph Spain, Brian Thompson, Ricardo Velez, Remick Ware, And
Morgan Shastal, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. B.R. LANE, Acting Director
of the Illinois Department of the Lottery, Illinois Department of
the Lottery, Leslie Geissler Munger, Illinois Comptroller, and
Michael W. Frerich, Illinois State Treasurer, the Defendants, Case
No. 2016CH00225 (Ill. Circuit Ct of Cook County, January 7, 2016),
seeks to recover income acquired from winnings, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems
just and appropriate.

The Illinois State Lottery (known simply as the Illinois Lottery)
is an American lottery for the U.S. state of Illinois that is
operated by the Northstar Lottery Group.

A lottery generates revenue by selling lottery tickets to create a
"pool" of money, awarding a portion of that "pool" to the winner,
and remitting the remainder of the "pool" to the government. As
such, lotteries necessarily have a positive cash-flow. For
example, in 2010, American lotteries generated $58 billion in
consumer spending, resulting in a $17 billion profit
for the States.

On July 1, 2015, Defendants ceased making payments to individuals
who won in excess of $25,000 from any game offered by the Illinois
State Lottery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P .C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440 4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  amy@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  maebetty@attorneyzim.com


ILLINOIS: Four Prisons Face Class Action Over Inmate Abuses
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Gallanis, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports
that a class action lawsuit filed by hundreds of prisoners from
four Southern Illinois state prisons against guards, wardens and
other officials is going ahead after district court judge's recent
decision giving the go-ahead to the questioning of state officials
under oath.  The lawsuit, filed in March 2014, is seeking damages
for injuries stemming from cruel and unusual punishment by prison
officials and an injunction prohibiting further such practices.

The lawsuit, Ross v. Gossett, was filed by an Illinois prisoner on
behalf of hundreds of prisoners who faced similar abuse at other
Southern Illinois prisons. Ross charges that in April 2014 an
Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) tactical unit known as
"Orange Crush" "beat, abused, and sexually humiliated the
plaintiff, destroyed his property, and otherwise inflicted
punishment for the sole purpose of causing humiliation and
needless pain."  Ross and other prisoners were also subjected to
strip searches that they argue violated several provisions of the
Prison Rape Elimination Act National Standards.

The lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.  The hundreds of prisoners were
located at four state prisons during the time of the incidents:
Menard, Illinois River, Big Muddy and Lawrence.  Two hundred
thirty-six prison system guards and officials have been named as
defendants, including the wardens of each prison. Chicago-based
firms Loevy & Loevy and Uptown People's Law Center are
representing the prisoners.

Speaking to the Illinois based Belleville News-Democrat, Alan
Mills, civil rights attorney for the Uptown People's Law Center,
stated, "We get lots of complaints where two or three people say
they were abused by this sort of thing, but not where it's four
different prisons right in a row doing the same exact things in
each of these prisons by the same group of officers. . . . The
purpose of this was humiliation.  There was no question that the
whole point of this was to belittle, dehumanize and intimidate
prisoners."

The lawsuit claims the "Orange Crush" unit traveled from prison to
prison, inflicting terror and abuse as they went.  Within the
lawsuit are passages littered with harrowing images.  In one
passage, it states:

"For example, Mr. Ross and other prisoners at Illinois River were
subject to: a humiliating strip search in front of female officers
and orders to prisoners to touch their genitals and then use the
same hand to open their mouths; painfully tight handcuffing with
their palms outward; orders to march from their housing units to
the gym at the facility with their heads on the backs of the
prisoners ahead of them in line so that one man's genitals were in
direct contact with the next man's buttocks (referred to by the
Orange Crush team as 'Nuts to Butts'); violent attacks by
Defendant Orange Crush Officers when prisoners broke that
formation; and orders to stand in a stress position for several
hours.  Throughout the entire shakedown, Defendant Orange Crush
Officers hurled epithets at the prisoners, chanted 'punish the
inmate,' and told them that this was punishment for their sins."

If one were to read such a passage without knowing where it took
place, one could easily assume this was a recounting of the
sadistic, sexual humiliation meted out by US soldiers to prisoners
at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. These abuses are torture, plain
and simple.

"This is above and beyond what I've seen ever in the 35 years I've
been doing this kind of work," said attorney Alan Mills. "This is
part of some official policy.  Higher-ups in IDOC will have to
explain what in the world they were thinking when they gave these
people this kind of direction and leeway."

Mr. Mills further stated, "What sets this case apart is that a
supposedly elite unit of specially trained officers brutalized
over a thousand prisoners in four different prisons, in what
appears to have been an officially sanctioned campaign of verbal
intimidation, sexual harassment and blatant physical abuse."

The state-sanctioned torture of these prisoners corresponds to an
ever-growing prison population.  According to the ACLU, from 1978
to 2014, the American prison population rose by 408 percent, with
80,000 to 100,000 of prisoners currently being held in some form
of isolated confinement.  Inside and outside the prison walls,
there is the ever-growing militarization and brutality of the
police who, according to killedbypolice.net, killed 1,205 people
last year.

In addition, police forces and prisons are increasing recruiting
soldiers returning from the Iraq, Afghanistan and other
battlefields where US armed forces suppressed local populations
hostile to the neocolonial occupation of their countries.  As the
economic and social crisis in America worsens and class tensions
reach a breaking point, American imperialism is increasingly
bringing its brutal and sadistic methods home.


INCA POOL CORP: "Garrecoa" Action Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Garrecoa, Plaintiff, v. Inca Pool Corp. and Romeg Lima,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00311-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.,
January 18, 2016), seeks compensation for overtime hours due,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit
and for all other appropriate relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et. seq. and the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a et seq.

Defendants own and/or maintain a pool service and repair company
that provides services throughout the State of New Jersey. Inca is
headquartered in North Plainfield, Somerset County, New Jersey.

Garrecoa was employed by Defendants full time as a laborer,
performing driving and cleaning duties. He routinely worked 6-7
days per week at approximately seventy-two hours per week without
overtime compensation over 40 hours per week, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, New Jersey 08540
      Tel: (201) 687-9977
      Fax: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


IZZY'S STEAKS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit for FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Gonzalez, v. Izzy' S Steaks and Chops San Carlos, Inc.;
Sam Duvall; DOES 1- 10; Case: GIV537349 (Cal. Super., County of
San Mateo, February 11, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, of the California Labor Code, and of the
California Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Izzy' S Steaks and Chops San Carlos, Inc. is a restaurant located
in San Francisco offering Midwestern steaks and chops.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert David Barer, Esq.
     ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
     80 South White Road
     San Jose, CA 95127
     Phone: (408) 251-3400
     Fax: (408) 251-3401
     E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net


J & J AIR: Faces "Zurlo" Suit Alleging Cal. Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON ZURLO and MATTHEW SHEARER v. J & J AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
and GERALD I. HURWITZ, Case 5:16-cv-00723 (N.D.Cal., February 11,
2016), brings claims for waiting time penalties under California
Labor Code and penalties for wage stub violations under California
Labor Code.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees, costs, and
pre-judgment interest.

Defendant J. & J. Air Conditioning Inc. is a California
corporation licensed with the California State Contractor
Licensing Board.  It provides repair plumbing and HVAC services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
     JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP
     84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 790
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Phone: (408) 317-1100
     Fax: (408) 351-0105
     E-mail: Tomas@Jawlawgroup.com


JEEP: Recalls Patriot and Compass 2015 Models Due to Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 5754
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015614TC
ID number: 2015614
Manufacturer recall number: R68

On certain vehicles, the power steering hose retention clamp may
have been incorrectly positioned during assembly. This could
result in a detachment of the low pressure return hose, resulting
in a large volume leak of power steering fluid, which would
require greater driver effort to steer the vehicle. In some
circumstances, the leaking fluid in the presence of an ignition
source, could result in a fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the return power
steering hose for proper placement of the hose clamp, and
reposition the hose clamp as needed.

  Make     Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----       ----------------------
  JEEP     PATRIOT     2015
  JEEP     COMPASS     2015


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $72 Million in Talcum Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan Scher Zagier, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a Missouri jury has awarded $72 million to the family of an
Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer, which she said was
caused by using Johnson & Johnson's well-known baby powder and
other products containing talcum.

The civil suit by Jackie Fox of Birmingham was part of a broader
claim in the city of St. Louis Circuit Court involving nearly 60
people.  Her son took over as plaintiff following his mother's
October 2015 death at 62, more than two years after her diagnosis.

Marvin Salter of Jacksonville, Florida, said his late mother, who
was a foster parent, used the iconic talcum powder as a bathroom
staple for decades.

"It just became second nature, like brushing your teeth," he said.
"It's a household name."

A Fox attorney said the jury verdict on Feb. 22, which came after
nearly five hours of deliberations at the conclusion of a three-
week trial, was the first such case among more than 1,000
nationally to result in a jury's monetary award.

The jury said that Fox was entitled to $10 million in actual
damages and $62 million in punitive damages.  Attorney James Onder
said he "absolutely" expects Johnson & Johnson -- the world's
biggest maker of health care products -- to appeal the verdict.

The New Jersey-based company previously has been targeted by
health and consumer groups over possibly harmful ingredients in
items including its iconic Johnson's No More Tears baby shampoo.

In May 2009, a coalition of groups called the Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics began pushing Johnson & Johnson to eliminate
questionable ingredients from its baby and adult personal care
products.  After three years of petitions, negative publicity and
a boycott threat, the company agreed in 2012 to eliminate the
ingredients 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probable
human carcinogens, from all products by 2015.

Spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said on Feb. 23 that the New Jersey-
based company was considering its next legal move.  In a written
statement, she said the verdict "goes against decades of sound
science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in
multiple products," citing supportive research by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute.

At trial, Fox's attorneys introduced into evidence a September
1997 internal memo from a Johnson & Johnson medical consultant
suggesting that "anybody who denies (the) risks" between "hygenic"
talc use and ovarian cancer will be publicly perceived in the same
light as those who denied a link between smoking cigarettes and
cancer: "denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the
contrary."

Talc is naturally occurring, mined from the soil and composed of
magnesium, silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen.  It's widely used in
cosmetics and personal care products, such as talcum powder, to
absorb moisture, prevent caking and improve the product's feel.

Nora Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University law professor not
involved in the Missouri case, said it's unlikely the $72 million
award will survive, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a
recent series of rulings, has maintained that appellate courts
clamp down on punitive damages.

"Big jury verdicts do tend to be reined in during the course of
the appellate process, and I expect that to be the case here," she
told The Associated Press.

The verdict on Feb. 22 "doesn't bode well for Johnson & Johnson"
as it faces at least 1,200 still-pending lawsuits and possibly
thousands more, she said.

"This case clearly was a bellwether, and clearly the jury has seen
the evidence and found it compelling," she said, concluding "the
jury was distressed by the company's conduct."


KASPOL TRADING: Recalls Garlic Sauce Due to Egg and Milk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Kaspol Trading Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10261

  Brand     Common name   Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  name      -----------   ----    product         ----
  ----                            ----------
  Winiary   Garlic Sauce  250 ml  All codes where 5 900862 213554
                                  egg and milk
                                  are not
                                  declared on
                                  the label.


KINCAID INC: "Dominguez" Action Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Jorge Dominguez and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Kincaid, Inc., Campuzanos Dallas, LLC and Brian Harding,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00143-L (N.D. Tex., Dallas Division,
January 18, 2016), seeks overtime wages, double damages and
reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked an average of 71 hours per week and was paid an
average of $16.25 per hour for the first 40 hours worked, but was
never paid anything at all for hours worked above 40 hours in a
week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Mulder" Suit Over Phantom Markdowns Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss and denied the motions to amend the complaint and to
certify questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in
the case, ELLEN MULDER, Plaintiff, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES,
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-11377-FDS, (D. Mass.)

The action arises out of allegedly deceptive and misleading
labeling and marketing of merchandise by Kohl's Department Stores.
The amended complaint alleges that Kohl's has engaged in false
advertising of its merchandise by listing fictional "comparison
prices" at which it had never previously sold that merchandise and
that were "intentionally selected so that Kohl's could advertise
phantom markdowns."

Plaintiff Ellen Mulder purchased two items that were listed with a
comparison price at the Kohl's store in Hingham, Massachusetts.
She has brought this action alleging fraud, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 940
Mass. Code Regs. Section 6.01, and the Federal Trade Commission
Act.

Kohl's moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.

After submitting three rounds of written briefing in opposition
and participating in oral argument, Plaintiff moved to amend her
complaint. Plaintiff also filed a motion to certify a question of
law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/gNebIWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Saylor, IV granted
Kohl's motion to dismiss as to all counts and denied Mulder's
motions to amend the complaint and to certify questions to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

The complaint does not allege a legally cognizable injury, the
Court said. There is no private right of action under the Code of
Massachusetts Regulations. The amended complaint also purports to
state a claim based on an alleged violation of the Federal Trade
Commission Act. Because the amended complaint adequately alleges
an unfair or deceptive act under Chapter 93A by sufficiently
alleging a violation of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, the
Court need not determine whether it has also adequately alleged an
unfair or deceptive act in violation of the Federal Trade
Commission Act. Plaintiff has not suffered an economic injury;
among other things, she has suffered no loss, and there is no sum
of money that could be awarded to her that could "compensate" her
without providing a windfall. It therefore appears that the
complaint fails to plead a cause of action under Chapter 93A,
based on the absence of a cognizable injury.

Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq. of Kyros Law Offices, P.C. and S. James
Boumil, Esq. of Boumil Law Offices serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Ellen Mulder

Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- and
Michael C. Lynch, Esq. -- mlynch@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP and William T. Harrington, Esq. --
wharringtonlaw@gmail.com -- serve as counsel for Kohl's.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sheriff Baca Pleads Guilty to Lying in Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Roberts, writing for Nanonews, reports that former
Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca has agreed to plead guilty to lying
to investigators during a federal corruption probe that tainted
his career, prosecutors said on Feb. 17.

In August 2011, deputies determined that an inmate at Los Angeles
County Men's Central Jail was an informant for the FBI after they
recovered a cell phone that was linked to federal agents.  Sheriff
Baca later acknowledged that he had been aware of the plan and
had, in fact, directed sheriff's investigators to "do everything
but put handcuffs" on the agent, according to prosecutors and
court records.

Within hours, Baca was in a federal courtroom pleading guilty to a
single felony count that could put him behind bars for up to six
months.

The case against Sheriff Baca is the result of an investigation by
the FBI, and is one in a series of cases resulting from an
investigation into corruption and civil rights abuses at county
jail facilities in downtown Los Angeles.  That same month Tanaka
and Capt. Tom Carey met with the USA attorney and asked the office
to work with the department to investigate the allegations of
civil rights violations and exclude the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, prosecutors say.

"Los Angeles County's jails have been plagued by unlawful violence
for decades", said Hector Villagra, executive director of the ACLU
of Southern California.

In a brief typed statement signed "Lee Baca retired sheriff", he
said he had made a mistake and accepted being held accountable.
The case against Tanaka is scheduled to go to trial on March 22.
After jailers discovered the phone and concluded the inmate was
cooperating with the FBI, Sheriff Baca ordered the man, identified
in the charging information as "AB", isolated from the rest of the
jail population.  Under the plea agreement, Baca would not serve
more than six months in prison.

David Bowdich, the FBI's Los Angeles chief, said Sheriff Baca had
continuously denied playing a role in the corruption even as his
rank-and-file deputies faced prison time.

Sheriff Baca always denied knowing anything about abuses in the
jail or the evasion with federal investigators, but with questions
mounting he announced in 2014 that he would not run for
reelection.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon Fox told the court that Sheriff
Baca had acted "deliberately and with knowledge that the statement
was untrue" and knew he was breaking the law. It's not clear if
that included providing testimony against Baca.

"I don't see myself as the future", he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California -- which
filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Sheriff Baca and his
top commanders in 2012 over the alleged use of excessive force by
jail guards against county jail inmates -- applauded the Feb. 17
action.  The next day, two LASD sergeants approached the agent and
threatened her with arrest.

In prosecuting the matter that became known as "Operation
Pandora's Box", the U.S. Attorney's Office showed tenacity, yes,
but also the true meaning of justice by not stopping with the
convictions of a dozen or so lower-level players or with the
ongoing prosecution of former undersheriff Paul Tanaka, who is due
to face trial soon.


MC2 MODEL: Models File Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------
The Sun reports that from the second they land in the Big Apple,
doe-eyed, leggy models are dreaming of Vogue covers and Leonardo
DiCaprio dates.  But the truth is, for most, the years ahead will
be full of exploitation, starvation and misrepresentation.

In a class action suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, nine
beauties claim model agencies prey on aspiring catwalkers' naivete
by creating a secretive environment that leaves them in the dark
about financial matters.

"We were young and our eyes got sort of glittered . . . Agencies
took advantage of that," says Marcelle Almonte, 34, who's suing
MC2 Model Management, the agency she worked with in Miami and NYC
from 2005 to 2006.

"They took advantage of our ignorance and desire to make a career,
and they capitalized on things we didn't know, which were our
labor rights," says Ms. Almonte.

As soon as a model signs with an agency, they're likely getting
conned, say the plaintiffs, who were pooled together for the
class-action suit by the law firm Quinn Emanuel.

"The perk of signing with an agency is that they give you this
ability to move to Miami or New York . . . and they sell you the
idea of living in a models' apartment," says Ms. Almonte, who now
resides in Miami and is a stay-at-home mother.  "You don't have to
pay a deposit and they bill you [once] you start making money."

So when MC2 offered her a two-bedroom apartment for $1,850 per
month in Miami (food and housekeeping not included), Ms. Almonte
jumped at the opportunity, despite the fact that it meant living
with eight other girls -- one of whom slept on the living room
couch.

In 2005, each of the nine girls in that apartment paid equal rent,
bringing the monthly total MC2 collected to $16,650.  The lawsuit
alleges that two-bedroom pads in the same building currently go
for about $2,900, suggesting that MC2 was profiting at least
$13,750 a month.

Modelling agencies are infamous for picking up extra cash wherever
they can.

While agencies typically pocket a 20 per cent commission from the
model and a 20 per cent commission from the client for each job,
models are still billed for any related costs: whether it be plane
tickets to travel to gigs or having their books delivered to
potential clients.

According to Grecia Palomares, Wilhelmina -- her agency from 2004
to 2009 -- even charged models a $215 yearly "Internet fee" to
have their photos on the agency's Web site.

"[With] 1,000 models, they're making $215,000 a year!" says
Ms. Palomares, 40.

She recounts how Curvexpo, an annual lingerie and swimwear expo,
paid $1,000 to reuse her image for an event.  But Ms. Palomares
-- who has modelled for Cosmopolitan magazine and currently works
as a photographer in NYC -- only received a check for $300 from
Wilhelmina.  The agency had deducted $700 for "expenses" with no
supporting documentation.

"Nothing's transparent," says Louisa Raske, 34, who is suing Next
Model Management (which represented her from 2000 to 2001),
Wilhelmina (2001 to 2005) and Major (2005 to 2006).  She's posed
for L'Oreal and Elle magazine and still models in Miami, working
with a boutique agency.  "They say, 'Well, we needed to charge you
because we shipped your [portfolio] all over the world.'  But you
don't know. You didn't see the FedEx statement."

Ms. Almonte says, "I'd get the bill and be like, 'I would've taken
a taxi [instead of a car service]. Why did you fly me first
class?' They don't tell you that the client isn't going to pay for
your flight."

None of the agencies mentioned in this story responded to The
Post's requests for comment.

Alex Shanklin, a former catalogue model (Neiman Marcus, Barneys)
was represented by Wilhelmina from 2002 to 2004 and Elite from
2004 to 2005.  He says the agencies often told him clients were
late with his payments -- but that they would give him an advance
for a 5 per cent fee.

"I couldn't afford to wait," says Mr. Shanklin, 38, now in Houston
and working in real estate.  He's lucky to have been paid at all.

Vanessa Perron -- who is suing Next, with whom she worked from
2002 to 2009, and MC2, her agency from 2011 to 2015 -- felt
pressure to take runway jobs for "trade," industry speak for free
clothes.

Ms. Perron was once sent a box of Marc Jacobs gear, most of which
was too big or "leftovers," after walking in the designer's
Fashion Week show.

"They make you think that if you say no, you don't get exposure,"
says Ms. Perron, 31, who now works as a Manhattan restaurant
manager.  Plus, at age 18, "I didn't know any better . . . It
[sounded] appealing," she adds.

When Ms. Almonte -- who has starred in Bulgari and Coach campaigns
-- lived in Miami, the payment delays were so bad that she had to
attend "model dinners" four or five times a week, "just to have
enough to eat," she says.  At the meals, held at hot spots and
organized by club promoters, professional beauties serve to lure
rich, model-loving, bottle-buying men.

Michael Gross, author of "Focus: The Secret, Sexy, Sometimes
Sordid World of Fashion Photographers," out in July, says
modelling agencies are "just like Las Vegas.  The house always
wins.

"Someone needs to pay for agents' penthouses and cocaine,"
Mr. Gross says.  "Who is it going to be? The 17-year-old who
doesn't know better until they look back 10 years later and say,
'I made a mistake?' "

On Feb. 18, The Post reported that another Manhattan agency, Aim
Model Management, is being sued for cheating two models and a
booker out of $500,000.  According to court papers, catwalkers
Devon White and Iana Khanashevich can barely afford groceries
because agency owner Nole Marin pocketed money owed to them,
driving them "directly into poverty while he enjoyed a high
lifestyle."  Models say speaking up isn't always easy.

"Every time you confront [agencies about billing] . . . there's a
backlash," says Ms. Almonte.  "It may not be right away.  It could
be them keeping you from a casting you want to go [to] or telling
someone you're booked when you're not."

Sometimes, models don't even realize they've been duped until
after the fact.

In 2011, a friend of model Carina Vretman, 48, spotted
Ms. Vretman's face on a Clairol box in England.

The only thing was, that image "was ancient," says Ms. Vretman,
who was employed by Wihelmina from 2003 to 2007 and was on the
cover of Vogue Spain in 1990.  "It's probably been running for at
least 12 years," she says, adding that it wasn't contracted to run
that long.

She contacted Wilhelmina about the reusage fees that must have
been renegotiated without her knowledge. One year later, the
agency coughed up $19,410 (although the model estimates her
payment should have been closer to $100,000).

"Models, when we retire, we're like athletes," says Ms. Vretman,
who now lives in Pennsylvania and trains horses professionally.
"You make a fortune for a while, then you're in the real world
with no education, starting your life all over again at 35."

In her peak year, Ms. Vretman says she made approximately
$250,000, and about $50,000 when starting out.  Of the models
interviewed for this article, salaries typically ranged from
$30,000 a year to $120,000.

Mr. Gross said the likelihood of any of these lookers having
become the next Karlie Kloss was slim to none.  "How many angels
can dance on the head of a pin?" the author asks.

The repercussions of modelling can extend far beyond one's fame or
wallet.

Plaintiffs say they were regularly told to lose weight, whiten
their teeth, change their hair and tan at the agencies' behest.

In the lawsuit, Melissa Baker, 28, claims that Click, her agency
until 2010, repeatedly told the 2008 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit
Rookie of the Year that her hips were too wide.

And Ms. Perron says she suffered from anorexia as a result of
badgering about her weight.

"I don't [remember] if the word liposuction was used, but during a
time when I was not working as much, it was suggested that I use a
new technology . . . that would make my thighs slimmer," says Ms.
Perron, who's 5 feet 11 and weighed 110 pounds at her lowest.

But not everyone is sympathetic to the plight of the genetically
blessed.

Mr. Gross says that maintaining a sample size is an implicit part
of the job.  And as for the disgruntled plaintiffs complaining
about the lack of transparency, they only have themselves to
blame.

"They're so desperate to be [supermodels] that they sign up with
sleazeball operators and walk in with their brains basically
turned off," he adds.

"The modelling industry is a dirty business and everyone is
exploited when they're getting started.  It's not a pretty
picture.  It never was a pretty picture, and they let their dreams
get in the way of understanding the game that they're agreeing to
play."


MCCAIN FOODS: Recalls Fried Potato Products
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: McCain Foods (Canada)
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10267

  Brand     Common    Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name      name      ----    product        ----
  ----      ------            ----------
  McCain    Fried     800 g   BB/MA YYMMDD   0 55773 00079 5
  Tasti     Potatoes          171114
  Taters                      W151115


MCCLINTON ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Dismuke" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dismuke, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MCCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, LLC and
Surf-Frac Wellhead Equipment Company, Inc. the Defendants, Case
No. 7:16-cv-00023 (W.D. Tex., January 20, 2016), seeks to recover
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fee,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

McClinton is a domestic limited liability company, formed in
August of 2011. It is engaged in common business purpose of
providing equipment and services to nationwide oil and gas
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Violated NJCFA, "Marron" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Anne Marron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. McCormick & Company, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00104 (Columbia Dist., January 20,
2016), seeks to recover damages, actual statutory or punitive,
restitution, and/or equitable relief from McCormick based on
allegations that the Defendant did not disclose the material fact
that it reduced the amount of pepper in the McCormick and store-
branded tins and grinders.

Faced with rising raw material costs and promising its
shareholders cost-savings that would improve its bottom line, on
or about January 1, 2015, McCormick reduced the amount of black
pepper in its iconic red and white spice tins by 25 percent, while
leaving the size of and price for the tins exactly the same.
McCormick also reduced the fill in its black peppercorn grinders,
while maintaining size and price.

McCormick was allegedly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs for
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and unjust
enrichment.

McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning
mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food
industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and
Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Willis, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 756 3600
          Facsimile: (202) 756 3602
          E-mail: mwillis@srkw-law.com
                  jkodroff@srkw-law.com
                  jmacoretta@srkw-law.com


MERCEDES: Faces Second Class Action Over Clean Diesel Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California owner of a Mercedes BlueTEC diesel automobile on Feb.
20 filed a second class-action lawsuit against Mercedes stating
the automaker knowingly programmed its Clean Diesel vehicles to
emit illegal, dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) at levels
up to 65 times higher than those permitted by the EPA when
operating in temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, according
to consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman.

The suit, filed Feb. 19, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, accuses Mercedes of deceiving
consumers with false representations of its BlueTEC vehicles,
which it marketed as "the world's cleanest and most advanced
diesel" with "ultra-low emissions, high fuel economy and
responsive performance" that emits "up to 30% lower greenhouse-gas
emissions than gasoline."  According to the complaint, on-road
testing confirmed that Mercedes' so-called Clean Diesel cars
produced average on-road NOx emissions that are 19 times higher
than the U.S. standard, with some instantaneous readings as high
as 65 times more than the U.S. limit.

"We believe consumers deserve payback from Mercedes for its
fraudulent marketing and sales of these dirty diesels," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.

The suit seeks relief for those who purchased the affected
vehicles, including injunctive relief in the form of a recall or
free replacement program and restitution including either recovery
of the purchase price or overpayment or diminution in value due to
Mercedes' misleading statements and omissions regarding the
emission levels of its Clean Diesel BlueTEC vehicles.

The lawsuit alleges that the following Mercedes models powered by
BlueTEC diesel-fueled engines are affected by the unlawful,
unfair, deceptive and otherwise defective emission controls
utilized by Mercedes.  Contact Hagens Berman to find out your
rights, if you purchased or leased one of the following affected
BlueTEC vehicles:

   -- ML 320
   -- R320
   -- S Class
   -- ML 350
   -- E Class
   -- GLK Class
   -- GL 320
   -- GL Class
   -- GLE Class
   -- E320
   -- ML Class
   -- Sprinter
   -- S350
   -- R Class

The suit's named plaintiff, California resident Gwendolyn (Wendy)
Andary, is a longtime supporter of green issues.  She is also a
longtime fan of Mercedes, particularly in what she thought were
the brand's earth-friendly BlueTEC vehicles, having owned five
different Mercedes models in recent history, two of them being
BlueTEC models.

"From the moment I first heard about them, I believed these cars
truly utilized some amazing and groundbreaking technology,"
Wendy said.  "I thought these cars combined style and being good
to the environment, and I was a proud owner, going well out of my
way to find what I thought was the perfect car.  I really felt
this brand could do no wrong."

In 2011, Wendy sought to make an informed purchase and looked to
Mercedes' newest line of touted eco-friendly vehicles -- BlueTEC.

"When I leased the 2011 E350 BlueTEC, I could not believe all the
amazing things it would do, and the mileage and safety features of
Mercedes just sealed the deal," she said.  "I leased an E350
BlueTEC and own a GLK 250 BlueTEC specifically because they were
eco-friendly.  I was probably one of Mercedes' biggest
cheerleaders when it came to these cars."

Due to the automaker's aggressive marketing, Mercedes' BlueTEC
vehicles were incredibly popular with those seeking a greener
option.  Wendy remained a fan of what she thought was an eco-
friendly option from Mercedes, and when her lease was up on her
E350 BlueTEC, she purchased another BlueTEC model which she
currently owns -- a GLK 250 BlueTEC.

"Devastated doesn't even begin to describe it," Wendy said.
"Mercedes is an automaker that I trusted without a shadow of a
doubt, so when they promised these cars performed this way, I
believed them.  It's inconceivable that a company would attempt to
lie to consumers who are doing their best to make informed
decisions and are looking for a safe vehicle that's also safe for
the environment."

Wendy now faces the same reality as more than 100,000 U.S.
Mercedes BlueTEC owners -- that Mercedes duped them into
purchasing a vehicle that pollutes well above the EPA-regulated
national limits and is contributing vastly to environmental
degradation each time they start the engine, according to the
complaint.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.


MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 SCHOOL BUS 2016 Model
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015606TC
ID number:2015606

Certain school buses may not conform to Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS) 131 - School Bus Pedestrian Safety
Devices. The STOP decal may not adhere properly to the stop sign
and could peel off without warning, which could cause it to fail
to meet the requirements of the standard. This could increase the
risk of injury for the passengers exiting the school bus.
Correction: Dealers will replace the defective stop sign.

  Make         Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----            ----------------------
  MICRO BIRD   G5 SCHOOL BUS    2016


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Spencer" Class Action in Portland
---------------------------------------------------------
Tana Spencer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Midland Funding LLC aka Midland Funding NCC-2
Corp, and, Gordon Aylworth & Tami P.C., the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00093-BR (D. Oreg. (Portland)., January 20, 2016), seeks
to collect non-business Home Depot store charge card debts for
which no payment has been made on the individual debts for over
four years after default or charge off.

Midland Funding is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, which
purchases portfolios of defaulted consumer debts and collects
them. Its president is Ken Vecchione and has offices at 3111
Camino Del Rio North STE 1300 San Diego CA 97218. Midland has
elected Corporation Service Company 1127 Broadway St NE, Salem, OR
97301 as its registered agent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bret A. Knewtson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRET KNEWTSON
          3000 NW Stucki Pl Ste 230-M
          Hillsboro, OR 97124
          Telephone (503) 846 1160
          Facsimile (503) 922 3181
          E-mail: bknewtson@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Passannante, Esq
          BROER & PASSANNANTE PS
          1211 SW 5th Ave Ste 2330
          Portland OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 294 0910
          Facsimile: (503) 243 2717
          E-mail: Markpassannante@msn.com


MODEL SERVICE: Bid for Conditional Cert. Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV granted in part and denied
in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification; and for
approval of notice of the case EVA AGERBRINK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MODEL
SERVICE LLC d/b/a MSA MODELS, SUSAN LEVINE, and WILLIAM IVERS,
Defendants. MODEL SERVICE LLC d/b/a MSA MODELS, SUSAN LEVINE, and
WILLIAM IVERS, Counter Claimants, v. EVA AGERBRINK, Counter
Defendant, No. 14 Civ. 7841 (JPO) (JCF), (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff Eva Agerbrink seeks conditional certification of a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the Court's permission to distribute notice of the action to
potential collective members.

Defendants Model Service LLC, Susan Levine, and William Ivers
argue that Ms. Agerbrink and her counsel should be disqualified
from serving as representatives of the putative collective, and
also oppose certain provisions and procedures related to the
Plaintiff's proposed notice.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/gBa4tofrom Leagle.com, Judge Francis, IV granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and court-authorized notice.  The Defendants'
arguments that prior settlement demands render Mr. Dugger and Ms.
Agerbrink inadequate representatives are premature, and the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is granted.  The
proposed notice may be disseminated.

Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq. -- cd@theduggerlawfirm.com -- of The Dugger
Law Firm, PLLC serves as counsel for Plaintiff Eva Agerbrink,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Evan J. Spelfogel, Esq. -- espelfogel@ebglaw.com -- Jamie Fiedler
Friedman, Esq. -- jfriedman@ebglaw.com -- and Ronald M. Green,
Esq. -- rgreen@ebglaw.com -- of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. serve
as counsel for Defendant Model Service LLC, doing business as MSA
Models


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Poeschek, et al., File Concussion Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tonny Messenger, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
the National Hockey League is facing a class action.

Rudy Poeschek doesn't remember precisely when he was drafted into
the NHL.

"I think it was 1985," he told me in a recent phone interview from
Kamloops, British Columbia, where he lives.  "Maybe it was 1986."

Some of the details, though, are crystal clear.

He was drafted in the 12th round. A draft publication had written
of him, "He eats nails for lunch."

Mr. Poeschek knew what that meant.  He would be drafted to be an
enforcer.  To drop the gloves and fight.

And fight he did.  For the New York Rangers and the Tampa Bay
Lightning.  For the Winnipeg Jets and the St. Louis Blues.

Now he's paying the price.

He has bad insomnia and headaches.  He suffers from anxiety and
mood swings. His memory wavers.  He doesn't like bright lights.

"My wife told me something was wrong," Mr. Poeschek recalls from a
conversation not long ago.  "That I was changing.  That I was
quick to anger."

His problem? Concussions, too many of them to count, have affected
his health negatively after 14 years as a professional hockey
player.

Mr. Poeschek, now 49, is one of 105 former NHL players involved in
a federal lawsuit against the league alleging the NHL was
negligent in explaining to players the seriousness of concussions
and offering better treatment when they occurred.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, is
seeking class action status so that all former NHL players could
benefit medically from any settlement that might come out of the
legal dispute.

"Although the NHL knew or should have known, as the Plaintiffs did
not, about this scientific evidence concerning concussions,
subconcussive impacts, and brain disease, the NHL never told
Plaintiffs or any other member of the Classes about the dangers of
repeated brain trauma," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit has received much less attention than its cousin in
the National Football League.  Last year, a federal judge approved
a nearly $1 billion settlement in a concussion lawsuit brought by
former NFL players, awarding up to $5 million per retired player
who could prove some level of brain damage or medical condition
brought on by repeated concussions.

That lawsuit, and growing concern over such brain trauma, has led
the NFL to make significant changes to its rules, seeking to
eliminate violent shots to the head.  The league has targeted
defensive players with big fines for violent collisions and it has
supported a nationwide marketing campaign to youth football
coaches urging a change in how tackling is taught to beginning
players.

But as the NHL nears its annual playoffs, there hasn't been much
of a buzz over its own lawsuit.

The NHL is fighting the lawsuit and has shown little interest in
reaching an NFL-like settlement, though that calculus could change
this fall if the plaintiffs are awarded class action status.

For Mr. Poeschek, he is hoping for a result that leads to rule
changes.

"When you're young, you don't think that fighting is going to hurt
you later on," he says.  During fights, Mr. Poeschek's world would
sometimes go blank.

"For a split second, I would see black," he says.  "It seemed a
lot longer than a split second. You come out of it, and see light,
and you keep fighting."

At one point, he says, he asked a team physician in Tampa Bay
about the blackouts, but wasn't offered any guidance on
concussions.  During those days, players took hits, got knocked
out, and put themselves right back into games. NHL. NFL. Doesn't
matter.

That's changed, at least to the extent that such things are
observed.  Both leagues now have concussion protocols that cause
players to be kept out of games when diagnosed with concussions.

But how well are those policies working?

In St. Louis, NFL fans will recall the St. Louis Rams game against
the Baltimore Ravens on Nov. 22 when quarterback Case Keenum was
obviously woozy and disoriented and yet stayed in the game.  And
in the NHL, there is the strange case of Calgary Flames defenseman
Dennis Wideman, who is appealing his 20-game suspension for
physically attacking a referee because he says he was concussed on
a previous play and shouldn't have been allowed to stay in the
game.

Mr. Poeschek said he joined the lawsuit because he wants to see
positive changes to the game -- like getting rid of enforcer
fights -- but also because he wants his family to have peace of
mind about the care he'll receive as he ages.

Mr. Poeschek knew hockey was a physical game, and he accepted his
role as an enforcer, even as he tried at times to shed it.  But
he's sure the league could have done more to protect players from
themselves.

"All I know," he says, "is I'm sure they knew more than I did."


NEWCREST: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $36 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Perry Williams, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Newcrest Mining has paid $36 million to shareholders who
brought a class action against the miner for breaching its
continuous disclosure obligations bringing an end to a wretched
period for Australia's largest gold producer.

Newcrest said it had agreed to pay the sum to family trustee
company Earglow, which led an action on behalf of several dozen
shareholders who acquired an interest in Newcrest shares between
August 13, 2012 and June 6, 2013.

Earglow is co-owned by Michael Boorne who previously worked as an
executive director of telco provider NetComm.

Earglow also led a $57.5 million settlement with Sigma
Pharmaceuticals in 2012 where it successfully claimed the
healthcare company had breached continuous disclosure rules.

In both cases Earglow used Slater & Gordon as its lawyer and
Comprehensive Legal Funding to fund its litigation.

Sources close to the process told Fairfax Media that between 20
and 30 per cent of the $36 million will be kept by the litigation
funding firm.

The class action, which kicked off in July 2014, revolved around
what Earglow said was a breach of continuous disclosure rules and
alleged Newcrest had failed to disclose to the market certain
material information in relation to expected total gold production
and expected capital expenditure.

On June 7, 2013 Newcrest cut its final dividend, slashed its gold
production forecast and flagged $6 billion of asset write-downs as
it took emergency steps to adjust to a lower gold price.

More than 15 per cent or $2.6 billion in value was wiped off the
value of Newcrest shares in the 72 hours before the announcement
on June 7.

Newcrest made statements that misled or deceived shareholders
about production forecasts and performance for the 2012 financial
year, Earglow said.

When the class action was launched Slater & Gordon alleged that
Newcrest had no reasonable grounds for ever issuing its gold
production guidance to the market on August 13, 2012 where it said
gold output would increase to a range of 2.3 million ounces to 2.5
million ounces in the 2013 financial year.

"Newcrest has agreed to pay $36 million in full and final
settlement of the proceeding including interest, litigation costs,
and the applicant's legal fees," the company said in a statement
to the ASX on Feb. 22.

"The settlement is without any admission of liability by Newcrest
and is subject to court approval.  The settlement was agreed in
the best interest of Newcrest shareholders, to enable the company
to focus on improving returns for shareholders without the risk,
distraction and significant expense of a lengthy trial."

The Melbourne-based miner said it would record the $36 million
cost in its 2016 full-year accounts as a charge to its income
statement.

The latest payout follows a $1.2 million fine levied against
Newcrest by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
in 2014 for selectively briefing analysts.

That fine was triggered after Newcrest's investor relations team
discussed with senior executives ways to nudge down analysts'
forecasts to meet the company's new expectations, even though they
had not been released to the market.

Emails between former investor relations manager Spencer Cole,
head of investment relations Steven Warner and chief financial
officer Gerard Bond showed the company advised analysts to lower
their forecasts to "get them in the ball park" of revised
production figures before a public announcement.


NEXSCENE: Recalls LED String Fairy Lights Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Posting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56372

This recall involves NexScene 8 Modes 10M 100 LED String Fairy
Lights for weddings, Christmas parties and holidays (warm white
lights).  These lights are identified by model number NX-001 and
UPC 084797706024, but other NexScene lights and models may be
affected.  The product packaging may have the phrases "Happy
Diwali" or "Christmas Decorations" written on it.

Testing by Health Canada has determined that the seasonal lights
may pose an electric shock, overheating and/or fire hazard.

Health Canada is aware of one report of a fire resulting in a
death in the United States which is alleged to have been started
by a NexScene brand light string.

The total number of products sold in Canada through internet sites
and stores is unknown, but approximately 79 units were sold by
third party sellers via the Amazon.ca website in Canada.

The time period the recalled products were sold in Canada is
unknown, but the products were sold by third party sellers via the
Amazon.ca website from August 2014 to January 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Shenzhen Jurihuacheng Electronic Technology Co
              Shenzhen
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and dispose of them according to their local municipal
requirements.

Consumers can also contact Health Canada to provide information
regarding where they purchased their NexScene lights. To reach
Health Canada, Consumer Product Safety, please telephone 1-866-
662-0666. Calls will be routed to the nearest regional office.

Consumers are encouraged to check the Recall and Safety Alerts
Database on the Healthy Canadians website on a regular basis or
subscribe to receive health and safety alerts from the Department
via email, RSS feed or Twitter.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5Ssgyk


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "DeMaria" Amended Complaint Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Robert Blakey granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint in the case, MARIA DEMARIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15
C 3321, (S.D. Ill.)

A putative class of owners and lessees of Nissan Altimas
manufactured in 2002-2006 and Nissan Maximas manufactured in 2004-
2008, sued Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Company,
Ltd., seeking a declaratory judgment that the class vehicles are
defective. Plaintiffs also allege violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act; fraudulent concealment; negligence; unjust
enrichment; and violation of various states' consumer protection
laws.

The parties stipulated to the dismissal of Nissan Motor Company
from the case.

Nissan North America, Inc. then moved to dismiss the complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Feb. 1, available at
http://is.gd/QngPN5from Leagle.com, Judge Blakey granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint in its entirety.

The Court finds that personal jurisdiction over NNA is lacking as
to the claims of the out-of-state Plaintiffs, but does exist as to
the claims asserted on behalf of Plaintiff Maria DeMaria and the
class she purports to represent (that is, individuals whose
purchase of Class Vehicles is linked to NNA's activities within
the state of Illinois).

The Court finds, however, that Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim for fraudulent concealment, negligence, unjust enrichment or
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (ICFDTP) or the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (IUDTPA). The consumer protection claims for
violation of the laws of states other than Illinois (Counts Six
and Nine through Twenty-One) are dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The declaratory judgment, breach of warranty,
fraudulent concealment, negligence and unjust enrichment claims
(Counts One through Five) are similarly dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction to the extent they are asserted on behalf of
Plaintiffs whose claims do not arise out of NNA's activities
within the State of Illinois.

Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the ICFA and the IUDTPA
(Counts Seven and Eight) are dismissed for failure to state a
claim, as are Counts One through Five, to the extent they are
asserted on behalf of Plaintiffs whose claims do arise out of
NNA's activities within the State of Illinois. Plaintiffs are
given leave to amend their complaint to address the deficiencies
to the extent they are able to do so consistent with their
obligations under Rule 11.

Counsel for Plaintiff Marie DeMaria:

     * Adam Michael Prom, Esq. -- ap@wexlerwallace.com --
       Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq. -- aek@wexlerwallace.com --
       and Edward A. Wallace, Esq. -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com --
       of Wexler Wallace LLP;

     * David K. Stein, Esq. -- dstein@bricker.com -- of Girard
       Gibbs LLP;

     * Gregory F Coleman, Esq. -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com --
       of Greg Coleman Law PC;

     * Jeffrey J Burns, Esq. -- jeffrey.j.burns@ampf.com --
       of Dollar, Burns & Becker, LLC;

     * John A. Yanchunis, Esq. of Morgan & Morgan, Complex
       Litigation Group

     * Lisa Anne White, Esq. -- lisaannawhite@gmail.com -- and
       Mark E Silvey, Esq. of Greg Coleman Law PC

     * Matthew Dameron, Esq. of Williams Dirks Dameron LLC;

     * Norman E. Siegel, Esq. -- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- and
       Sean R Cooper, Esq. of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP;

     * Tim E Dollar, Esq. of Dollar, Burns & Becker, LLC

Amir Nassihi, Esq. -- anassihi@shb.com -- James P. Muehlberger,
Esq. -- jmuehlberger@shb.com -- Justin Robert Donoho, Esq. --
jdonoho@shb.com -- Todd Clark Jacobs, Esq. -- tjacobs@shb.com --
and William R. Sampson, Esq. -- wsampson@shb.com -- of Shook,
Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. serve as counsel for Defendant Nissan North
America, Inc.


NOBILIS HEALTH: "Schott" Sues Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Guenter Schott, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Nobilis Health Corp., Christopher H.
Lloyd, and Kenneth J. Klein, Case No. 4:16-cv-00141 (S.D. Tex.,
Houston Division, January 19, 2016), seeks damages, prejudgment
and postjudgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs and other and further relief for
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Nobilis acquires and manages ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs)
and healthcare facilities in the United States.

Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies concerning the Company's classification of
warrants and options, business combination accounting, share-based
compensation, and other financial and operating results. Nobilis
had overstated its net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2015
by more than $3.27 million.

Plaintiff acquired Nobilis securities at artificially inflated
prices and lost substantially after the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures, the complaint asserts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel: (214) 239-4568
      Fax: (281) 254-7789
      Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

              - and -

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

           - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Tel: (312) 377-1181
      Fax: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


OMEGA EMPIRE: "Barahona" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Reginaldo Barahona, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff (s), v. Omega Empire, LLC, Duo Epsilon Inc., Minoan, LLC
and Vassilios Dimotakis a/k/a/ Billy Dimotakis and Jenny
Skordilis, individually Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20204-FAM
(S.D. Fla., Miami Division, January 8, 2016), seeks statutory
damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a kitchen helper, cook, dishwasher and
cleaning employee. He worked a minimum of 72 hours every week,
worked 7 days per week and did not take a lunch break. Defendant
also did not provide paystubs and did not employ any time-keeping
method, asserts the Plaintiff. He allegedly was fired in
retaliation of his multiple complaints about his wages.

Omega Empire, LLC, Duo Epsilon Inc. and Minoan, LLC are Florida
corporations operating restaurants by the name Eat Greek Souvlaki
with Vassilios Dimotakis and Jenny Skordilis as co-
owners/managers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Violated Clayton Act, Comfort's Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comfort Care Family Dental, P.C. and Rossman Endodontics, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., Benco
Dental Supply Company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00282
(E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2016), seeks to recover treble damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Clayton Act.

Patterson Companies is the second largest distributor of dental
supplies in the United States, incorporated in Minnesota, with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Patterson
sells dental supplies to dental practices and laboratories
nationwide, including dental practices and laboratories in the
Eastern District of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Radice, Esq.
          Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM PC
          34 Sunset Blvd.
          Long Beach, NJ 08008
          Telephone: (646) 245 8502
          Facsimile: (609) 385 0745
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
                  kpickle@radicelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Patric Madden, Esq.
          Joshua Ripley, Esq.
          Berger & Montague PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.com
                  pmadden@bm.com
                  jripley@bm.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
          Chicago, Ill 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com


PIE ONTARIO: Recalls Pepperoni Pie Due to Gluten, Milk, & Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk, Allergen -
Mustard, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pie Ontario Corp.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10263

  Brand       Common name    Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  name        -----------    ----     product      ----
  ----                                ----------
  Pie Wood    Pepperoni Pie  2 count  All codes   8 82774 00001 7
  Fired Pizza                         where mustard,
  Joint                               milk, and
                                      wheat are
                                      not declared
                                      on the label.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Violated Labor Code, "Mathein" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Mathein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc.; Pier 1 Imports
(U.S.), Inc.; and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00087-BAM (E.D. Cal., Fresno Division, January
20, 2016), seeks monetary and injunctive relief under California's
Unfair Competition Law and Labor Code.

Pier 1 Imports is a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business in Fort Worth, Texas. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. owns and
operates Pier 1 retail stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991 8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991 8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com


PIZZA HUT: May File Redacted Copy of Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. granted in part and denied in
part the unopposed motion of Defendant Pizza Hut of America, Inc.
to file under seal the settlement agreement and related filings
seeking approval thereof, in the case, JUSTIN BARKLEY; BRIAN
PHILLIPS; and JERRY J. WALSH, Plaintiffs, v. PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:14-cv-376-Orl-37DAB, (M.D. Fla.)

The parties to this putative Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA) class
action previously notified the Court that they reached a
settlement.

Defendant seeks leave to file the following documents under seal:

     (1) the settlement agreement;
     (2) a motion for preliminary approval of the Agreement;
     (3) a subsequent motion for final approval of the Agreement;
         and
     (4) all exhibits to the Preliminary and Final Motions.

Alternatively, Defendant moves for leave to file the Documents to
be approved in a redacted format, specifically redacting:

     (a) portions pertaining to Pizza Hut's confidential and
         proprietary reimbursement methodology or from which
         information about that methodology could be derived; and

     (b) portions that relate to confidential arbitration
         proceedings against Pizza Hut.

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tQkO40from Leagle.com, Judge Dalton, Jr. granted in
part Pizza Hut's unopposed motion.  The parties may redact
portions of the settlement agreement and forthcoming motions for
approval that relate to the confidential arbitration proceedings.
The parties are DIRECTED to file a redacted version of these
documents on the public docket. In all other respects, the motion
is denied.

As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Defendant failed to
provide good cause for sealing the Documents to be approved in
their entirety -- that is, Defendant did not show that its
interest in keeping the information contained in such documents
confidential outweighs the public's common law right to access
those documents. Thus, Defendant's request to seal the Documents
to be approved in their entirety is denied.

C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. of Morgan & Morgan, PA and Jeremiah Frei-
Pearson, Esq. -- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- of Finkelstein,
Blankenship, Frei-Pearson, Garber, LLP serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Al Fata, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated

Geoffrey David Deboskey, Esq. -- gdeboskey@sidley.com -- Joseph C.
Cooper, Esq. -- joseph.cooper@sidley.com -- and Sarah M. Konsky,
Esq. -- skonsky@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin, LLP -- and Lori Y.
Baggett, Esq. -- lbaggett@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, PA serve a counsel for Defendant Pizza Hut of
America, Inc.


PMLRA PIZZA: "Reeves" Suit Seeks Service Charges Under MGL
----------------------------------------------------------
Tylor Reeves, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc., and Henry Askew
the Defendants, Case No. 16-0047 (Mass, Super Ct., January 7,
2016), seeks to recover service charges, minimum wage, relief,
statutory and trebling damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant Massachusetts General Laws.

PMLRA Pizza is a Massachusetts corporation. PMLRA is a Domino's
franchisee and operates one or more Domino's restaurants in
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK,P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 6230
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com


PRIME TIME: Recalls 2016 Travel Trailers Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Label
Units affected: 9
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015613TC
ID number: 2015613

On certain travel trailers, the certification, tire and loading
information labels do not contain correct tire size and load range
information. The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size of
ST225/75R15 with E load rating which have an 80 PSI (551 kPa)
maximum inflation pressure, while the trailers are fitted with
ST225/75R15 with D load rating which have a 65PSI (413 kPa)
maximum inflation pressure. Incorrect tire pressure could lead to
tire failure, resulting in loss of vehicle control increasing the
risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Labels will be mailed to owners along with
instructions for proper installation.

  Make               Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----               -----       ----------------------
  PRIME TIME MFG                 2016


RED ROBIN GOURMET: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Brackley" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Brackley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., Red
Robin International, Inc., Swan Concepts, Inc., Fayetteville LLC,
Rr Halfmoon LLC, RR Latham LLC, RR Poughkeepsie LLC, John A. Swan,
Jr., an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00288-JMA-GRB
(E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2016), seeks recovery of liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs as provided by the
New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a chain of casual dining restaurants
throughout New York State known as Red Robin Gourmet Burgers
(a.k.a. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Brews) ("Red Robin").
Defendants employed Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to
her, as tipped employee -- a Server -- at their restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana Matura, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broad hollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499 9100


REX PERFORMANCE: "Slaght" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Slaght, Jeffrey Megie, Jr. and Steven Smith,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Rex Performance Products, LLC, f/k/a Michigan Foam
And Fabrication a Michigan Limited Liability Company, Maxwell
Morgan, LLC, a Nebraska Limited Liability Company, Don Tate, an
Individual, Rex Hansen, an individual and John Ballinger, an
individual, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
10159-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., Miami Division, January 18, 2016),
seeks damages for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages with
corresponding liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and other relief for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq.

Plaintiffs include shift leaders, technicians, operators,
laminators, hi-lo drivers and general laborers. They claim to have
rendered in excess of 40 hour per work week without overtime
compensation.

Rex Performance Products, LLC f/k/a Michigan Foam and Fabrication,
LLC, is a Michigan Limited Liability company that specializes in
commercial foam products. Its principal place of business is in
Marysville, Michigan.

Maxwell Morgan, LLC is a financial investment firm based in
Nebraska. It is the parent company of Rex Performance Products,
LLC. Its principal place of business is Portland, Oregon.

Don Tate is the President of Rex Performance Products, LLC. Rex
Hansen is President of Maxwell Morgan, LLC. John Ballinger is an
executive at Maxwell Morgan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, Michigan 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com

            - and -

      Brian Delekta, Esq.
      Diane Delekta, Esq.
      DELEKTA & DELEKTA P.C.
      80880 Main St., Box 595
      Memphis, MI 48041
      Tel: (810) 392-3834
      Email: brian@delektalaw.com
             diane@delektalaw.com


ROADRUNNER PIZZA: Violated Labor Code, "Ruiz" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan M Pozo Ruiz, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Roadrunner Pizza, Inc.,
Musketeers Pizza, Inc., Good Guys Pizza, Inc., A&A Pizza,
Amigos Pizza, Inc., Farnad Ferdows, an individual, Armen Sedrak,
an individual, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC 606596 (Cal Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, January 8,
2016), seeks to recover all wages earned and due, interest,
penalties, expenses, and costs of suit, pursuant to the California
Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare
Commission wage orders.

Roadrunner Pizza is a California corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California. The Company
conducts business in the State of California. It maintains offices
and facilities in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Emma Steiner, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


ROCKPILE ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Campbell" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Campbell, individually and on behalf do all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rockpile Energy Services. LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00007-DLH-CSM (D. N. Dak., Western
Division, January 20, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

RockPile Energy Services provides proppant transportation and
chemical optimization services. Its services include hydraulic
pressure pumping/fracturing; wireline services in the areas of
perforating, cement bond log, mechanical services, and bridge
plugs/junk baskets; workover rig services; pump down services; and
specialized services, including back side pressure, mechanical
liners, drilling rig assist, and BOP/tree testing. The company was
founded in 2011 and is based in Denver, Colorado with operations
in Dickinson, North Dakota. The Company operates as a subsidiary
of Triangle Petroleum Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROMAGICA CORP: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Moran" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Moran and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. Romagica Corp. d/b/a
Celeste Restaurant, Quaric, LLC d/b/a Teodora Restaurant,
Roberta Ruggini, Carmine Mitroni And Giancarlo Quadalti, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00437 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, compensation for
off-the-clock work, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Romagica Corp. is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of New York, with a principal place of business and
address at 502 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Xee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


SAFEWAY INC: Violated CCLRA & CUCL, "Shiner" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Shiner, Julie Whitson, and Mauri Sanders, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Safeway Inc., and the Vons Companies, Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00318-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 20, 2015), seek to
recover damages, injunctive and equitable relief, declaratory
relief, attorney fees and costs, and other appropriate relief
under the California Unfair Competition Law (CUCL) and California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CCLRA).

Safeway, Inc. is an American supermarket chain that was acquired
by private equity investors led by Cerberus Capital Management in
January 2015. The new merged company which includes the Albertsons
supermarket chain has more than 2,200 stores and over 250,000
employees which makes it the second largest supermarket chain in
North America, after The Kroger Company, which has 2,625 stores.
Safeway's primary base of operations is in the western and central
United States, with some stores located in the Mid-Atlantic region
of the Eastern Seaboard. The company is headquartered in
Pleasanton, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Suit Seeks to Enjoin GSW Arena Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Bay Alliance and Jennifer Wade, on behalf of all other
groups and individuals in San Francisco that are similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Office of Community Investment and
Infrastructure (OICC), Tiffany Bohee, in her capacity as Executive
Director of OCII, OCII Commission, City and County of San
Francisco (CCSF), CCSF Planning Department, CCSF Planning
Commission, CCSF Municipal Transportation Agency, CCSF Board of
Supervisors, CCSF Board of Appeals, CCSF Entertainment Commission
and Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2016-80002217 (Cal.
Super. Ct., January 7, 2016), seeks to enjoin construction of the
proposed Golden State Warriors Arena and Event Center (arena
project) in the Mission Bay neighborhood of San Francisco, and to
set aside all approvals relating to the arena project.

The arena project spans eleven acres and four city blocks. It is
located six blocks away from another major stadium, the San
Francisco Giants' AT&T Park, and in the center of Mission Bay, a
peninsula with limited road access and public transportation. The
proposed arena will regularly attract 18,000 visitors during
evening rash hours, including thousands by car, to attend regular
season basketball games, playoff games, concerts, and conventions.

The City and County of San Francisco has created the OCII as the
Successor Agency to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
Pursuant to state and local legislation, the Successor Agency is
governed by two bodies, the Oversight Board of the Successor
Agency and the Commission on Community Investment and
Infrastructure.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Boies, Esq.
          Joshua I. Schiller, Esq.
          Duane L. Loft, Esq
          Juan P. Valdivieso, Esq
          Demetri Blaisdell, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749 8200
          Facsimile: (212) 749 8300
          575 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10022-6138
          Telephone: (212) 446 2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446 2350
          E-mail: dboies@.bsfllp.com
                  jischiller@.bsfllp.com

               - and -

          BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
          Jennifer Wade, Esq.
          Susan Bfandt-Hawley, Esq.
          Skyla Olds, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1659
          Glen Ellen, CA 95442
          Telephone: (707) 938 3900
          Facsimile: (707) 938 3200
          susanbh@preservatioalawyers.com

               - and -

          Thomas N. Lippe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS N. LIPPE
          201 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777 5604
          Facsimile: (415) 777 5606

               - and -

          Patrick Soluri, Esq.
          Osha Meserve, Esq.
          SOLURI MESERVE
          1010 F Street, Suite 100
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 455 7300
          Facsimile: (916) 244 7300
          E-mail: Patrick@semlawvers.com
                  osha@semlawvers.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: State's Motion to Dismiss Granted In Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
Riana Buffin and Crystal Patterson on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, bring a civil rights action against the
City and County of San Francisco and the State of California for
claims arising from their post-arrest detention at the City's
jail. Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against
for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and
due process rights, specifically (1) against the City for jailing
them because they cannot afford monetary bail prior to a first
court appearance, and (2) against the State for requiring the City
to condition pretrial release on monetary payment prior to a first
court appearance.

Based thereon, Plaintiffs seek two forms of relief on behalf of
themselves and putative class members: (i) declaratory judgment
that Defendants violate their rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment; and (ii) injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from
enforcing their unconstitutional detention policies against all
class members. The named Plaintiffs additionally seek (iii)
monetary damages from the City and (iv) attorney fees.

The complaint makes no allegation that the bail amounts for
Plaintiffs were made other than in conformance with the City's
bail schedule.

The State moves for the dismissal of the present case pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint should be
dismissed because (A) the State is entitled to sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment, and (B) the abstention doctrine
announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37, 45 (1971), applies and the Court should not consider any of
Plaintiffs' claims.

The City joined in the State's motion to dismiss on Younger
grounds, and has also moved pursuant to Rule 12(e) for a more
definite statement of Plaintiffs' claims and requests for relief.

Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion for class
certification are also pending before the Court. Finally,
California Bail Agents Association filed a motion to intervene in
the proceedings.

In her Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/lusVpufrom Leagle.com, Judge Rogers:

     -- granted the State's motion to dismiss on grounds of
        sovereign immunity and denied with respect to Younger
        abstention.

     -- denied the City's joinder in the State's motion to
        dismiss on Younger grounds and granted the motion for
        more definite statement.

     -- denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction,
        without prejudice.

     -- denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, without
        prejudice.

     -- denied as premature the California Bail Agents
        Association's motion to intervene.

The Court directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint no
later than February 25, 2016.

According to Judge Rogers, the Court granted the State's motion to
dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, but the Court declines
Defendants' invitation to essentially ignore the first condition
that state judicial proceedings be ongoing. The lack of an ongoing
state judicial proceeding when Plaintiffs filed the instant
lawsuit is fatal to Defendants' efforts to prove that any such
proceeding could be adequate. Because there were no ongoing state
judicial proceedings against Plaintiffs when this case was filed,
there is no reason for this Court to abstain in the interest of
comity. Having failed to establish the first condition for Younger
abstention, the Court need not proceed further in the analysis.
Defendants' motion to dismiss on this basis is denied.

Plaintiffs' inability to articulate their legal theory at the
January 26th hearing underscores the point. Consequently, the
Court granted the City's motion for a more definite statement.
The Court is unable to substantively address the motion absent a
clearly articulated legal theory in their complaint. The Court
must first be assured that the complaint articulates with
sufficient clarity the relief sought against the City, the
authority on which the Court may order such relief, and the
authority under which Defendants may afford the relief. The Court
cannot determine whether "injunctive relief or corresponding
declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole"
without understanding the relief sought by Plaintiffs.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).

Judge Rogers also held that only once the Court understands the
relief Plaintiffs seek in this case, and the defenses the City and
CBAA intend to raise in response thereto, can intervention be
sufficiently addressed.

The case is captioned, RIANA BUFFIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04959-
YGR, (N.D. Cal.)

Phil Telfeyan, Esq., Alexander Karakatsanis, Esq. --
alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.com -- and Katherine Claire Hubbard,
Esq. -- hubbardkc@gmail.com -- of Equal Justice Under Law serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Riana Buffin

Jeremy Michael Goldman, Esq. -- jgoldman@bsfllp.com -- of San
Francisco City Attorney's Office serves as counsel for Defendant
City and County of San Francisco


SCRANTON, PA: Rental Registration Fee Class Action Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Times Tribune reports that a landlord suing Scranton's
government over its haphazard program of rental-unit registration
actually is doing the city a favor.  The Courtright administration
and city council should take advantage of the opportunity the suit
offers to improve city governance, regardless of the outcome of
the litigation itself.

A hearing in Lackawanna County Court in March will determine
whether the suit filed by landlord Adam Guiffrida may proceed as a
class action on behalf of more landlords.

The cash-strapped city government tripled the rental registration
fee in 2014 from $50 to $150 and increased the annual per-unit fee
from $15 to $50. That served its apparent purpose, increasing
revenue from $$160,000 in 2013 to $450,000 in 2014.

But the program is characteristic of the city government and
illustrative of its long-standing management deficit.  When
Mr. Guiffrida filed his suit, the city could not answer the most
fundamental question it raised: How many rental units are there?
Rather, the city could only account for the number of units for
which it had received payments.

City Councilman Wayne Evans, a Realtor, said last May that there
are about 2,500 registered rental units in Scranton, but that the
actual number of units subject to registration could be up to
10,000.  The government should be able to do better than
accounting for 25 percent of the city's rental units.

The upshot is that landlords who register in accordance with the
city ordinance pay substantial amounts, whereas those landlords
who do not register pay nothing.  Meanwhile, the city gladly
collects the fees but does nothing to universally enforce the
ordinance.

Regardless of the outcome of the suit, the city should launch an
effort to account for all of the rental units and the identities
of their landlords.  Doing so would enable the government to
establish much more reasonable registration fees while increasing
revenue.

An effort to revise the program has been tabled due to some
disagreements between the administration and council, particularly
over an inspection protocol within the ordinance.

Council and the Courtright administration quickly should resolve
those residences, pass an ordinance and implement a program that
accounts for all rentals, sets a reasonable registration fee and
accommodates public safety through an effective inspection
program.


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Clinitek Novus 10 Urinalysis Cassette
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Posting date: January 14, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56636

Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics has confirmed that certain lots of
CLINITEK Novus Urinalysis cassettes may report glucose as "error"
for some urine samples and negative quality controls more
frequently than expected.

Affected products
A. CLINITEK NOVUS 10 URINALYSIS CASSETTE
Lot or serial number: K232105
                      K234105
                      K236115
Model or catalog number: 10634643

B. CLINITEK NOVUS PRO 10 URINALYSIS CASSETTE
Lot or serial number: R229105
                      R230105
                      R238115
Model or catalog number: 10634644

Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
              511 Benedict Ave
              Tarrytown
              10591
              New York
              UNITED STATES


SIMI VALLEY: Faces "Jones" Suit for Alleged Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Jones, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated aggrieved employees, v. Simi Valley Corporate Fitness,
Inc., Gold's Gym Socal Group, Gold's Gym Management Services,
Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, Case no: BC610 048 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
County of Los Angeles, February 11, 2016), was filed on behalf of
all individuals who were employed by Gold's Gym (Personal Trainer,
Fitness Consultant, Fitness Manager, Group Exercise Instructor,
Front Desk Associate, Sales Associate, Sales Manager, Operations
Manager, Maintenance Associate, Housekeeping Associate, Kid's Club
Associate, and Child Care Associate) in the State of California
and who, during the applicable statute of limitations, allegedly
suffered one or more Labor Code violations.

Simi Valley Corporate Fitness Inc. is a small health & fitness
club in Northridge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James F. Clapp, Esq.
     CLAPP LEGAL APC
     701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
     Carlsbad, CA 92011
     Phone: 760-209-6565 ext. 101
     Fax: 760-209-6565
     E-mail: jclapp@clapplegal.com


SPASO SPORTS: Recalls 2015 Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Posting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56366

This recall involves all of the following 2015 model year mountain
bicycles:

  Model                Colour            Felt Logo Location
  -----                ------            ------------------
  Double Double 30     Blue              Down tube
  NINEe 20             Grey and Orange   Down tube
  Edict 1              Black and Blue    Top tube

The bicycles were sold with carbon fiber seat posts. The model
name is printed on the top tube of the bicycles.

Hazard identified

The carbon seat post can crack, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these bicycles. Felt Bicycles
has received 10 reports of the seat post cracking in the United
States. No injuries have been reported.

Number sold

Approximately 7 units were sold in Canada.

Time period sold

The recalled bicycles were sold from August 2014 to September
2015.

Place of origin

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Distributor: Spaso Sports
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

Manufacturer: Felt Bicycles
              Irvine
              California
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact their local Felt Bicycle dealer for a free inspection and
seat post replacement.

For more information, consumers can contact Felt Bicycles at 1-
866-433-5887 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST, Monday to Friday.
Consumers may also visit the company's website and click on
"Notices".

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.


SPOTIFY: Memo Reveals Takedown of Camper van Beethoven's Catalog
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnikoff, writing for Digital Music News, reports that
despite lingering accusations, Spotify doesn't appear to be
ripping down content to retaliate against artists raising
licensing concerns.  And its hands may be cleaner than originally
thought in its ongoing, $150 million class action battle with
artist David Lowery.

A leaked memo between Spotify and Warner Music Group suggested an
aggressive takedown of Camper van Beethoven's catalog, potentially
in retaliation for waging a high-profile rights dispute.  Camper
van Beethoven, alongside Cracker, form a big chunk of Mr. Lowery's
musical catalog.

The Warner memo appeared to contain exaggerated reports of the
infringements claimed by Lowery, with Spotify claiming
comprehensive demands across both recording and publishing assets.
That stoked suspicions of retaliatory takedowns, as Lowery's
demand has only pertained to unpaid mechanical licenses.
Mechanicals are one part of a portfolio of publishing licenses,
not recording licenses.

The retaliatory takedown theory was bolstered by an ugly, earlier
showdown between Victory Records.  That standoff, based on similar
licensing disputes, resulted in a complete teardown of Victory's
catalog, a move that plunged the label into desperation.  Shortly
thereafter, Victory president Tony Brummel noted that Spotify's
response might force layoffs, and the label eventually conceded.

In this situation, it looks like Mr. Lowery's attorneys were the
ones making the heavy takedown demands.  "We have had a letter
from David Lowery's lawyers asking that we take down all of
David Lowery's catalogue," an email from top Spotify executive
Steve Savoca to multiple executives at Universal Music Group
stated.  "There is a dispute over publishing rights and while we
are working to resolve it we are being prudent and taking down his
catalogue."

The email to Universal was dated December 22nd, 2015, one week
after the Warner correspondence.  Spotify issued the notification
to Universal Music Group given their rights over recordings from
Lowery-led group, Cracker.

A separate source to DMN indicated that Lowery's attorneys did
issue the broad demand.

Spotify also adhered to the jurisdiction of the complaint, another
sign of restraint.  In a later part of the correspondence, Spotify
also noted that because the dispute is US-based, non-US Spotify
platforms would continue to host the Lowery catalog.  That isn't
necessarily the case with every streaming platform, according to
details also received by DMN over the weekend.

The leaked emails are part of an extremely contentious battle
between Mr. Lowery and a growing number of songwriters and labels.
Mr. Lowery's class action lawsuit has been valued at roughly $150
million, with a separate, similar class action reaching $200
million in potential estimated damages.  Spotify attorneys have
aggressively attempted to remove the action, based on technical
legal process problems.


STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Class Action for A$200 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Jane Wardell, writing for Reuters, reports that a substantial
settlement has been reached in a landmark A$200 million ($143
million) class action brought against ratings agency Standard &
Poor's, according to the law firm for the local governments,
churches and charities bringing the suit.

London-based law firm Squire Patton Boggs said on Feb. 20 that the
settlement, which is subject to court approval, is likely to have
widespread international ramifications for similar actions against
Standard & Poor's (S&P) due to the number of products it rates
throughout the world.

Financial terms of the settlement were confidential, Squire Patton
Boggs said. Litigation funder IMF Bentham said it would generate
revenue of about A$52 million and a pretax profit after
capitalized overheads of around A$47 million as a result of the
settlement.

The Federal Court lawsuit was brought by 92 Australian groups who
had bought synthetic collateralized debt obligations issued by
Lehman Brothers Australia between 2005 and 2007.

The applicants alleged Standard & Poor's engaged in misleading and
deceptive conduct by assigning AA and AAA credit ratings to the
Lehman Brothers products.

S&P denied the allegations. It could not immediately be reached
for comment on the settlement.

"The outcome of this case has highlighted that organizations such
as Standard & Poor's require transparency and accountability in
the formulation of the credit ratings that they assign to
financial products such as SCDOs," said Amanda Banton, a partner
at Squire Patton Boggs.

Mick Wainwright, the leader of one of the local councils who took
part in the class action, said the confidential settlement was "a
welcome end to the monumental David and Goliath style action."

Mr. Wainwright said the agreement vindicated the lengthy
international pursuit to recover funds.

The Federal Court found three years ago that Lehman Brothers
Australia had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct,
breached fiduciary duties, breached contracts and acted in
negligence towards plaintiffs.

The finalization of that matter enabled the launch of the class
action against Standard & Poor's in 2013.


STAR SCIENTIFIC: N.D. Ill. Court Dismisses "Baldwin" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case, HOWARD T. BALDWIN and JERRY VAN NORMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STAR SCIENTIFIC, INC., ROCK CREEK PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., and GNC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, No. 14 C 588, (N.D.
Ill.)

Plaintiffs Howard Baldwin and Jerry Van Norman bring this putative
class action against Defendants Star Scientific, Inc., Rock Creek
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and GNC Holdings, Inc. The crux of
Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint is that Anatabloc, a
pharmaceutical product manufactured by Star Scientific's
subsidiary Rock Creek and sold at GNC stores, is not the "wonder
drug" Defendants have advertised it to be. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege the advertising and marketing of Anatabloc was
deceptive in that it claimed the product would provide "anti-
inflammatory support" and other medical benefits, even though
Defendants knew it could not provide those benefits.

Plaintiffs bring this suit under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS Section 505/1,
et seq. and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), MO.
REV. STAT. Section 407.10, et seq.  They also bring claims for
breach of express and implied warranty of merchantability under
Illinois and Missouri law, and a common law claim of unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class composed of all individuals
who purchased Anatabloc in Illinois and Missouri between August 1,
2011 and the present.

Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 2, 2016
available at http://is.gd/oCiJg9from Leagle.com, Judge Pallmeyer
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, but
the dismissal is without prejudice for Counts I, II and VI.

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs':

     -- ICFA and MMPA claims (Counts I and II);

     -- breach of express and implied warranty claims (Counts
        III, IV, V and VI); and

     -- unjust enrichment claim (Count VII)

The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint within 21 days with respect to those claims not
dismissed with prejudice.

Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- Daniel J.
Kurowski, Esq. -- dank@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve W. Berman, Esq.
-- steve@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP serve
as counsel for Plaintiff Howard T. Baldwin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated

Paul J. Walsen, Esq. -- paul.walsen@klgates.com -- John William
Rotunno, Esq. -- john.rotunno@klgates.com -- Matthew Allen Alvis,
Esq. -- matt.alvis@klgates.com -- and Molly K. McGinley, Esq. --
molly.mcginley@klgates.com -- of K&L Gates LLP and Kenn Brotman,
Esq. -- kenn.brotman@klgates.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant Star Scientific Inc.


SUNEDISON INC: Motion to Consolidate Denied
-------------------------------------------
DINA HOROWITZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNEDISON, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:15CV1769 RWS, (E.D. Mo.) is one of three securities class
action lawsuits filed in this district against Defendants.
Various movants have filed motions to consolidate this case with
the other two cases and for appointment of lead counsel and lead
Plaintiff. In doing so, they have lumped the consolidation issue
into one motion with their motions seeking lead Plaintiff and lead
counsel status and have created a confusing mess of a docket
sheet.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/A0AEiZfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Rodney W.
Sippel denied all pending motions. In the event an appropriate
motion to consolidate this action with case numbers 4:15CV1809 ERW
and 4:16CV113 HEA is actually filed in this case, any objection to
consolidation shall be filed within 14 days of the motion being
filed or said objection shall be waived.

The Court said it cannot decide anything about lead counsel and
lead Plaintiffs until the issue of consolidation has been
resolved.

The Court noted that most of the movants did not even bother to
support their request for consolidation with an appropriate legal
memorandum addressing the issue, presumably believing that the
Court would simply grant the request as a routine matter.

So that the docket sheet is clear and to prevent confusion, the
Court denied all pending motions without prejudice to being
refiled in an appropriate fashion. This means filing a separate
motion for consolidation, supported by a relevant legal memorandum
actually addressing the issue of consolidation, for the Court's
consideration. Any such motion shall also indicate whether
Defendants and/or Plaintiff Dina Horowitz consent to
consolidation.

James J. Rosemergy, Esq. of Carey and Danis and Maurice B. Graham,
Esq. of Gray and Ritter, P.C. serve as counsel for Plaintiff Dina
Horowitz

Charles N. Insler, Esq. -- cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- and Glenn E.
Davis, Esq. -- gdavis@heplerbroom.com -- of Hepler Broom serve as
counsel for Defendant SunEdison, Inc.


SUZUKI: Recalls 2014, 2015 Motorcycle Models Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 766
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015604TC
ID number: 2015604
Manufacturer recall number: 114

On certain motorcycles, electrical system performance could be
affected by a weak connection at the crank case, corrosion at the
ignition switch due to exposure to corrosive liquids, and/or
improper routing causing wiring to wear against the fuel tank.
These issues could potentially result in engine stalling and a
loss of motive power, inability to shut off the engine with the
ignition key, or short circuits potentially resulting in a fire.
An increased risk of injury and/or damage to property could
result. Correction: Dealers will relocate the crankcase ground
wire, inspect the ignition switch wiring and wiring harness in
proximity to the fuel tank for corrosion and/or abrasion damage,
and repair as necessary. Dealers will also add shielding and
abrasion resistant material to protect the wiring.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  SUZUKI                 2014, 2015


SUZUKI: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 1664
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015605TC
ID number: 2015605
Manufacturer recall number: 113

On certain motorcycles, contamination between the valve tappet and
cam may cause the hardened surface of the valve tappet to peel if
the surface shape of the valve tappet is convex. This would allow
the inner part of the valve tappet to come in contact with the
cam, which could cause both the valve tappet and cam to wear,
increasing the valve tappet clearance. If the valve tappet
clearance becomes large, it can result in an abnormal noise and
can cause the engine to stall. An engine stall could lead to a
loss of stability of the motorcycle, which could increase the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: For
motorcycles with odometer readings of 4,000 kilometers or greater,
dealers will inspect the tappet clearances and will replace the
valve tappets and camshafts if the valve tappets clearances are
greater than the specification. For motorcycles with odometer
readings of less than 4,000 kilometers, dealers will replace the
tappets and camshafts, because the tappet clearances may be within
the specification at low mileage even if there is abnormal wear.

  Make       Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----         ----------------------
  SUZUKI    GLADIUS 650    2013, 2014, 2013, 2014, 2013, 2014
            (SFV650A)
  SUZUKI    V-STROM 650    2013, 2014
           (DL650A)
  SUZUKI    GSX1250FA      2014, 2015


TAX LAW ADVOCATES: Violated TCPA, "Meyer" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Melissa Meyer, on behalf of herself and on behalf of and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tax Law Advocates
the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00086 (C.D. Cal., January 20,
2016), seeks up to $1,500 in damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently and knowingly
contacting Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant provides tax support to thousands of consumer
nationwide. It conducts business in the State of California and in
the County of Orange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOSHIBA MEDICAL: Recalls RADREX-I Products
------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Posting date: January 22, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56740

When an operator performs radiography with Wireless FPD, the
following message may be displayed on the monitor: "The image
cannot be acquired from FPD. Press ok to try retrieving." however,
when the operator selects "ok" or "cancel" on the message window,
the image is not acquired and is lost.

Affected products
A. RADREX-I
Lot or serial number: S/N: W8B14X2014; S/N: W8B1512017
Model or catalog number: DRAD-3000E_/W8

Manufacturer: Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation
              1385 Shimoishigami
              OTAWARA-SHI
              324-8550
              JAPAN


UBER: Driver Background Check in Spotlight After Recent Shooting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Holley, writing for The Washington Post, reports authorities
said they are investigating whether Uber driver Jason Brian Dalton
may have given a harrowing ride to a passenger shortly before he
allegedly embarked on a shooting spree in Kalamazoo, Michigan,
that killed six -- and that he may have continued picking up fares
in the middle of the rampage.

Ultimately, investigators may decide that there was no reliable
way to predict that Dalton would, during a single shift on the
job, morph from his identity as a driver into his role as a
alleged mass killer. Police say Dalton didn't have a criminal
history.

An Uber spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because
he was not authorized to speak on the record about the Feb. 21
incidents, told The Washington Post that Dalton had passed a
background check required for the company's drivers.

The incident comes just weeks after Uber settled two class-action
lawsuits for $28.5 million that accused the company of
exaggerating the safety of its background checks.  Although the
company used phrases such as "safest ride on the road" and
"industry-leading background checks," the suits claimed, it did
not check Uber drivers against the national sex-offender registry
or employ fingerprint identification.

"We learned of systemic failures in Uber's background checks," San
Francisco District Attorney George Gascon said in reference to the
lawsuits, according to Forbes.  "We have learned they have drivers
who are convicted sex offenders, thieves, burglars, kidnappers and
a convicted murder."

The Feb. 20 shooting in Kalamazoo appeared to begin with a bizarre
twist.

A man told a local television station that an Uber driver who
looked like Dalton picked him up about 90 minutes before the
shooting rampage began.

"We were driving through medians, driving through the lawn,
speeding along, and when we came to a stop, I jumped out of the
car and ran away," Matt Mellen told WWMT News.  "He wouldn't stop.
He just kind of kept looking at me like, 'Don't you want to get to
your friend's house?' and I'm like, 'I want to get there alive.' "

Mr. Mellen said he contacted police and Uber about the wild ride.
Then he recognized the face when local media posted photos of the
alleged shooter.

"I'm upset because I tried contacting Uber after I had talked to
the police, saying that we needed to get this guy off the road,"
Mr. Mellen told WWMT.

Uber drivers without criminal histories have committed crimes
before.

Patrick Karajah, 26, a driver in Pacifica, California, had no
criminal record.  But in 2014, he pleaded guilty to felony charges
of assault with a deadly weapon and battery with serious bodily
injury.  Officials said he struck a 25-year-old passenger in the
head with a hammer, fracturing his skull, after an argument about
the route Mr. Karajah was taking.

Uber has defended its screening process. In a detailed statement
explaining the procedures in July, the company said that all
drivers must undergo a screening process performed by Checkr,
which Uber said is "nationally accredited by the National
Association of Professional Background Screeners."  Along with
several other checks, the company searches federal, state and
local databases for convictions going back seven years.

Critics have said that seven years doesn't peer far enough into a
potential driver's past.  But the company has said that seven
years "strikes the right balance" between protecting the public
and offering "ex-offenders the chance to work and rehabilitate
themselves."

At the same time, Uber's terms and conditions emphasize that
passengers accept risk by riding in one of their vehicles.

"You understand, therefore, that by using the application and the
service, you may be exposed to transportation that is potentially
dangerous, offensive, harmful to minors, unsafe or otherwise
objectionable," Uber's terms and conditions read.


UNIT PETROLEUM: Consul Properties Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David L. Russell granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss the class allegations in the case, CONSUL PROPERTIES, LLC,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIT PETROLEUM COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
CIV-15-840-R, (W.D. Okla.)

The plaintiffs assert payment of royalty interests from leases.

A copy of the Court's Order dated February 2, 2016, is available
at http://is.gd/8tUkU6from Leagle.com.

Conner L Helms, Esq. -- Conner@helmsunderwood.com -- Erin M Moore,
Esq. -- emoore@helmsunderwood.com -- Gary R Underwood, Esq. --
gary@helmsunderwood.com -- Lincoln C Hatfield, Esq. --
lhatfield@helmsunderwood.com -- and Tiffany K Peterson, Esq. --
tpeterson@helmsunderwood.com -- of Helms & Underwood serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Consul Properties LLC

Mia Vahlberg, Esq. -- mvahlberg@gablelaw.com -- of Gable & Gotwals
and Richard P Hix, Esq. of McAfee & Taft serve as counsel for
Defendant Unit Petroleum Company


VICTORIAN PAPER: Recalls Tealight Holders Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 22, 2015
Posting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56374

The model recalled is 20 CN 2024966, with the UPC 792923249665 and
the following batch purchase order numbers 100063847 and
100067156.

During product testing by the manufacturer, it was noted that the
diameter of the hole in the top hat is too small which can allow
heat to build up and create cracks in the surface posing a fire
hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

Victorian Trading Company has received 3 reports of cracks in the
holder. No reports of fire were received.

Thirteen units of the recalled products were sold in Canada online
through the Victorian Trading Company and 960 were distributed in
the United-States.

The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to October 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Itart's Int'l Co. Ltd.
              Taipei
              TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA

Distributor: Victorian Paper Company dba
              Victorian Trading Company
             Lenexa
             Kansas
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tealight
holder and contact the Victorian Trading Company to receive a full
refund.

For more information, consumers can contact the Victorian Trading
Company at 866-851-6633, 7:00 a.m. - 10 p.m. CST daily or visit
the company's Website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/JKDt4Y


WASHINGTON: Defendants' Motion for Qualified Immunity Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert J. Bryan adopted in part a report and
recommendation in the case, MICHAEL HOLMBERG, Plaintiff, v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF WASHINGTON, BERNARD WARNER, PATRICK
GLEBE, and CHERYL ROIKO, Defendants, Case No. 15-5374 RJB-JRC,
(W.D. Wash.)

In this civil rights case, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, asserts
claims for retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  Plaintiff also asserts state
law claims.

The Court reviewed on the Report and Recommendation of U.S.
Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. It also considered the
Defendants' objections, Plaintiff's responses to Defendants'
objections, and the remaining record.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant, in part, and
deny, in part, the Defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which was construed as a motion to dismiss under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It recommends that to the extent that
Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims on behalf of other
inmates those claims should be dismissed; to the extent that
Plaintiff is attempting to litigate a class action, class
certification should be denied.

The Report and Recommendation recommends that the claims against
Defendants Glebe and Warner be dismissed for failure to allege
sufficient facts against them; but recommends also that the Court
should grant Plaintiff leave, if he wishes, to file an amended
complaint to plead facts which would state a claim against them.
It recommends dismissal with prejudice of damages claims against
the Department of Corrections (DOC), Glebe and Warner (to the
extent that he makes claims against them in their official
capacities) because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The Report and Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff's claims
for injunctive relief against the DOC, Glebe and Warner be
dismissed with leave to amend, if Plaintiff wishes.  It recommends
the Court find that the Plaintiff has sufficiently stated enough
facts to support a claim for retaliation for the exercise of his
First Amendment rights. The Report and Recommendation recommends
that Defendants' motion for qualified immunity be denied at this
stage. The Report and Recommendation also urges dismissal of the
state law claims with leave to amend, if Plaintiff wishes.

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/6CKKiwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bryan adopted in part
the Report and Recommendation.  Specifically, Judge Bryan ruled
that:

     a) The motion for qualified immunity is denied without
        prejudice and to the extent that Defendants move to
        dismiss the damages claims against DOC, Glebe and Warner
        (in Glebe and Warner's official capacities) based on
        Eleventh Amendment immunity, that motion is denied.

     b) The Report and Recommendation is adopted in all other
        respects.

     c) Plaintiff's amended complaint, if any, is due within
        30 days of the date of the present order.

     d) The case is re-referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge J.
        Richard Creatura.


WHIRLPOOL: Environmental Class Action Dismissed After Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hunter, writing for Times Record, reports that Whirlpool's
annual report to the state indicates that contamination cleanup
efforts in and around the company's shuttered Fort Smith plant
reduced toxic concentration levels between 53 percent to 83
percent in targeted areas.

A portion of Whirlpool Corp.'s sprawling property on Jenny Lind
Road has been contaminated with trichloroethylene, or TCE, since
the late 1980s when it was discovered in groundwater after the
removal of an underground fuel storage tank, according to
Whirlpool's environmental consulting firm, Ramboll Environ.  The
toxic chemical was discovered underneath a nearby neighborhood in
2001.

In Whirlpool's 2015 report to the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality, company spokesman Jeff Noel notes that
remediation activities included chemical injections and continued
monitoring of soil, groundwater and vapors. The report cites "two
years of success and progress in Fort Smith."

"Importantly, there were no findings that changed the conclusion
that there remains no health risk to Fort Smith residents from
exposure to TCE in the groundwater beneath or near the Whirlpool
property," Mr. Noel wrote in a report summary.

TCE was used at the Fort Smith plant as an industrial solvent
beginning in the late 1960s, according to Whirlpool.  Whirlpool
says it stopped using TCE in the early 1980s when it was deemed
harmful.  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
people who drink water containing TCE well in excess of the
maximum contaminant level for many years could experience problems
with their liver and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Whirlpool closed its Fort Smith plant in June 2012, but had been
working with the ADEQ for more than a decade regarding the
contamination.  Whirlpool was given the nod in December 2013 for a
cleanup plan, called a Remedial Action Decision Document or RADD,
to address the TCE.  Since early 2014, TCE countermeasures have
included treatment of contaminated groundwater with a chemical
oxidant and removal of toxic soil.

"The remediation efforts have resulted in reductions of TCE
concentrations of 83 percent in certain targeted areas and 53
percent in the source area," Mr. Noel wrote, "and have created and
increased the separation of the north and south plume."

The northern "plume" of contamination includes a residential
neighborhood with about two dozen properties between Brazil and
Ingersoll avenues.  In 2015, a settlement was reached with
plaintiffs whose property north of the plant was devalued by the
contamination. Settlement terms called for Whirlpool to pay
affected owners the amount by which each property was devalued
according to the Sebastian County tax assessor, plus 33 percent.

"As a result of these agreements, the environmental class action
lawsuit and most individual lawsuits against Whirlpool were
dismissed," Mr. Noel wrote.

The southern swath of TCE on Whirlpool property shows
"predominantly stable to decreasing" toxic trends for 31 of 35
wells, according to the company.  The northern contamination area
reflects the same trend with 36 of 42 wells.  "These stable and
decreasing TCE concentration trends demonstrate that natural
attenuation processes are naturally addressing the groundwater
impacts at the site," Noel wrote.


XL FOODS: August 17 E. Coli Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Linda Larsen, writing for Food Poisoning Bulletin, reports that a
$4,000,000 class action settlement has been reached against XL
foods in Alberta, Canada.  A huge beef recall and E. coli O157:H7
outbreak four years ago sickened at least 18 people in Canada. The
settlement is available for anyone sickened or who suffered an
economic loss in the United States or Canada.

The class action lawsuit was filed in 2013.  A review found that
the 2012 outbreak was caused by a lax approach to food safety.
That review also found that XL Foods was not prepared to handle a
large recall.  About a million pounds of beef was recalled in the
United States in 2012, which included about 1,800 different types
of beef products.  About 1.5 million pounds of XL Foods beef was
recalled in Canada.  After an import ban, XL Foods was cleared to
ship beef to the United States again in December 2012.

The deadline for filing a claim is August 17, 2016. The class
action alleges that XL Foods "negligently produced certain beef
products processed at the Brooks facility," and that "XL Foods was
negligent in the design and implementation of control, sampling
and testing procedures and that, upon discovering the possible E.
coli contamination, XL Foods was negligent in managing the
resulting product recall."

E. coli O157:H7 bacteria is often found in cattle.  Those animals
lack a gene that would make them sick from the bacteria.  The
bacteria is excreted in poop.  When these animals are slaughtered,
the intestines may explode, which can contaminate the carcass.
Then, when the carcass is carved up into cuts, the bacteria can
spread onto the surfaces.

This issue is especially problematic for ground beef products and
mechanically tenderized whole beef cuts.  The grinding process
used to make ground beef spreads the bacteria all through the
product.  Then, when that ground beef is used to make hamburgers
that are not well cooked to 165øF, the E. coli bacteria can make
people sick.  Mechanically tenderized cuts, which include steaks
and roasts that are pierced by small needles or blades, have the
same issue.  The cutting process can force the bacteria deep into
the meat.  When a steak is served rare after this process, people
can get sick.

The outbreak in Canada ended in December of 2012.  The recall for
contaminated beef was expanded nineteen times.  JBS Foods took
over the XL plant in the fall of 2012.  The USDA issued a public
health alert for XL beef products in October 2012.


ZIMBABWE: National Park Faces Class Action Lake Chivero
-------------------------------------------------------
The Zimbabwean reports that the row over the installation of a
boom gate at Lake Chivero has spilled into court as clubs and tour
operators take action to protest the handling of National Park's
affairs at the lake.

The legal contestation comes after many fruitless attempts by the
clubs and operators to engage the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife
Management Authority, commonly known as National Parks, on many
issues.  Among the most important is stopping the National Parks
collection of entry fees in contravention of their own
regulations, SI 362 of 1990 page 20075, 6 (1) which state that-an
entry point has to be designated by a written notice by the
director on a prescribed or a designated road.

As it stands now, visitors are expected to pay an entry fee of
$1.00, a $3.00 parks' fee, a $3.00 fishing fee, $5.00 for boating
and $20.00 for fishing competitions.  Research students are
expected to fork out $50.00 for a research permit which has made
the park an expensive venue all round.

The authority has also been criticized over its handling of fish
stocks in the lake, as they continue to issue angling licenses to
private fisherman in spite severely depleted populations.  This
has been attributed to rampant poaching, as well as the huge
levels of commercial fishing taking place.  When the lake was
first constructed, an environmental impact assessment recommended
that only two commercial fishing licenses should be issued rather
than the 39 issued and in operation today.

Under the same National Parks Statutory Instrument Chapter 8
Subsection (B) parks have prohibitions that state that without
permission from an officer, no person shall within the parks and
wildlife estate cause any noise or behave in any manner likely to
disturb wildlife or any person or commit any act liable to
endanger the adequacy or purity of any water.

But Lake Chivero has a huge problem with noise pollution which is
out of control due to the increase in the number of night clubs
operating along the lake, not to mention the appalling state of
waste disposal, and the poaching of trees and fish.

As a result of National Parks' mismanagement, a total of nine
clubs have closed, citing the decline in customers and the
continued decline of conditions at the lake.  The remaining clubs
and operators have downsized their work forces.  Compounding
matters is the fact that the Lake is at the lowest level it has
been in the last twenty years due to poor rains.

The class action brought before the high court late in December
2015 by the Lake Chivero Users Association (LCUA) was deferred to
2016, frustrating the Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality efforts
to entice school groups and tertiary students to tour the Lake and
its environs.  In an interview with Harare News, Tourism and
Hospitality Minister, Walter Mzembi, said the thrust of the new
tourism plan being crafted is to promote domestic tourism and give
every Zimbabwean child a chance to visit a natural wildlife area
close to their locality.  This is being diminished by the various
fees and tolls.

Lake Chivero, which supplies water to Harare and neighbouring
towns, and the surrounding National Parks, was designated as the
recreational area for Harare some 60 years ago.  Over the last 15
years, a gradual decline in environmental management and quality
has forced facilities to close.  As standards have dropped, the
lake and surrounds have developed a bad reputation.  According to
the LCUA, the class action is a last resort as National Parks have
repeatedly refused to discuss issues relating to the deteriorating
state of the lake.

Vice-chairperson of the LCUA Gary Stafford said that the LCUA has
been responsible for maintaining roads, putting up signage, and
donating fuel to the National Parks anti-poaching unit -- efforts
that have seemingly gone unnoticed and unreciprocated by the
authorities.


* Class Actions Among Issues on Agenda for Competition Lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grania Langdon-Down, writing for The Law Society Gazette, reports
that cartels, class actions, damages, compliance, merger control,
state aid and tax are just some of the issues on the agenda for
competition lawyers in 2016.  A crystal ball might also be handy
to predict what could happen to national competition policy if
Britain leaves the EU.

The competition focus is not only external -- the spotlight over
the next year is also on the legal sector itself as the
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigates how the
market is operating for individual consumers and small and medium-
sized enterprises.

The CMA study comes after the authority was told to improve its
performance by public spending watchdog the National Audit Office,
which noted that fines in the UK were running at a fraction of
those in Germany.

A week after that warning the CMA announced that it was fining
Glaxo-SmithKline GBP37 million for market abuse, with a further
GBP8 million in penalties imposed on the other drug companies
involved.  GSK is considering grounds for appeal.

The CMA was created nearly two years ago with the merger of the
Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission.  So far it
has received mixed reviews, and the NAO recommends that its powers
are enhanced.  According to NAO head Amyas Morse, the authority
has tackled previous failings, resulting in a more coherent
competition regime, but there are still too few successful
enforcement cases.  Business awareness of competition law could
also be improved.

Peter Willis, co-head of Bird & Bird's competition & EU law
practice group, points out that in comparison the French
competition authority issues 30-40 decisions a year, so there is
scope for the CMA to gear up its investigations significantly. "It
is doing a decent job building on the two legacy authorities and
creating a new culture," he says, 'and now it needs to do some
more enforcement.'

It is still early days, says Vicky Sandry, Sky UK's director of
legal -- competition, corporate and regulatory. With Sky operating
in broadcasting and telecoms -- both heavily regulated sectors --
she and her team of 24 cover merger filings, CMA references,
competition investigations and information requests, as well as
advising the business on compliance.

"Competition law is always in the forefront of our minds," she
says.  "As a leader in our sectors, everyone has an opinion on
Sky.  We generally have one investigation or another on at any one
time and have done since I joined 16 years ago.

"Our most recent interaction with the CMA was on the BT EE merger,
where we were an interested third party and received lots of
information requests."

These requests are very challenging, she says, because they often
come with "unbelievably short deadlines", which is a burden on the
business.  "If you believe a merger is going to be bad for
competition you have to put your case forward," she says.  "The
authorities always look at the submissions with a degree of
cynicism, so the challenge is to make sure your concerns are
backed up in competition theory and economics.'

Marc Israel, who heads Macfarlanes' competition/EU group, says the
CMA had an "embarrassing" defeat last year in the galvanized steel
tanks case, where one person pleaded guilty but the other two
defendants were acquitted by a jury.  "This highlights the
importance of the rule changes in 2014," he says, "which mean
prosecutors will no longer have to prove dishonesty but just show
the alleged conspirators agreed.  This will make it much easier to
bring successful cases."

Stephen Blake, CMA cartels and criminal group head, acknowledged
that the verdicts prompted the authority to drop two criminal
investigations.  But he stresses the 'old offence is not dead',
and the authority is still investigating suspected cartel activity
in the supply of construction industry products, where there have
been seven arrests but as yet no charges.

For Andrew Levy, general counsel at Stagecoach, the CMA's outreach
program, which looks at regional businesses and how familiar they
are with competition law, is a "good use of resources".  He
highlights a recent case where the authority fined an association
of estate and lettings agents in Hampshire, three of its members
and a newspaper publisher GBP735,000 for infringing competition
law.

New this year will be the EU directive on damages.  Designed to
make it easier for businesses and individuals to claim
compensation, this directive has to be implemented by the end of
2016.

The UK is taking a low-key approach on the basis that national
policy already "ticks the boxes", with the government running a
short consultation on how it should implement the directive.

But Mr. Willis says there is a key change in disclosure rules
which could have a significant impact on the attraction of our
courts. Claimants looking to bring competition damages claims
choose English courts, he says, because our extensive disclosure
regime is "complete anathema" in many continental legal systems,
adding: "But that edge may go once the directive levels the
playing field."

One area where the UK is leading the way on private enforcement of
damages claims is in introducing an opt-out class action under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Claimants will be allowed to bring standalone or follow-on claims
from a competition decision.  However, transition provisions mean
follow-on claims can only be brought against post-October 2015
cartels.

Mr. Willis says the new jurisdictional rules will give the
Competition Appeal Tribunal a new lease of life.  "A couple of
firms are looking to bring the first class action under the new
provision," he says, "but there are a lot of practical
difficulties to overcome first, and firms have had their fingers
burnt before over this type of claim when they haven't been set up
properly."

The gateway for bringing a claim will be superintended by a judge,
says competition specialist David Greene, senior partner of London
commercial practice Edwin Coe.  "One of the primary questions will
be can you fund this case through to trial? With opt-in actions
you don't have to lay bare the way you plan to fund and organize
it."

Leading costs barrister Roger Mallalieu, of 4 New Square Chambers,
says the new opt-out provision appears well suited to financial
services-type consumer compensation claims.

"However, there are problems with funding and costs, primarily due
to lack of clarity and experience," he says.  Contingency fee
arrangements are prohibited, so the assumption appears to be that
these claims will be brought by a suitable institutional
representative of a "class", and that the institutional
representative, a third-party funder or the legal representatives,
through a conventional CFA, will either bear or share the cost
burden.

While campaigning and consumer rights organizations may be tempted
to bring a claim, Mr. Mallalieu says the incentive for many
institutional representatives will be limited, given the
potentially substantial adverse costs exposure.

Within the European Commission (EC) itself, the focus for 2016 is
strongly on the digital single market and "geo-blocking", where
access to internet content is restricted based on the user's
geographical location.

The EC has ignored online markets for years, Willis says, leaving
them to national competition authorities.  But, he adds: "Its
e-commerce sector inquiry has now kicked off with questionnaires
and, if previous inquiries are anything to go by, we will see a
spate of individual investigations, so any company doing a lot of
online business should be under no illusions that this isn't going
to have important implications on what they can and cannot do."

The digital single market is a real focus for Sky, Ms. Sandry
says.  Last summer, the commission sent a Statement of Objections
to Sky UK and six Hollywood studios alleging that certain clauses
in content licensing agreements between them would restrict the
cross-border provision of pay TV services and are in breach of EU
competition law.  This is now waiting on the outcome of the oral
hearing held in January.

At the same time, Sky is working closely with the commission on
its separate portability proposals, which would introduce a new
right for consumers to travel with content that they have paid for
in their home territory.  There are also reviews of the telecoms
framework directive and the audio-visual media services directive
-- "pragmatically, one of our biggest concerns is managing the
workload", Ms. Sandry says.

Macfarlanes' Israel flags up other antitrust challenges by the EC
which include Google's internet search services, which favor its
own comparison shopping product; Google's mobile operating system
Android (in a statement on its official blog, Google has denied it
is harming competition); and Amazon's e-book distribution and
relationship with publishers (Amazon said it 'is confident that
our agreements with publishers are legal and in the best interests
of readers.  We look forward to demonstrating this to the
commission as we cooperate fully during this process').

The Gazprom case also rumbles on, with the Russian state-
controlled company seeking to appease the commission by promising
to change its behavior.

Clementi revisited?

Solicitors may see their clients through the best and worst of
times, but the profession rarely tops popularity polls.  But
lawyers will need to sing their own praises during the CMA study
into the legal market (see tinyurl.com/zzak5ew), or risk giving
ground to those with different agendas.

As one competition partner with experience of CMA studies warns:
"It is possible to sleepwalk into disaster.  If the CMA only hears
from those with gripes, it will be hard to dislodge that
impression.  This is already a fiercely competitive market."

The CMA says its study is driven by issues around affordability
and access to legal services, which is why it is focusing on the
experiences of individual consumers and SMEs.  An interim report
is due in July and any reference for a full-scale market
investigation has to be made within a year of launching the
initial study.

The CMA plans to examine three key issues:  whether customers can
drive effective competition by making informed purchasing
decisions of legal services; whether customers are adequately
protected from potential harm and can obtain satisfactory redress
if legal services should go wrong; and how regulation and the
regulatory framework of the sector impacts on competition for the
supply of legal services.

The authority is still working on the scope of the study but it
expects case studies to include will-writing and probate,
employment law and possibly commercial law.  The Bar Standards
Board has raised concerns that this will not generate much insight
into advocacy services, particularly in relation to family law,
where cuts have left clients particularly vulnerable.

"It's about transparency and the ability of the consumer to
compare services and prices," says David Greene, former president
of the London Solicitors Litigation Association.  His concern is
that the underlying dynamic of competition inquiries tends to be
about price.

"Price is only one element of the service provided," says
Mr. Greene, senior partner of London commercial practice Edwin
Coe, who specialises in competition issues.  "You have to look at
the quality of the service, its efficiency and the end result
because a lot of factors come into play."

"The potential danger for the profession is a further chipping
away at the reserved services.  There is a move, again driven by
price, for de-skilling and de-professionalising. But the consumer
doesn't necessarily gain an advantage from that because quality
can go down."

So far the number of responses to the CMA's request for
submissions is "in the tens", according to Rachel Merelie, the
CMA's senior director of delivery.  She accepts it will be a
challenge to get the provider perspective: "It is a fragmented
market, so we will work through representative bodies.  We want to
speak to both regulated and unregulated firms and new entrants."

A big focus will be on the regulatory framework, which is already
under review by the Ministry of Justice.  The Legal Services Board
weighed in early, telling the CMA that the current system of
regulation is unsound.

In its initial response to the CMA study, the Law Society stressed
the market was not fair as solicitors, who are heavily regulated,
have to compete with unregulated providers and argued regulation
should be applied equally to all providers.

Chancery Lane chief executive Catherine Dixon enlarged on this in
an article for Gazette, calling for "holistic" reform and the
introduction of a single regulator.

So is the commission favoring the carrot or the stick? 'That is
the million-dollar question,' says Johan Ysewyn, head of Covington
& Burling's EU competition group.  "The commission likes its
fines, but I think it takes a balanced view that it also likes
companies changing their trading behavior."

What is worrying business is the changing nature of anti-cartel
enforcement, he says.  "A cartel is no longer people sitting in a
smoke-filled room agreeing prices.  Now there are triangular
cartels -- or hub and spoke -- where you hear from a customer that
your competitor is doing something and you react.  But I know the
fee rates of every law firm because my clients tell me -- does
that mean I am in a cartel?

He adds: "Then there is 'signalling' -- a new toy of the
competition authorities -- where a company issues a unilateral
announcement that it is going to close a plant or increase prices
and its competitors react.  There are some big signalling cases at
a European level which are close to settlement, with the parties
saying they will no longer issue press releases. But is that
really a cartel?"

In another development, European commissioner Margrethe Vestager
has suggested that the cartel leniency program could be extended
to non-cartel cases, so a company that admitted liability would
get a 10% discount on the fine.

Dorothy Livingston, former competition partner and now consultant
with Herbert Smith Freehills, says this could be helpful where it
is not clear if the case involves a cartel or some other
horizontal behavior.

"If you take an abuse of dominance case or a purely vertical case
between, say, a wholesaler and retailer," she says, "they are
often one-off issues and it may be that those involved will take
their chance on the commission not being able to prove the
breach."

However, extending the program is within the commission's own
competence, she says, and if it does, national authorities will
follow suit.

Ms. Sandry says the problem with abuse of dominant position cases
is that it is a very nebulous concept.  "We have been alleged to
have a dominant position in pay TV,' she says.  "But what counts
as abuse is a really interesting question.  These types of case
may not be as susceptible to a leniency approach as a hardcore
cartel because they are not clear-cut. "

At the same time, the authorities and commission are being
criticized for not giving enough credit during investigations to
companies' compliance programs.

"As a business lawyer, I would say the authorities should give
credit, " says Mr. Ysewyn, 'but, objectively, it's extremely
difficult for a competition authority to judge whether a
compliance program is 'good' or 'bad' -- that isn't their job."

With regular bids for rail franchises needing CMA merger
clearance, Levy says: 'Competition compliance is always on
[Stagecoach's] agenda because the implications of getting it wrong
are severe. So the key is embedding it within the company culture
and then constantly reminding and updating staff.'

The area of mergers is certainly critical in competition terms.
With M&A activity last year at record levels, competition
authorities have had to respond to more aggressive and strategic
deals.  More than EUR60 billion of deals -- 20 transactions --
were prohibited or abandoned on antitrust grounds, according to an
Allen & Overy briefing paper on global trends in merger control
enforcement, with a further 92 cases subject to interference in
the form of remedies.

Also making headlines are battles over tax as multinationals shift
taxable profits to states with beneficial tax regimes.  The
commission proposed measures last year to tackle this "aggressive"
form of tax planning.

Yet it remains unclear when tax breaks become state aid -- and
these issues are going to be to the fore this year, Livingston
says.  "What is evident is that tax law hasn't kept pace with
companies' ability to move money around."

Hovering over all this competition activity is the question of
what would happen if Britain leaves the EU.

Isabel Taylor, competition partner at Slaughter and May, is chair
of the Law Society's 500-strong Competition Section.  "It is hard
to know exactly what the impact will be until we know what the
exit model may be.  On one level, leaving may not mean much change
but, on a more extreme scenario, it could mean a big repatriation
of work to the UK. "

The Competition Section contributed to the Society's October
briefing paper on the EU and the legal sector, which says the
competition regime is recognized as 'one of the major successes'
of the EU.  While Brexit is unlikely to change substantive
antitrust rules in the short-term, because the UK and EU systems
are so similar, it would allow the UK to introduce new national
policies, though it would lose any influence over the content of
EU regulations which will still affect UK business.

Livingston is helping advise clients on the possible implications
of Brexit: "If we leave and, because of the immigration element,
we don't retain close ties, for instance by joining the European
Economic Area or having a Swiss-style agreement, there would be no
ceding of jurisdiction in competition matters to the EC, as
happens now."

This would mean M&A deals that trigger merger controls would have
to be regulated twice and the UK's process is at least as
expensive as the commission's, she says.  The UK could also end up
running parallel investigations into international cartels and
other breaches of competition law.

"We would have more flexibility on state aid, but we would still
be members of the World Trade Organisation so we would be bound by
its rules on state subsidies," she says.  "It would also be
possible to look again at whether competition law offences should
be civil or criminal, and whether we should align the treatment of
individuals with the treatment of their companies.'

Speaking from Brussels, Mr. Ysewyn says: "You would expect people
here to be constantly talking about it but they aren't -- people
expect Britain to do the "sensible" thing and stay in . If it does
leave, the parallel investigations would add time, cost and
complexity to the process which is why the current one-stop shop
is a very attractive tool."

With so much going on, it is not surprising that competition law
is attracting young blood to the area, according to Taylor.

The Competition Section runs an annual GBP1,000 Horsfall Turner
essay prize for trainee solicitors and paralegals.  Last year the
topic was "Brexit: what would it mean for the UK competition law
landscape?"

When the section comes to choose the topic for 2016, it will be
spoilt for choice.


* John Goodson Aided Law Firms to Get State Auditor Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that State
Auditor Andrea Lea agreed to pay inexperienced out-of-state
attorneys a contingency fee nearly twice as high as other states
have committed to pay in the long-odds pursuit of unredeemed U.S.
Treasury bonds that belonged to Arkansans.

The law firms that got the no-bid contract promising 25 percent of
the value recovered were introduced to Lea by one of her campaign
contributors, controversial Texarkana attorney
John Goodson.

The firms that got the contract are Cooper & Kirk of Washington
and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check of Radnor, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Goodson, husband of state Supreme Court Justice Courtney
Goodson, and an attorney from Kessler Topaz were among the 17
attorneys threatened with sanctions by U.S. District Judge P.K.
Holmes III of Fort Smith for maneuvering to get a more favorable
judge in a class-action case.

In hiring the firms that Mr. Goodson recommended, Ms. Lea passed
over the out-of-state lawyers who first pitched the idea of
fighting the federal government for ownership of the bonds and who
are doing the same work for other states for 13 percent or less.

Ms. Lea was able to enter the contract with the Cooper and Kessler
firms thanks to legislative language inserted by state Sen. Jeremy
Hutchinson, R-Little Rock.  Language that Hutchinson added to
Senate Bill 356 last year allowed Ms. Lea to choose counsel
independent of the state attorney general's office without seeking
bids.

The contract calls for the firms to collect a relatively modest 10
percent of the value of the savings bonds already in Arkansas'
possession, those that have been abandoned in safe deposit boxes.
Those fees are estimated in the tens of thousands.

But in a vastly bigger and more difficult case, the firms would
earn 25 percent if they can manage to get title on the state's
behalf to the matured, unclaimed bonds that were held by people
with last known addresses in Arkansas.  The value of those bonds
is estimated to be $160 million, so the case could be a money-
loser for the firms or it could be worth as much as $40 million.

Ms. Lea told Arkansas Business that getting title to what the
lawyers have called "absent bonds" will be a "long shot."  The
Treasury is fighting in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims states'
efforts to obtain title to those absent bonds.

So far, no state has been successful in getting title to the
absent bonds, but 10 states have hired the same consortium of
lawyers that brought the idea to the attention of Arkansas
legislators.  That consortium -- represented by J. Brett Milbourn
of Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan of Kansas City, Missouri,
and Jonathan Compretta of the Mike Moore Law Firm of Flowood,
Mississippi -- is charging the other states contingency fees of 13
percent or less.

Cooper & Kirk and Kessler Topaz, the firms Ms. Lea hired to
represent Arkansas, had no previous experience in this narrow area
of law, and it showed when they first filed suit in Pulaski County
Circuit Court.  Judge Alice Gray denied their request to take
title to unclaimed U.S. bonds -- neither the paper ones in the
hands of the state's unclaimed property managers nor absent bonds
the Treasury believes were last owned by Arkansans.

The attorneys from Cooper and Kessler subsequently got the case in
front of an amenable judge by refiling their suit in Washington
County with the assistance of Fayetteville lawyer
W.H. Taylor. (Taylor has been a frequent co-counsel of John
Goodson and is also among the lawyers facing possible sanctions
for what Judge Holmes called "forum-shopping" in a class-action
case that originated in Polk County.)

Mr. Goodson, his law partner and other associates donated a total
of $20,000 during Lea's 2014 bid for auditor.  Ms. Lea said in a
recent interview that Goodson's campaign contributions didn't play
a role in her choosing the firms he recommended.



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *