---

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

              Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 94



                            Headlines


1050 FORBELL: "Hernandez-Leynes" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Pay
ABC CORP: "Marcial" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
AEROPOSTALE INC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
ALLIED NEVADA: Court Refuses to Add Underwriters to Class Action
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces "Tillman" Suit in M.D. Fla.

ALOGOS INC: "Allen" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ANTHONY C COLUZZI LLC: Faces "Mora" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
BADA STORY: Faces "Riquiac" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles ISDAfix Manipulation Class Action
BARRETT BUSINESS: "Salazar " Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code

BEVMO: Engages in Bait-and-Switch Fraud, Class Action Claims
BP EXPLORATION: "Charbonnet" Sues Over Oil Spill
BT AMERICAS: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CANADA: Newfoundland and Labrador Class Action Talks Ongoing
CENTRAL OHIO GAMING: "Betts" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: "Koppitz" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
CHICAGO 24: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Unpaid Overtime Pay Suit
COMPTON, CA: "Castillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
COMTRANS INCORPORATED: Faces "Hanna" Suit in D. Ariz.
COX ENTERPRISES: Bid to Stay Discovery in Red Barn Case Denied

COX SUBSCRIPTIONS: Sued in California Over Employment Contract
D3S SERVICE LLC: "Chambers" Suit seeks Overtime Pay
DMAX LTD: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Dzieciolowski" Suit
EMA RECOVERY: Faces "Nocera" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
FACEBOOK INC: Wants Birthday Text Messages Class Action Dismissed

FACEBOOK INC: "Holt" Sues Over Unsolicited Texts
FAZAL DEVELOPMENT: "Sagastume" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FIVE STAR: Recalls Sushi Style Imitation Crab Sticks Due to Egg
FLINT, MI: Human Rights Experts Call for Action on Water Crisis
FORD MOTOR: Australian Class Action May Impact NZ Cars

FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GENUINE TITLE: Risch to Substitute Boyd in "Fangman"
GO 2 TRANSPORTATION: Faces Truth-In-Leasing Breach Class Action
GOLDEN STATE: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Parson"
GOOGLE INC: Adwords Case Best Test of Future of Class Action

GVC HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Sportingbet Operations
HERBERT BRUISTER: 5th Cir. Affirms District Court in ERISA Suits
HIRERIGHT INC: Bid for Preliminary Settlement Approval Reinstated
HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Mango Fruit Bars Due to Coconut
HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata 2015 and Elantra 2017 Models

INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER: "Gandy" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
INTREXON CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KEYSTONE MERCY: Court Tosses Patient Data Breach Class Action
LERS ROS: Faces "Chaowanapanja" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LTP SPORTS: Recalls Stainless Steel or Titanium Quick Releases

MAZZONE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Alleged Misappropriation of Tips
MECHEL BLUESTONE: Judge Certifies Laid-Off Miners' Class Action
MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Denial of Class Cert. in "Sandusky" Reversed
MIMI FOODS: Recalls Pizza Dough Ball Products
NAVISTAR INC: "Ferraro" Fraud Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.

NEW MIAMI, OH: Appeals Traffic Camera Class Action Ruling
NEWARK, NJ: Parents Sue School District Over Drinking Water
ORIDION MEDICAL: Recalls Capnostream Battery Packs
PACIFIC SEAFOOD: 9th Cir. Affirms Injunction in "Boardman" Suit
PAN ASIA: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg

PAN ASIA: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
PASADENA HOSPITAL: "Espino" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
PEOPLES BANK: Summary Judgment Dismissing "Gay" Affirmed
RACERMATE INC: Recalls Blue Flywheels Due to Injury Risk
S-L DISTRIBUTION: "Tavares" Class Action Deal Has Final Okay

SAMJIN INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Frozen Fish Cakes Due to Egg
SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Frozen Seafood Products Due to Egg
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls IMMULITE & IMMULITE 1000 Systems
SOS FURNITURE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Florida
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Sued Over Underpayment of Royalties

SPOTIFY: Lowery Balks at Tunecore's Settlement Opt-in Form
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Iron Workers Fund Suit Removed to N.D. Cal
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Securities Suit Removed to N.D. Cal
TICKETMASTER: Settles Class Action Over Excessive Delivery Fees
TOKYO Y2K: Recalls Frozen Imitation Seafood Products Due to Egg

TSC STORES: Recalls Telescoping Lift Due to Injury Hazard
UNITED HEALTH: "Cummings-Reed" Sent to Arbitration
VALLEY HOPE: Faces "Cox" Suit in W.D. Missouri
VERMEER: Recalls 2015 Model Trailers Due to Injury Risk
VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action

WEBBERSFOOD: Recalls Caraway-Pepper Salami Products
WILLIAM SACKETT: Court Rules on Echons' Bid to Compel Discovery

* Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts May Proliferate
* CFPB Set to Announce New Rule on Arbitration Clauses
* Chamber of Commerce Suggests Issues to Address in CFPB Hearing
* NLRB Strikes Down Dealership Arbitration Agreement
* Providence, R.I. Filed Securities Suits Against Corporations


                            *********


1050 FORBELL: "Hernandez-Leynes" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heriberto Hernandez-Leynes on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1050 Forbell Cafe, Inc. and JOHN
KOLJTSOPOULOS, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02039-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y.,
April 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours premium, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law, New York State Wage
Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate Forbell Cafe at 1050 Forbell Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11256 with John Kolitsopoulos as owner.
Plaintiff worked as cook and porter.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      6th Floor, 708 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102


ABC CORP: "Marcial" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Eleazar Marcial, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp. and Jack Chen,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02276-ES-MAH (D.N.J. April 22, 2016),
seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, unpaid overtime and liquidated damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

ABC Corp. operates 23 Buffet Restaurant at 600 Route 23 North,
Pompton Plains, New Jersey where Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher.
Marcial claims that he was paid below mandated minimum wage rates
and denied overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      David Nieporent, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884


AEROPOSTALE INC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Aeropostale, Inc. The case is
captioned Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Aeropostale, Inc., doing business as Aeropostale a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21514-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
April 28, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Kathleen M. Williams.

Aeropostale is an American shopping mall-based specialty retailer
of casual apparel and accessories, principally targeting ages 14-
to-17-year-old men and women through its Aeropostale stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
          SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
          4200 NW 7th Avenue
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (786) 431 1333
          Facsimile: (786) 513 7700
          E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


ALLIED NEVADA: Court Refuses to Add Underwriters to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bevan Brooksbank, Esq. -- BBrooksbank@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a
decision released April 27, 2016 in LBP Holdings Ltd. v. Allied
Nevada Gold Corp., Justice Belobaba dismissed a motion by a
representative plaintiff to add certain underwriters as defendants
to a securities class proceeding.  The defendant gold mining
company, Allied Nevada, effected a secondary public offering
financed as a "bought deal" by two underwriters.  The share price
collapsed following several subsequent "corrective disclosures."
Allied Nevada filed for protection under US bankruptcy law less
than a year after the action was commenced, and a motion was then
brought to add the underwriters as defendants on the basis of
alleged misrepresentations in the offering short form prospectus.

In dismissing the motion, Belobaba J. interpreted the Ontario
Securities Act (the "Act") and held that i) while the underwriters
could be sued under the Act with respect to misstatements in a
prospectus, the primary market statutory claim was time-barred,
and ii) the underwriters were not "experts" so as to fit them
under the definitions of prescribed defendants under the Act's
secondary market statutory cause of action.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces "Tillman" Suit in M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial Inc. The case is
captioned Donell L. Tillman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00313-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., April 28,
2016).

Ally Financial, previously known as GMAC Inc., is an American bank
holding company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
          210-A South MacDill Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 500 1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435 2369
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


ALOGOS INC: "Allen" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Robert Allen, Plaintiff, v. Alogos Inc., Spiros J. Korologos,
Ioannis Korologos, Eric Mathias and Steven Fortinos, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01275-JFM (D. Md., April 28, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorney fees and costs under Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland
Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article Sec. 3-401 et seq.
and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Alogos operates The Horse You Came In On Saloon located in Fells
Point, Baltimore, Maryland where Plaintiff worked as a line cook.
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week
without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George E. Swegman, Esq.
      Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MA 21201
      Phone No.: (410) 244-7005
      Fax No.: (410) 244-8454
      Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


ANTHONY C COLUZZI LLC: Faces "Mora" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Anthony C. Coluzzi, LLC. The case
is captioned Suzanne Mora, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Anthony C. Coluzzi,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02145 (E.D.N.Y., April 29,
2016).

The Defendant is a full-service debt collection company.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BADA STORY: Faces "Riquiac" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Bada Story Inc. The case is
captioned Tomas Ambrocio Riquiac, also known as Mario individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bada
Story Inc. and Jin Y. Chung, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02128
(E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2016).

Bada Story is a restaurant in Flushing that specializes in Korean
style sashimi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles ISDAfix Manipulation Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Golovtchenko, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that
seven banks, amongst which are Bank of America, Citigroup and
JPMorgan Chase, have settled a class action lawsuit in New York,
agreeing to pay $324 million in compensation.  The amount will be
distributed among the plaintiffs as the interest rates benchmark
cases continue taxing big banks several years after the initial
investigations and subsequent fines by various financial
regulators.

Back in March the case was allowed by Judge Jesse M. Furman, who
asserted that a number of institutional investors may have
suffered losses as a result of the ISDAfix manipulation
allegations against 14 big banks.

With the case being similar to the LIBOR investigations that have
yielded similar results for a number of investors, the big banks
continue to be on the hook for failing to supervise the formation
of several interest rates benchmarks.

Law Firm Scott + Scott Class Action Payout Over $1.1 billion
Law firm Scott + Scott has been at the forefront of class action
litigation against a number of big banks involving LIBOR, foreign
exchange rates and now ISDAfix manipulation allegations.  After
this latest settlement, the total amount of money paid by big
banks to plaintiffs represented by the law firm totals over $1.1
billion.

In January 2015 Scott + Scott settled with JPMorgan Chase & Co.
and JPM Chase Bank, N.A. for $99.5 million, a case that was
closely followed with a settlement in March last year.  UBS AG,
UBS Group AG, and UBS Securities LLC have agreed to pay $135
million to prevent further litigation against them.

Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. settled for $394 million in May
2015, while before the current settlement, Bank of America
Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. paid $180 million in April.

The ISDAfix settlement is the second largest for Scott + Scott in
its class action crusade against big banks.  The benchmark is used
to evaluate interest rates on a variety of derivative products.

When allowing the case back in March, Judge Furman outlined: "It
appears that that sort of rate manipulation can be economically
sensible and feasible given that many banks (including some
defendants) have admitted that, in approximately the same period
of time, they conspired to rig similar benchmark rates -- namely,
LIBOR and the leading benchmark interest rate for the foreign
exchange market -- in order to maximize profits."

The banks which were defendants in the case were Bank of America
Corp., Barclays PLC, BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Credit
Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., HSBC Holdings
PLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Nomura Holdings Inc.,
the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, UBS AG and Wells Fargo & CO.


BARRETT BUSINESS: "Salazar " Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Salazar, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., a
Maryland corporation; Allen Construction, Inc., a California
corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC618890 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 29, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and related relief, pursuant to the California Labor
Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and Business and
Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide all
rest breaks, all meal periods, accurate written wage statements,
and to timely pay final wages upon termination of employment.

Barrett Business provides business management solutions for small
and medium-sized companies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Fax: (310) 499-4739
          Phone: (310) 499-4730
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  Caroline@spivaklaw.com


BEVMO: Engages in Bait-and-Switch Fraud, Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Vaughn, writing for CBS Los Angeles, reports that a class-
action suit has been filed that alleges BevMo! engaged in a "bait-
and-switch," displaying price signage for bottles with wine
ratings for specific years that weren't the years for sale on the
shelf.

"It says 2013 on the red BevMo! tag but the bottle is 2014 and I
would never have caught that," said Nicole Rodriguez-Gasperov, a
consumer.

Via hidden camera, CBS2/KCAL9 followed Ms. Rodriguez-Gasperov as
she shopped the wine aisle at her Manhattan Beach BevMo!

"Look here, 'Malbec Mendoza 2012' and the bottle '2013.'  That is
crazy.  How could they do that?" she asked.  "The product should
be what exactly it says it's selling."

But what Ms. Rodriguez-Gasperov found again and again were price
signs with wine ratings for specific years that didn't match the
actual bottles for sale on the shelf.

"So this is saying this brand, 'Red Blend 2013' for $17.95.  The
bottle says it's a '2012,'" Ms. Rodriguez-Gasperov said.

Like many customers, she says she relies on those price signs with
reviews and vintage ratings to decide if she is shelling out good
money or not for the best wine.

"You know I'm reading the description and it's a great bottle of
cab, a 2011, and then I go to grab it, if I don't notice it's a
2012 and I get home, the year matters," she said.  "And if it's
not right, then you kinda feel like you've been swindled a little
bit."

The news station took a hidden camera into four more BevMo!
locations and found the same thing: bottle after bottle, price
signs with great reviews for specific years that weren't the years
available for sale on the shelf.

The clerk at the Studio City BevMo! blamed it on incorrect
signage.

CBS2/KCAL9 Producer: "So, I noticed this review is for the 2014.
Do you have those?"

BevMo! Studio City Clerk: "I do not.  What ends up happening is
they update the signs either too slow or too fast."

CBS2/KCAL9 Producer: "So, it's just that the sign is wrong?"

BevMo! Studio City Clerk: "Correct.  The same price will still
carry over."

And the clerk at the BevMo! in Burbank offered an entirely
different story.

BevMo! Burbank Clerk: "It's the same wine with a new label."

CBS2/KCAL9 Producer: "So, it doesn't matter what year it is?"

BevMo! Burbank Clerk: "It does.  But some is aged from 2011 to
2013."

The clerk went on to say that the year printed on the price sign
is the year the wine won a competition.

CBS2/KCAL9 Producer: "So, it doesn't matter what year?"

BevMo! Burbank Clerk: "It's not the year of the wine.  It's the
year of the competition."

None of these explanations sit well with Attorney Scott Glovsky,
who has filed a class-action lawsuit against BevMo!

"We're suing BevMo! because BevMo! is engaging in an intentional,
systemic, bait-and-switch fraud throughout the state of
California," Mr. Glovsky said. "And then ultimately when people go
to buy the wine, the wine sitting on the shelf behind those signs
is a different wine. It's a different vintage and so essentially
it's a bait-and-switch."

Mr. Glovsky said it's not just in-stores but online, too.

CBS2 found more than 40 interoffice BevMo! emails dating back to
2010 in that court file regarding in-store and online customers.

One states: "customer who is very upset that every time he places
an online order he is given different vintages than what he
requested. He also makes sure to mark 'no' where it states 'allow
vintage substitution.' "

"It's clear that when consumers would uncheck the box, that says
'allow vintage substitution,' so they're specifically telling
BevMo! that, 'I want the wine you're advertising, not a different
wine,' they would still be given the wrong wines when they went to
the store to pick up the wines," Mr. Glovsky said.

In court documents, BevMo! says it prominently displays a
disclaimer regarding vintage substitution.

But the disclaimers the news station saw were so small, our buyer
didn't even notice them.

BevMo! told CBS2:

"While we cannot comment on pending litigations, BevMo! does our
best to exercise best practices within the industry and to provide
quality products and services to our customers. We always
recommend customers check the bottle for vintage if they are
looking for a certain vintage."

"I would just tell my girlfriends and my husband: when you go,
make sure you read the labels and ask, 'This says 2011 but the
bottle's a 2012. Are you out of the 2011? What am I getting,' "
Ms. Rodriguez-Gasperov said.


BP EXPLORATION: "Charbonnet" Sues Over Oil Spill
------------------------------------------------
Linda Charbonnet and Robert Charbonnet, Plaintiffs v. BP
Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, BP,
PLC, Transocean, TLD., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling,
Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holding, L.L.C.,
Triton Assesset Leasing GmBH, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Cameron International Corporation F/K/A Cooper-Cameron
Corporation, Weatherford U.S.L.P., Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Co., Anadarko E&P Company LP, MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC, MOEX USA
Corporation and Mitsui Oil Exploration Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-03843 (E.D. La., April 28, 2016), claim all damages
caused by the rig explosion and water pollution, including but not
limited to remediation, environmental assessments, loss of use and
stigma damages due to contamination of land, diminution of
property values, costs for environmental assessments and all other
recoverable compensatory damages resulting from oil and petroleum
residue from the BP oil spill at 119 Elaine St., Bay St. Louis
Mississippi.

BP Exploration, BP America and BP P.L.C. are the lease operators
of the Macondo prospect site, responsible for assessing the
geology of the prospect site, engineering the well design,
obtaining regulatory approvals for well operations.

Transocean Ltd., Transocean Deepwater, Transocean Offshore,
Transocean Holdings and Triton was responsible for maintaining
well control equipment, provided operational support for drilling-
related activities as well as onshore supervision and support for
those drilling activities.

Halliburton provided engineering services, materials, testing,
mixing, and pumping for cementing operations as well as onshore
engineering support.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darleen Marie Jacobs, Esq.
      DARLEEN M. JACOBS, APLC
      823 St. Louis Street
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Tel: (504) 522-0155
      Email: dollyno@aol.com


BT AMERICAS: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Latasha Davis, Tawanda Ricks, Lacy Kinchen, Frances Cuffee,
Stephane Gassant, Lisa Sorrell-Bickley, Shontala Holland-Harrell,
Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. BT Americas, Inc., BT Conferencing, Inc. and
Manpowergroup US Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00206-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va.,
April 26, 2016) seeks an award of all overtime compensation due
with liquidated damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees, interests and all such other
relief.

BT Americas is a Delaware Corporation that provides
communications-related services and systems integration. BT
Conferencing is a Delaware Corporation that provides audio, video
and web collaboration services. Manpowergroup US provides
contractual labor to these companies. Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants directly or through Manpowergroup. They all claim being
denied overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
      Jason E. Messersmith, Esq.
      PATTEN, WOMOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C.
      12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
      Newport News, VA 23602
      Telephone; (757) 223-4580
      Facsimile: (757) 223-4518
      Email: Jshoemaker@pwhd.com
             jmessersmith@pwhd.com

              - and -

      Cindra Dowd, Esq.
      Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE, P.C.
      Crown Center, Suite 310
      580 East Main Street
      Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
      Telephone: (757) 233-0009
      Facsimile: (757) 233-0455
      Email: rserpe@serpefirm.com
             cdowd@serpefirm.com


CANADA: Newfoundland and Labrador Class Action Talks Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Quinn, writing for CBC News, reports that a member of the
Nunatsiavut government says the status of the Newfoundland and
Labrador residential school class action lawsuit will be updated
early this week.

In a post on Facebook, Dan Pottle, a Nunatsiavut Ordinary Member,
said "The results of the discussions to reach a settlement in the
Class Action will be announced in St. John's on May 10."

Mr. Pottle asked people who see his post to "please share it and
spread the word that all are invited."

He also wrote that he is "hoping for a positive resolution . . .
Nakummek for sharing."

CBC News contacted lawyers for the plaintiffs who said they cannot
comment on the status of the case.

In early February, lawyers for federal government and the
complainants were given until the end of the month to try to reach
an out-of-court settlement or return to court to continue the
trial that began in September 2015.

In late February, the deadline was extended from Feb. 29 to
May 9.

Negotiations are "moving forward in a positive way," said
Kirk Baert, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in an email at that time.
. .

About 1,200 people are represented by the lawsuit, which is before
the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They attended schools and lived in orphanages in Newfoundland and
Labrador and were not included in a 2007 federal settlement and
apology from the Stephen Harper-led government.


CENTRAL OHIO GAMING: "Betts" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Betts, Katheline Marie Day, John Wysincavage, David
Rodrigo, Individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Central Ohio
Gaming Ventures, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00373-EAS-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, April 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
including overtime wages with liquidated damages,  costs and
disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees of counsel and
experts, reimbursement of expenses, injunction and such other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Central Ohio Gaming Ventures is an Ohio limited liability company
operating the Hollywood Casino Columbus located at 200
Georgesville Road, Columbus, Ohio 43228 where the Plaintiffs
worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Phone: 614-949-1181
      Fax: 614-386-9964
      Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

              - and -

      Gregory R. Mansell, Esq.
      MANSELL LAW LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Phone: 614-610-4134
      Fax: 513-826-9311
      Email: greg.mansell@ohio-employmentlawyer.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: "Koppitz" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Koppitz, Plaintiffs, v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake
Exploration, L.L.C., as successor by merger to Chesapeake
Exploration, L.P., Sandridge Energy, Inc., Sandridge Exploration
and Production L.L.C. and Tom L. Ward, Defendants, Case No. CJ-
2016-00019 (Dist. Okla., April 26, 2016), was transferred to the
U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma on April 26,
2016, under Case No. 5:16-cv-00427-D.

Defendants allocated among themselves the leasehold interests for
particular parcels of land across various counties, agreeing not
to compete in acquiring the said leasehold or property interests
to artificially depress royalty and bonus prices for the mineral
rights.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. is a corporation organized under Oklahoma
law with its principal place of business at 6100 N. Western
Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118-1044.

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. is made up of Chesapeake Operating,
L.L.C., Chesapeake E&P Holding Corporation and Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is a corporation existing and operating
under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place
of business at 123 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73102.

Sandridge Exploration and Production L.L.C. is a limited liability
company organized under Delaware law. It is the leasing agent of
SandRidge Energy, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A Wolfe, Esq.
      PATE & WOLFE
      50 Penn Place, Suite 1300
      Oklahoma City, OK 73118
      Tel: (405) 858-0012
      Fax: (405) 858-0013
      Email: Mark19@cox.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq.
      MCAFEE & TAFT-OKC
      211 N Robinson Ave
      10th Fl
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Tel: (405) 235-9621
      Fax: (405) 228-7339
      Email: Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com

              - and -

      Robert G. McCampbell, Esq.
      FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS-OKC
      100 N Broadway Ave., Suite 1700
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
      Tel: (405) 232-0621
      Fax: (405) 232-9659
      Email: rmccampbell@fellerssnider.com


CHICAGO 24: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Unpaid Overtime Pay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has put the brakes on an attempt by a group
of tow truck drivers to collect overtime pay they claimed they
were owed under federal law from a Chicago tow operator.

Judge John J. Tharp Jr. issued an April 26 opinion on a putative
class action complaint three tow-truck drivers filed against
Chicago 24 Hour Towing and its owner, Oren Chen.  The drivers,
Andrew Demma, Felix Ramos and Ruben Gutierrez, argued they should
have been afforded protections under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The judge, however, said the plaintiffs sued under the wrong law,
finding that, since they were regularly dispatched to jobs across
state lines, the federal Motor Carrier Act governed their
relationship with their employer, and not the FLSA.

The decision came down in favor of the company's motion for
summary judgment, in which the tow operator had contended its
drivers should actually be exempted from the FSLA and, by
extension, Illinois' Minimum Wage Law because they are subject to
the Motor Carrier Act regulations.

Judge Tharp explained FLSA overtime exemptions can extend to
workers regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation,
"including interstate drivers who work for motor carriers."  The
plaintiffs conceded they did work outside Illinois between
November 2011 and November 2014. But the drivers also recalled
fewer instances of such work than company paperwork documented,
according to court documents.

In explaining his decision, Judge Tharp cited the 2011 Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Johnson v. Hix Wrecker
Service, which "explored the applicability of the motor-carrier
exemption to tow-truck drivers," such as the plaintiffs who
brought the action against Chicago 24 Hour Towing.  While the
drivers argued their "forays across state lines were too
infrequent or sporadic" in context of tens of thousands of
in-state dispatches, Tharp said Johnson affirmed that "even minor
involvement in interstate commerce as a regular part of an
employee's duties subjects that employee to the Secretary of
Transportation's jurisdiction."

Yet whereas the Johnson decision favored the plaintiffs in that
case, Mr. Chen and his company argued successfully its framework
required Tharp to rule in their favor in this instance.

"It is undisputed that Towing sent drivers out-of-state in almost
every month during the relevant time period and never went four
months without doing so," Judge Tharp wrote.  "The specificity
here as to the frequency of Towing's interstate activities
contrasts with the defendant's 'vague' statement in Johnson that
it 'routinely' provided interstate services."

Since all the company's drivers were subject to out-of-state
calls, and since the named plaintiffs handled many such
assignments, Judge Tharp found no dispute of the regularity of the
company's interstate business.

The drivers attempted to argue the company's flatbed trucks were
more likely to be sent out of state than the wheel-lift truck they
more often operated.  But the judge found, ultimately, the drivers
failed to prove there is a rule that their out-of-state calls were
so minimal as to keep them under FLSA provisions. Tharp also said
the drivers were incorrect to suggest only their roles were
relevant, as exemption depended on both the putative class and the
employer's larger classification.

"The plaintiffs do not dispute that the employer . . . is a motor
carrier subject to DOT regulation," Judge Tharp wrote.  "And they
cannot dispute that, as drivers, they engage in activities that
affect motor vehicle safety in interstate commerce."

Judge Tharp granted the company's motion for summary judgment on
both of the plaintiffs' claims.

The drivers were represented in the action by attorneys with the
Consumer Law Group, of Chicago.

Chicago 24 Hour Towing was defended by attorneys Sheldon M. Lustig
and John H. Wickert, both of Northbrook.


COMPTON, CA: "Castillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Castillo, Jose Luis Gomez, Larry Stewart, Rio Pace, Staci
Lipsey, Darion Timmons and Alan Roman, Plaintiffs, v. City Of
Compton and Does through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02863 (C.D. Cal., April 26, 2016) seeks unpaid wages at
overtime rates, actual, consequential, liquidated and incidental
losses and damages, attorney's fees, interests and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by the City of Compton as Ambulance
Operators. They all claim overtime pay from the City of Compton
for hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMTRANS INCORPORATED: Faces "Hanna" Suit in D. Ariz.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against ComTrans Incorporated. The case
is captioned Gregory Mark Hanna, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ComTrans Incorporated,
an Arizona Corporation, L Neal Thomas, husband, Unknown Thomas,
named as Jane Does Thomas, wife, Cynthia Cross, wife, and Unknown
Cross named as John Doe Cross, husband, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-01282-DKD (D. Ariz., April 29, 2016). The Assigned
Magistrate Judge is Hon. David K Duncan.

ComTrans offers medical equipment rental and leasing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq.
          Ty Derek Frankel, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN
          & BALINT PC - SAN DIEGO, CA
          600 W Broadway, Ste. 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798 4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  tfrankel@bffb.com


COX ENTERPRISES: Bid to Stay Discovery in Red Barn Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. COX ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 1:14-cv-01589-
TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind.), Judge Denise K. Larue denied the motion filed
by the defendants to stay discovery pending a ruling on their
motion to dismiss.

Judge Larue found that the defendants have not shown that the case
is one in which the court should exercise its discretion and stay
discovery.

A full-text copy of the court's May 2, 2016 order is available at
http://is.gd/XAFagUfrom Leagle.com.

Red Barn Motors, Inc. commenced an action on December 3, 2013, in
the Middle District of Louisiana.  Red Barn had entered into an
agreement with Dealer Services Corporation ("DSC") for DSC to
finance Red Barn's purchase of vehicles at auction.  Red Barn
alleged that DSC would not pay the auction house until DSC
received the title but would charge interest and fees to Red Barn
when it made the purchase, sometimes weeks before funds were
transferred to the auction house.  Red Barn alleged breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

RED BARN MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Cassie E. Felder
-- cfelder@lawlaw.com -- LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN &
HUBBARD, Gladstone N. Jones -- gjones@jonesswanson.com -- JONES
SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC, pro hac vice, James M. Garner --
jgarner@shergarner.com -- SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN &
HILBERT, LLC, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Melder, CASSIE FELDER &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Kerry A. Murphy -- kmurphy@jonesswanson.com --
JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC, pro hac vice, Lynn E.
Swanson -- lswanson@jonesswanson.com -- JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL&
GARRISON, LLC, pro hac vice, Matthew M. Coman --
mcoman@shergarner.com -- SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN &
HILBERT LLC, pro hac vice & Ryan D. Adams -- radams@shergarner.com
-- SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT LLC, pro hac vice.

YOUNG EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., PLATINUM
MOTORS, INC., MATTINGLY AUTO SALES, INC., Plaintiffs, represented
by James M. Garner, SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT,
LLC.

COX ENTERPRISES, INC., COX AUTOMOTIVE, INC., JOHN WICK, Defendant,
represented by David J. Jurkiewicz -- jurkiewicz@boselaw.com --
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP & Paul D. Vink -- pvink@boselaw.com --
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP.

NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC., Defendant, represented by David J.
Jurkiewicz, BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP, Paul D. Vink, BOSE
MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP & Steven D. Groth, BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS,
LLP.


COX SUBSCRIPTIONS: Sued in California Over Employment Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Karmelich, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the State of California, the Plaintiffs, v.
Cox Subscriptions, Inc., doing business as WT Cox Information
Services, a North Carolina Corporation; and Does 1 - 30,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC618869 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including
commissions, and for requiring its California workers to execute
an unlawful contract of employment, which acts as a restraint on
trade, business, or profession.

The lawsuit also seeks equitable relief, including a temporary and
permanent injunction to ensure that Defendants will not seek to
enforce the covenant not to compete as to California employees and
will not utilize the clause in the future as to California
employees.

According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into Original
Contracts of Employment which provisions include that if the
Employee, voluntarily or involuntarily, terminates or has his
employment terminated, Employee will not compete with the Company.
This agreement violates California law as California Business and
Professions Code prohibits employee non-compete agreements and
covenants not to compete.

Cox Subscriptions provides subscription services for libraries in
California and elsewhere in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK
          445 Bush St., Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 693 0300
          Facsimile: (415) 693 0393
          E-mail: http://www.pasternaklaw.com.

                - and -

          Sean M. Kneafsey, Esq.
          KNEAFSEY & FRIEND LLP
          800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 710
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892 1200
          Facsimile: (213) 892 1208
          E-mail: skneafsey@kneafseyfriend.com


D3S SERVICE LLC: "Chambers" Suit seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Richard Chambers, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, plaintiff, v. D3S Service LLC and Scott
Klintworth, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01161 (S.D. Tex., April
28, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
incentive awards and all such other and further relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

D3S Service is a Texas limited liability company that provides in-
home appliance repair services where Chambers worked as an
appliance technician. He regularly worked in excess of forty hours
per week without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Rochelle Owens, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street
      Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


DMAX LTD: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Dzieciolowski" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrew J. Guilford denied a motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled KENNETH DZIECIOLOWSKI ET AL.
v. DMAX LTD., ET AL., Case No. CV 15-2443-AG (ASx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class consisting of:

     [a]ll persons who purchased or leased one of the following
     GM vehicles equipped with a LML Duramax 6.6 liter V-8 diesel
     motor in California or Michigan during the Class Period: GMC
     Sierra 2500HD, GMC Sierra 3500HD, Chevrolet Silverado
     2500HD, Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD, Chevrolet Express,
     and/or GMC Savana.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify a subclass for the
claims asserted under California law consisting of:

     [a]ll persons who purchased or leased one of the following
     GM vehicles equipped with a LML Duramax 6.6 liter V-8 diesel
     motor in California during the Class Period: GMC Sierra
     2500HD, GMC Sierra 3500HD, Chevrolet Silverado 2500H 3500HD,
     Chevrolet Express, and/or GMC Savana.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to certify a subclass for the
claims asserted under Michigan law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act consisting of:

     [a]ll persons who purchased or leased one of the following
     GM vehicles equipped with a LML Duramax 6.6 liter V-8 diesel
     motor in Michigan during the Class Period: GMC Sierra
     2500HD, GMC Sierra 3500HD, 2500HD, Chevrolet Silverado
     3500HD, Chevrolet Express, and/or GMC Savana.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q4PWmx19


EMA RECOVERY: Faces "Nocera" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against EMA Recovery Services, Inc.
Margaret Nocera, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMA Recovery Services, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02094 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2016).

EMA Recovery provides adjustment and collection services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FACEBOOK INC: Wants Birthday Text Messages Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Goutos, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that Facebook, Inc. recently
filed a motion to dismiss class action claims alleging that
Facebook sent unsolicited text messages to users containing
birthday announcements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  The TCPA generally restricts telephone
solicitations (i.e., telemarketing) and the use of automated
telephone equipment, and limits the use of automatic dialing
systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text
messages and fax machines.

Plaintiff Colin Brickman filed a putative class action on February
12, 2016, "to stop Facebook's practice" of sending unsolicited and
unauthorized text messages announcing that it is a Facebook
friend's birthday and stating "[r]eply to post a wish on his
timeline or reply with 1 to post 'Happy Birthday!'" A copy of the
Complaint is available here.  Plaintiff alleges that these text
messages are in violation of individuals' statutory and privacy
rights and, further, that individuals are paying to receive
messages that were sent without their prior express consent (this
latter argument would only be applicable to consumers that do not
have an unlimited text messaging cell phone plan).  The benefit to
Facebook, plaintiff alleges, is significant, as the messages
encourage interaction among users on its site, and any time its
users interact the company earns revenue.

In its motion to dismiss, Facebook argues that (1) plaintiff fails
to plausibly allege that Facebook sent the birthday text message
with an "automatic telephone dialing system," as defined by 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227(a)(1), (2) plaintiff provided express consent to
receive calls from Facebook, and (3) the TCPA violates the First
Amendment on its face as applied to the birthday text message at
issue.  Facebook states in its motion that plaintiff brought a
putative class action under a statute that protects against mass
telemarketing and spam, however plaintiff gave Facebook his cell
phone number and received personalized messages regarding his
friends, in contrast to the mass communications that the TCPA
intends to prohibit.  Further, Facebook argues that plaintiff
consented to receiving birthday messages by providing the company
with this wireless number. "Unlike cases involving 'recycled phone
numbers' or other cases involving disputes over whether a
plaintiff provided his phone number, plaintiff's admission makes
this a textbook case of prior express consent," Facebook said.
Facebook also argues that, if the Court does find the TCPA
applicable to the birthday text messages at issue, the Court
should find the statute itself in violation of the First Amendment
on the basis that it's a content-based restriction of speech that
cannot survive strict scrutiny.

In its motion Facebook also questions whether plaintiff has
sufficient standing under Article III to assert a TCPA claim since
plaintiff alleges that "individuals frequently pay their cell
phone service providers for the receipt of . . . unwanted texts,"
yet fails to allege that he pays for receipt of each of his text
messages (as opposed to having an unlimited text messages cell
phone plan, in which case he would not have suffered any economic
harm).  Facebook cites to the pending Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins case,
pending before the Supreme Court, to support this argument. See
more here.  If the Facebook complaint survives dismissal and the
suit proceeds, plaintiff can seek $500 per violation, i.e. each
text message, or $1,500 per violation if plaintiff can show a
willful violation.


FACEBOOK INC: "Holt" Sues Over Unsolicited Texts
------------------------------------------------
Christine Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-
cv-02266-JSC (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2016), seeks to prohibit
Defendant from using or contracting the use of an automatic
telephone dialing system without obtaining call recipients' prior
express consent pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sends unsolicited marketing-
related text messages to her mobile phone without prior consent.

Defendant Facebook is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business located at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California
94025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Logan, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      329 Bryant Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Tel: 415.234.5260
      Fax: 415.373.9495
      Email: tlogan@edelson.com


FAZAL DEVELOPMENT: "Sagastume" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Giovany Echeverria Sagastume individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fazal Development
Network, Inc., Murad Fazal and Feroz Fazal, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04653 (N.D. Ill., April 26, 2016),
seeks recovery of overtime wages due, statutory damages,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Fazal Development Network, Inc., owned by Murad and Feroz Fazal,
operates several Subway franchise restaurants throughout Illinois,
including a Subway restaurant located at 211 W. Adams St., Chicago
where Plaintiff worked as a food preparer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIVE STAR: Recalls Sushi Style Imitation Crab Sticks Due to Egg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 23, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Five Star International Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10524

Five Star International Ltd. is recalling Yuki brand Sushi Style
Imitation Crab Stick from the marketplace because it contains egg
which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg
should not consume and hotels, restaurants and institutions should
not sell or use the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold in Ontario.

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

If you have an allergy to egg, 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 Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The 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       ---
  ----    ------              ----------
  Yuki    Sushi       500 g   Best Before   8 854241 004424
          Style               05MAR2017
          Imitation
          Crab Stick

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fZwP3V


FLINT, MI: Human Rights Experts Call for Action on Water Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
JURIST reports that three UN human rights experts on May 3 urged
[press release] action to address the water crisis in Flint,
Michigan, saying it is "[n]ot just about water, but human rights."
The experts on extreme poverty, housing, and water and sanitation
touched on how the water crisis was the result of "failing to
recognize that water is a human right, from failing to ensure that
essential services are provided in a non-discriminatory manner,
and from treating those who live in poverty in ways that
exacerbate their plight."  US President Barack Obama is expected
to visit Flint on May 4, and the experts called this an
opportunity for him to address the crisis and "show global
leadership."  They also discussed issues of race and poverty,
noting how if the population had been "well-off or overwhelmingly
white" the water crisis might have been handled in a more
responsible manner as there is a strong connection between clean
water supply and poverty.

Public officials have come under fire for their response to the
crisis, as it took 20 months after the initial switch in water
supply for an emergency to be declared by the state. In April,
David Leyton, a prosecutor in Genesee County, Michigan, announced
that a Michigan judge will allow criminal charges against three
people involved in the water crisis in Flint, including the man
who supervised the treatment plan as well as two state
environmental officials.  Also in April, the city of Flint filed
an intent to sue letter with the state, claiming that the city
lacks funds to defend itself against lawsuits filed during the
water crisis.  In March a Michigan firm filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of the children of Flint. Earlier in March seven
families living in Flint filed a class action lawsuit against
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder alleging gross negligence in
connection to the lead-contaminated water.  Also in March a group
of UN human rights experts called on the US to increase its
efforts to address the issue of lead-contaminated water in Flint.
In January the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit
in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
seeking the replacement of lead water pipes in the city of Flint.
Also in January Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette appointed
a former prosecutor to act as Special Counsel in his investigation
into the water contamination crisis in the city of Flint, and a
retired Detroit FBI chief will also participate in the
investigation.


FORD MOTOR: Australian Class Action May Impact NZ Cars
------------------------------------------------------
Newshub reports that New Zealand Ford cars could be caught up in
an Australian class action over reported transmission problems in
a range of models.

Lawyers claim more than 60,000 cars in Australia are "unsafe to
drive", including the Fiesta Hatchback, Focus and the EcoSport
SUV.

Ford NZ carries largely the same vehicles as its Australian
counterpart, including vehicles with Ford's PowerShift
transmission.

Tom Clancy, Ford NZ's communications & Government affairs manager,
says the company is committed to providing its customers with "top
quality vehicles".

"We are equally committed to addressing potential issues and
responding quickly for our customers," says Mr Clancy.

"Ford's PowerShift transmission uses an advanced configuration
that provides exceptional powertrain efficiency, along with the
potential for unique shift feel compared with conventional
automatics.

"We have addressed the majority of our customers' questions and
are pleased with our ongoing improvement in customer satisfaction
levels.  We encourage customers to work with their local dealers
on their individual circumstances."

The Australian lawsuit is being proposed by Bannister Law, which
claims the newly updated transmission is "defective" because it
"slips, bucks, jerks, and harshly engages when driven".

"Customers . . . believe there is clearly a problem with this
particular gearbox, some people have returned to dealerships to
get their cars fixed up to 10 times for repair or replacement,
while others are being asked to sign confidentiality agreements in
order to get a refund," said Charles Bannister of Bannister Law.

"We believe these faults constitute major defects and trigger a
full refund under Australian Consumer Law."


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Record reports that an employee has filed a
class-action lawsuit that claims he was not paid proper overtime
wages.

Brandon DeLaney sued FTS International Services LLC and J-W Energy
and John Does 1-10 on April 20 in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Wage
Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his
employment he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but was
not properly compensated.  The plaintiff holds FTS International
Services LLC and J-W Energy and John Does 1-10 responsible because
the defendants allegedly misclassified him as an exempt employee,
paid him only half of his regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week and failed to maintain proper time records.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
prohibiting defendants from continuing their alleged illegal
policy, compensation for all damages, liquidated damages, costs
and expenses for this action and all equitable and legal relief as
the court may deem appropriate.  He is represented by Matthew D.
Miller -- mmiller@swartz-legal.com -- of Swartz Swidler LLC in
Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Case
number 4:16-cv-00662


GENUINE TITLE: Risch to Substitute Boyd in "Fangman"
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett granted the plaintiffs' Motion to
Substitute Proper Party in the case captioned EDWARD J. AND VICKI
FANGMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENUINE TITLE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-14-0081 (D. Md.).

Nathaniel Risch, Esq., Personal Representative of the Estate of
Barbara J. Boyd, shall be substituted as the proper party for the
decedent, Barbara J. Boyd.

A full-text copy of Judge Bennett's May 2, 2016 memorandum order
is available at http://is.gd/jvfD0ofrom Leagle.com.

On February 25, 2016, the plaintiffs, Edward J. and Vickie
Fangman, et al., filed a Statement Noting the Death of Plaintiff
Barbara J. Boyd, who died on July 24, 2015.  They filed the Motion
to Substitute Proper Pary on the same day.

Smith, Gildea & Schmidt LLC, In Re, In re Sarah A Zadrozny, In re
Michael Paul Smith, represented by Sarah A Zadrozny --
szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC.

Edward J. Fangman, Vickie Fangman, Damon M. Oliver, Betty M.
Howard, Clayton J. Anthony, Janice M. Manuel, Eric L. Haynes,
Joseph J. Quinn, Deloris F. Woods, Jameson Cooper, Katherine
Cooper, Geraldine R. Walters, Steven A. Messina, Rose A. Lease,
James Pipp, Dana Pipp, Lawrence Crupi, Concetta Crupi, Charles
Milburn, Frank Cherry, Sammie Cherry, Helen L. Householder,
Preston Johnson, Beatrice Johnson, Gerald Jones, Ann Jones, John
Mahoney, Tinna Mahoney, Patricia Gibson, Bruce Eisenstein,
Margaret Eisenstein, Frank A. Palombaro, Jr., David Alvarado,
Shelly Palombaro, Claude Monegeon, Carol J. Shaw, Carmelita B.
Hackett, Lusetha Rolle, Patricia M. Marshall, Ruby B. Coggins,
John H. Reinheimer, Jamie B. Reinheimer, Jill Monegeon, Gerald F.
Coggins, Melinda Alvarado, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Paul
Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC,
Timothy Francis Maloney -- tmaloney@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald
and Laake PA, Sarah A Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC &
Veronica Byam Nannis -- vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and
Laake PA.

Nathaniel Risch, Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara
J. Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Smith, Smith
Gildea and Schmidt LLC.

Nathaniel Risch, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Francis
Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, Sarah A Zadrozny, Smith,
Gildea & Schmidt, LLC & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and
Laake PA.

Robert Voelker, Shelia K. Voelker, Intervenor Plaintiffs,
represented by Sarah A Zadrozny, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC.

Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media Group, LLC,
Dog Days Marketing, LLC, Defendants, represented by Ari Karen --
akaren@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman & Gregory P Currey --
gcurrey@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman.

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Wells Fargo, N.A., Defendants,
represented by Russell J Pope, Treanor Pope and Hughes PA,
Virginia Wood Barnhart, Treanor Pope and Hughes PA & John
Augustine Bourgeois -- jbourgeois@kg-law.com -- Kramon and Graham
PA.

West Town Bank & Trust, Defendant, represented by Brian L Moffet
-- bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge, P.C. &
Zachary Schultz -- zschultz@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles &
Stockbridge P.C..

Emery Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by David M
Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC,
Jeffrey Paul Blackwood -- blackwood@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner
Brodsky Kider PC & Michael Yaakov Kieval -- kieval@thewbkfirm.com
-- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC.

PNC Mortgage, PNC Bank, N.A., Defendants, represented by Daniel
Joseph Tobin -- tobindj@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP,
Bryan J Harrison -- harrisonbj@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr
LLP & Robert A Scott -- scottr@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr
LLP.

Metlife Home Loans, LLC, Metlife Bank N.A., Defendants,
represented by Leslie Paul Machado --
leslie.machado@leclairryan.com -- LeClair Ryan PC.

Net Equity Financial, Defendant, represented by Brian L Moffet --
bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge, P.C. &
Zachary Schultz -- zschultz@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles &
Stockbridge P.C..

Eagle National Bank, Defendant, represented by Dennis Edward Boyle
-- dboyle@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, George J
Krueger -- gkrueger@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro
hac vice, Lawrence Joseph Quinn -- lquinn@tydingslaw.com --
Tydings and Rosenberg LLP & Ryan T Becker --
rbecker@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice.

E Mortgage Management, Defendant, represented by Soyong Cho --
soyong.cho@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Irene Claire Freidel --
irene.freidel@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice &
Jennifer J Nagle -- jennifer.nagle@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, pro
hac vice.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Matthew P
Previn -- mprevin@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP.

Jay Zukerberg, Interested Party, represented by Michael Edward
Rowan -- mrowan@shumakerwilliams.com -- Shumaker Williams PC.


GO 2 TRANSPORTATION: Faces Truth-In-Leasing Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Grisolano, writing for Land Line, reports that three owner-
operators are alleging breach of contract and violations of the
Truth-In-Leasing act against an Arizona specialty automotive
hauler with respect to drivers' compensation.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court of Arizona on
April 12, alleges defendant Go 2 Transportation and its
subsidiary, Go 2 Logistics, violated TIL statutes by "regularly
and systematically misrepresenting amounts it charged to customers
with the specific intent of paying plaintiffs and other similarly
situated owner-operators less than what they were actually owed
under the leases."

The named plaintiffs are owner-operators Vernon Mast, Copperas
Cove, Texas; Benjamin Selby, of Nashville, Tenn.; and Richard L.
Hilton of Temple, Texas.  They are represented by Dessaules Law
Firm of Phoenix, Ariz.  The complaint stipulates a proposed class
size of about 30 similarly situated owner-operators who drove for
Go 2 under the same lease arrangement.

Rachel Maron, attorney for the plaintiffs, said one of the biggest
issues in the lawsuit is the contract, which stipulated owner-
operators were to be paid 65 percent of the gross revenue for each
haul (or 75 percent for owner-operators like Mast, who owned both
the tractor and the trailer).

"There are definitely problems with the way it was written and the
way it was used as a practical matter," Ms. Maron said in an
interview with Land Line.  "(Plaintiffs) just weren't paid the
percentage of the line haul that they were supposed to be paid.
The contractual issue is supposed to spell out what they were
going to be paid."

The complaint alleges Go 2 failed to adhere to truth-in-leasing
standards by failing to adequately define charges and terms and
failing to provide documentation to verify the accuracy of the
drivers' compensation.

Jim Mahoney, an attorney for Go 2 Transportation, said the lawsuit
is "without merit" and that the company intends to defend itself
against the allegations.

"Go 2 Transportation LLC started out with one driver and is the
exact reflection of what's good about motor carriers and how
owner-operators can succeed," Mr. Mahoney wrote in an email to
Land Line.


GOLDEN STATE: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Parson"
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID PARSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN
STATE FC, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00405-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar granted in part and denied, in part, the
motion filed by the defendants to dismiss three of the five claims
for relief raised in the plaintiffs' complaint.

The motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second claim under Cal. Lab.
Code section 204 was denied.  The motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' fourth claim under the UCL was granted without
prejudice, but only to the extent that it seeks wages and
penalties owed under 8 CCP section 11070 and Cal. Labor Code
section 226.7.  The motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fifth claim
under Cal. Lab. Code section 203, and the accompanying subclass,
was granted without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's May 2, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/a2Pe2Afrom Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a putative class of current and
former employees who worked as warehouse workers for the
defendants Golden State FC, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Trueblue Inc.,
and SMX.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Wage
Order 7 of the Department of Industrial Relations.

David Parson, Plaintiff, represented by Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo
C. Arnold, APC, John Thomas Stralen, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation & Joshua Haakon Watson, Clayeo C.
Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation.

Brandon Mitchell, Mariah Gullat, Plaintiffs, represented by Clayeo
C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, APC, John Thomas Stralen, Clayeo C.
Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & Joshua Haakon Watson,
Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation.

Golden State FC, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Eric Meckley -- eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Sacha Marie Steenhoek -- ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com -
- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Joseph A. Nuccio --
joseph.nuccio@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, Richard G. Rosenblatt --
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice & Theresa C. Mak -- theresa.mak@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Trueblue Inc, SMX, Defendants, represented by David Raymond Ongaro
-- dongaro@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC, Amelia D Winchester --
awinchester@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC & Cara Robin Sherman, Ongaro
PC.


GOOGLE INC: Adwords Case Best Test of Future of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the best test of
the future of class action litigation at the U.S. Supreme Court
may be the justices' disposition of Google's petition for
certiorari in a case involving claims that the company deceived
hundreds of thousands of California advertisers about the
placement of Adwords ads.

Google contends that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
disregarded two of Justice Antonin Scalia's landmark class action
opinions -- 2011's Wal-Mart v. Dukes and, even more flagrantly,
2013's Comcast v. Behrend -- when it certified a class despite
Google's assertion that individual issues predominate because
every advertiser's supposed damages must be calculated separately.
The 9th Circuit said individualized damages cannot, alone, defeat
class certification. Google's Supreme Court counsel from Hogan
Lovells argued that the 9th Circuit's position conflicts with
Justice Scalia's opinion in Comcast and with (mostly pre-Comcast)
holdings from five federal appellate circuits.

The lead plaintiffs in the case, including the personal injury
firm Pulaski & Middleman, filed their opposition brief on May 2,
arguing that there's actually no controversy over Comcast's
impact.  According to class lawyers from Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe, the Supreme Court itself said in its recent decision in
Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo that individualized damages don't
preclude class certification "when one or more of the central
issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to
predominate."

Nor are the lower courts divided on how to interpret Comcast,
according to the opposition brief.  Defendants tried to read a
broad rule into Justice Scalia's admonition in Comcast that
damages must be "susceptible of measurement across the entire
class" in order for a class to be certified.  But the opposition
brief, quoting "Newberg on Class Actions," said the federal
circuits have uniformly rejected the defense theory that Comcast
bars class certification unless damages can be decided on a
classwide basis.

Since Justice Scalia's death, as you know, the Supreme Court has
not granted review of any class action challenge. (It also
postponed oral arguments in the one major class action case on its
docket, Microsoft's procedural protest of a plaintiffs' lawyer
tactic to resurrect class actions after the denial of class
certification.) Petitioners for certiorari have baited the
justices with big class action questions like the constitutional
standing of uninjured plaintiffs and a clear circuit split over
what evidence may be used to establish class membership.  The
court has so far not bitten.

But four justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy -- joined Scalia
in the Comcast majority opinion.  If Google and its Hogan counsel
of record, Neal Katyal, are right that federal appellate judges
have misread Comcast, you'd think those four justices would want
to set lower courts straight.

Conversely, if the court declines to take up the Google case, it's
a pretty clear signal that the Supreme Court's era of class action
reformation is over. (And that class counsel of record Noah
Schubert wrote a good opposition brief.)

Google has two weeks to reply to the class filing.


GVC HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Sportingbet Operations
------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Hintze, writing for Flushdraw, reports that a couple of
gambling-world businessmen from Canada have threatened new
bwin.party owner GVC Holdings Inc. with a class-action lawsuit
over an alleged business deal gone sour.

The accusations being made predate GVC's interest in bwin.party,
however, and instead have to do with the company's operation of
the long-running Sportingbet brand in Canada for a full decade,
from 2005 to 2015.  A Canadian commercial-law firm, Findlay
McCarthy PC, has published a form of attorney advertising in which
the firm states its possible intent to sue GVC on behalf of all
Canadian customers of the site during the above period.

The reason for threatening the lawsuit?  That's where the story
becomes curious.  According to the pitch for possible victims
published by Findlay McCarthy PC at www.gvc-cadclassaction.com,
GVC operated its Canada-facing operations via an unofficial
partnership with a third-party firm, 37 Entertainment Inc. (37E).
37E, as it's usually described, is run by gambling-industry
veteran Barry Alter and a one-time Swiss national hockey team
player, Doug Honneger.  And that leads to more of an explanation.

In a real, actual lawsuit filed last year by Mr. Honneger, who has
dual Swiss and Canadian citizenship and lives and works in
Montreal, he claimed that 37E had already been running the show
for GVC's Sportingbet brand in Canada in 2014 and 2015, via some
sort of oral, unofficial deal.  And when GVC won the bidding war
last year to acquire bwin.party, which also operates in Canada,
GVC found that it really no longer needed 37E's services, which
amounted to a turnkey operation of Sportingbet's Canada business.
So sayeth Mr. Honneger.

GVC thus reneged on the deal, according to the lawsuit, having
never signed on the dotted line.  Said Mr. Honneger, in a
statement to the UK's Evening Standard, said, "My partner and I
reached a joint venture agreement with GVC in 2014.  The fact that
GVC subsequently reneged on that agreement does not change that
obvious truth.  Unfortunately, GVC's bad faith conduct has forced
us to seek legal remedies and we are extremely confident that we
will succeed."

That real, actual lawsuit is scheduled to first be heard this
July.  What the case is likely to hinge upon is whether there's
proof that Mr. Honneger, Alter and 37E had actually been running
all or some of Sportingbet's Canada business in 2014 and 2015.

Which brings us back to the threatened class-action case.  The
not-so-veiled threat made against GVC on the Findlay McCarthy PC
legal site involves GVC's own disclosures about its business
partners . . . or lack thereof.  As a publicly-traded company on
the London Stock Exchange, GVC is bound to report all its
significant partnerships and business dealings, and it would seem
that allowing a third-party company to run the Canada part of the
business might fit that bill.

From the Findlay McCarthy presser:

". . . The firm is investigating the activities of GVC in Canada
to determine if it has violated Canadian law by allowing a third-
party company -- 37 Entertainment Inc. (37E) and its partner,
Barry Alter -- with whom GVC claims to have had no contractual
relationship, direct day-to-day control over its Canadian business
and its customer data.  The firm is also seeking to determine
whether GVC would have provided 37E and Mr. Alter access to
confidential customer information, including, but not limited to,
confidential personal data, customer betting history, financial
and payment methods information.

GVC has repeatedly stated both in its public filings in Quebec,
Canada and throughout UK media, including The Independent, London
Evening Standard, The Times, and The Telegraph, that it maintained
no formal agreement or business relationship with 37E and Mr.
Alter to run its business in Canada.

Findlay McCarthy PC will be inquiring into allegations that GVC
did not inform Canadian residents who had registered with
Sportingbet or its affiliated sites that it would be allowing
another company, including 37E and Mr. Alter, daily access to, and
control over, confidential customer information without putting in
place lawful privacy protection measures. . . ."

All very curious.  See, class-action lawsuits are generally
brought on behalf of a class of victims who have suffered some
sort of loss.  While it's true that GVC very likely skirted a
whole bunch of regulations in both Canada and the UK if Honneger's
and 37E's allegations are true, it's hard to see where
Sportingbet's Canadian customers are victims.  The Findlay
McCarthy legal ad purports that GVC shared consumer data with 37E
in an unauthorized manner, but there doesn't seem to be any
allegations that the data itself was used in illicit ways.  Such
illicit use, of course, would represent real damage to those
Sportingbet customers, and provide a valid basis for a class-
action lawsuit.

Then again, no class action has been filed to date.  It's all
smoke and mirrors, and perhaps with good reason.  The pieces don't
quite add up.

We'll be watching for more on this tale, just to see what comes of
it.  It's unlikely to derail GVC's ongoing bwin.party acquisition
and restructuring, though it wouldn't be a shocker to see some
sort of regulatory inquiry made into whatever actions might have
preceded Mr. Honneger's lawsuit last year.


HERBERT BRUISTER: 5th Cir. Affirms District Court in ERISA Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. HERBERT BRUISTER,
Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee, THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff, v. HERBERT BRUISTER, Defendant,
VINCENT SEALY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERBERT C. BRUISTER;
BRUISTER FAMILY L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants, Nos. 14-60811,
cons/w 14-60816 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, but modified
its concurrent judgments into a single judgment that disposes of
each consolidated case together.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's May 3, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/yPWmBqfrom Leagle.com.

The Secretary of the Department of Labor ("Secretary") brought a
civil action on April 29, 2010, raising claims for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA section 404(a)(1)(A); for engaging in
prohibited transactions under ERISA section 406; for failure to
monitor (against Herbert Bruister in his capacity as a corporate
director of Bruister and Associates, Inc. (BAI)) under ERISA
section 404(a)(1)(A); and co-fiduciary liability under ERISA
section 405.  Two plan participants, Joel D. Rader and Vincent
Sealy, filed a civil action raising generally the same claims as
the Secretary and seeking relief on behalf of the Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (ESOP) as a whole.

The cases were consolidated and the district court ruled in favor
of the Secretary and/or Sealy on all claims.  It awarded
$4,504,605.30 in "equitable restitution," or damages, which is the
amount it calculated the defendants caused the ESOP to overpay for
the BAI stock.  The district court also held Bruister alone liable
for $1,988,008.67 in prejudgment interest.  Of these amounts, the
district court held Bruister Family LLC (BFLLC) jointly and
severally liable for $885,065.25 in damages and $390,604.12 in
prejudgment interest, or $1,275,669.37 total.


HIRERIGHT INC: Bid for Preliminary Settlement Approval Reinstated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant reinstated the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval in the case captioned BLANCA
WATKINS, SPENCER HOYT, individually, on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. HIRERIGHT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-1432-
BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of Judge Bashant's May 2, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/FcZmGqfrom Leagle.com.

On May 24, 2013, Blanca Watkins and Spencer Hoyt commenced a class
action in San Diego Superior Court, alleging that Hireright, Inc.,
a consumer reporting agency, violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1681 et seq., by reporting old charges that
were dismissed and failing to provide consumers with full-file
disclosures despite written requests to do so.  On June 19, 2013,
Hireright removed the action to federal court.  On September 19,
2014, at the parties' joint request, Watkins and her individual
claims were dismissed from the case.

On January 30, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.  On February 11,
2015, Hireright filed a Notification of Bankruptcy with the
district court, staying all matters before the court.  Hence, the
court terminated the joint motion for preliminary settlement
approval.  Hoyt later sought to reinstate the Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval, informing the court that he has
reached an agreement with Hireright's bankruptcy counsel, in
connection with Hireright's plan of reorganization to "assume the
settlement agreement and resume its agreement under the agreement
post-bankruptcy."  According to the plaintiff's counsel, "[t]he
assumption of the settlement agreement has been incorporated into
the bankruptcy court's confirmation order."

Spencer Hoyt, Plaintiff, represented by Anna P. Prakash --
aprakash@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster PLLP.

Hireright, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Mora --
jmora@littler.com -- Littler & Mendelson PC, Rod M. Fliegel --
rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Amanda N. Fu --
afu@litter.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C. & William J. Simmons --
wsimmons@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.


HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Mango Fruit Bars Due to Coconut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Coconut, Allergen - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Horizon Distributors Ltd.
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10546

  Brand name    Common      Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  ----------    name        ----     product      ---
                ------               ----------
  365 Everyday  Mango Fruit 4 x 118  DEC 10 16    0 99482 41344 6
  Value         Bars        ml


HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata 2015 and Elantra 2017 Models
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 21, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 4
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016174TC
ID number: 2016174
Manufacturer recall number: R0113 (61C035)

On certain vehicles, a manufacturing error could cause the second
stage of the driver's frontal airbag to fail to deploy. This would
increase the risk of injury to the driver in a crash severe enough
to warrant the deployment of the airbag`s second stage.
Correction: Dealers will replace the driver's frontal airbag
module.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  HYUNDAI     SONATA      2015
  HYUNDAI     ELANTRA     2017


INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER: "Gandy" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regina A. Gandy, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. International Computer
Systems, Inc., d/b/a First Collection Services, the Defendant,
Case No. 1622-CC00720, was removed from the Circuit Court of St.
Louis City, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District Court assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-00603 to the proceeding.

International Computer provides debt collection services. It
offers first party outsourcing; letter service treatment; and
primary and secondary collection services. The company was founded
in 1969 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE, LLP
          12925 W. Dodge Rd., Suite 107
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Telephone: (402) 965 8600
          Facsimile: (402) 965 8601
          E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com


INTREXON CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 3
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Intrexon Corporation securities (XON) from May 12,
2015 through April 20, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Intrexon
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Intrexon class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-882.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, Intrexon issued false and misleading
financial statements to investors.  On April 21, 2016, Spotlight
Research issued a report revealing that Intrexon's revenues were
overstated through transactions with related parties.  The lawsuit
claims that when this adverse information entered the market, the
price of Intrexon stock dropped, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 5, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-882.htmlfor more information. You
may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


KEYSTONE MERCY: Court Tosses Patient Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Seals, writing for Infosecurity Magazine, reports that a
class-action lawsuit arising from improper handling of a USB drive
with confidential patient information has been dismissed.

Plaintiffs in the case Baum v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan [PDF],
filed a class action lawsuit against Keystone Mercy Health Plan
and Amerihealth Mercy Health Plan for losing a USB flash drive
that allegedly contained sensitive information for approximately
300,000 patients.  The plaintiffs were alleging that Mercy Health
had been negligent, fraudulent and deceptive.

The claims were brought under the Uniform Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).  But the Pennsylvania Superior
Court said that the suit did not meet the requirements for going
forward.

"As stated previously, on December 9, 2014, a panel of this Court
affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification on
Appellant's negligence claims but vacated its decision to deny
class certification on the UTPCPL deceptive conduct claim," said
Judge Correale F. Stevens.  "In doing so, the panel noted the
trial court had concluded that Appellant's UTPCPL claim did not
satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 1702(2) because a
plaintiff who brings a private cause of action under the UTPCPL
must show reliance . . ."

Also, the lead plaintiff, Avrum Baum, has a daughter impacted by
the incident; but he himself was not, and he was unable to prove
that it had been her personally identifiable information that was
on the device.  That invalidated Baum's standing to bring the
suit, the court ruled.

"The trial court also questioned Appellant's standing to bring a
private action under the UTPCPL as it pertained to a determination
of 'typicality' under Rule 1702(3) because he did not purchase his
daughter's policy or suffer an 'ascertainable loss,'" the Superior
Court said.

Healthcare data breach class action lawsuits have not been wildly
successful so far.  For instance, a lawsuit against the University
of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) was dismissed last year, filed
by former UPMC employees.  They alleged that UPMC and its payroll
vendor, by allowing themselves to be breached, meant that it
failed in its duty to protect private employee information and
exposed those employees to tax return fraud.

However, the judge ruled that because UPMC was the victim of a
cybersecurity breach, a better system for storing sensitive
information would not have necessarily prevented the incident from
taking place.

Additionally, a lawsuit against Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of
New Jersey was dismissed last year.  That case stemmed from an
incident in 2013 where stolen laptops led to the potential
exposure of 840,000 Horizon BCBS members' PHI.  The judge ruled
that the plaintiffs failed to prove that hypothetical future
injuries could potentially take place.


LERS ROS: Faces "Chaowanapanja" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Narupon Silargorn and Lers Ros.
The case is captioned Tassawan Chaowanapanja, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Narupon
Silargorn, an individual, Lers Ros, a California corporation,
d/b/a Lers Ros Thai, and Does 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. CGC 16
551722 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016).

Lers Ros is an upscale restaurant serving authentic, unique and
fresh Thai dishes, premium beverages and wines.


LTP SPORTS: Recalls Stainless Steel or Titanium Quick Releases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 22, 2016
Posting date: April 22, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57978

This recalls involves SRAM's Zipp stainless steel or titanium
quick releases. They were sold as aftermarket components or as
part of the 202 DB V2, 303 DB V2, 404 Firestrike V2, 202 Firecrest
V3, 303 Firecrest V3, 404 Firecrest V3, 808 Firecrest V3 or 808
NSW wheel sets.

The quick release has a curved, black lever. Zipp appears on the
lever. Only quick releases without a marking at the center of the
underside of the lever, below the Zipp logo are included on this
recall.

The quick release can fail to engage in the closed position,
posing a fall hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor SRAM has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these quick
releases in Canada.

Approximately 491 units of the recalled quick release were sold in
Canada.

The recalled quick releases were sold from March 2015 to December
2015 at specialty bicycle retailers.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Importer: LTP Sports Group Inc.
          Port Coquitlam
          British Columbia
          CANADA

Importer: Cycles Lambert, Inc.
          Levis
          Quebec
          CANADA

Distributor: SRAM, LLC
             Chicago
             Illinois
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the
recalled Zipp quick release and return to their local bicycle
dealer for verification and to obtain a free replacement product.

For more information, consumers can contact SRAM toll free at 1-
800-346-2928 between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. EST, Monday through
Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST on Friday.  Consumers can
also visit SRAM's or Zipp's websites for more information.

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/3vnSwI


MAZZONE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Alleged Misappropriation of Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Rogers, writing for Albany Business Review, reports that a
class action lawsuit alleging misappropriation of tips has been
filed against Mazzone Management Group, the largest restaurant and
catering group in the Albany area.

Julio Olvera, who worked as a server and bartender at Prime at
Saratoga National and as wait staff at Mazzone Catering, filed a
class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York in late April.  Mr. Olvera is
represented by Fleischman Law Firm PLLC, a firm based in New York
City, and the Law Office of Joseph T. Moen in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

In a statement, Mazzone Hospitality declined to comment on ongoing
legal matters.

"We take these allegations very seriously and will continue to
comply with all federal and state regulations," the statement
reads.  "Mazzone Hospitality truly values the contributions our
employees have made towards our success, as well as their hard
work and dedication to the company.  We maintain a steadfast
commitment to our staff and will continue to provide our guests
with the outstanding service and experience synonymous with
Mazzone Hospitality."

The lawsuit says it is on behalf of Mr. Olvera and other
"similarly situated" co-workers who were employed as hourly food
service workers.

Mazzone Restaurants and Mazzone Catering "unlawfully retained a
portion of their employees' tips and failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages," according to the complaint.

The complaint names Mazzone Management Group Ltd., Mazzone
Management Inc., Tala Bistro LLC, 677 Prime LLC, Prime at Saratoga
National, LLC, Aperitivo Bistro LLC, Angelo Mazzone and Matthew
Mazzone as defendants.

Mazzone Hospitality's revenue from its catering, business dining
and Prime Life divisions in 2015 was $42.8 million, according to
the Albany Business Review's 2016 Catering Companies list. Mazzone
employs about 580 full-time catering employees.


MECHEL BLUESTONE: Judge Certifies Laid-Off Miners' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Plummer, writing for Register-Herald, reports that miners
who allege they were laid off unlawfully from a Mechel Bluestone
Inc. mine in Wyoming Couny in 2013 were granted class action
certification on May 2 by Judge Irene Berger in Beckley federal
court.

A pretrial conference hearing is set for July 21, and the trial is
slated for August 8.

According to the order, named plaintiff Michael Ray and at least
76 miners at the Double-Bonus Mine No. 65, owned by Mechel
Bluestone, were laid off between Nov. 20, 2013 and Dec. 19, 2013,
in violation of the WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act).

To bring a suit under the WARN Act, at least 50 people and 33
percent of the workers must be laid off.

The miners were allegedly laid off verbally, without a sixty-day
notice and their medical and dental coverage was improperly
terminated.

The suit states the United Mine Workers also did not receive
written notice of the lay off.

A complaint was originally filed in Wyoming County Circuit Court
but was moved to federal court on March 12, 2015.

A previous request to have the suit certified as a class action
was denied on March 2, 2016.

In the earlier motion, the law firm representing the miners,
Mountain State Justice Inc., asked for the class action to include
all laid-off miners from three mines located in Wyoming and
McDowell.  At that time Berger said three different mines were not
a "single site of employment," although they shared "broad
operational purpose."

On May 2 Judge Berger also denied a motion to certify two Wyoming
County mines, Double-Bonus Mine No. 65 and Coal Mountain Surface
Mine Number 1 under the same class action.  Coal Mountain is
operated by Dynamic Energy, also a subsidiary of Mechel Bluestone.

Around 128 were laid off at the Coal Mountain mine during the same
time period in 2013.

Mountain State Justice argued both Wyoming County mines shared an
electrician and some equipment, however Judge Berger only granted
the motion to certify a class action for laid-off miners at the
Double-Bonus mine.

Mechel Bluestone is owned by Democratic gubernatorial candidate
Jim Justice.

Justice sold Mechel Bluestone in 2009 to Russia's OAO Mechel for a
combination of cash and Mechel stock valued at $568 million.

He purchased the mines back for $5 million in February 2015,
reopening some mine locations and creating around 150 jobs.


MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Denial of Class Cert. in "Sandusky" Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit reversed the
district court's denial of class certification and vacated the
judgment for MedTox Laboratories, Inc. in the case captioned
Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Medtox Scientific, Inc.;
Medtox Laboratories, Inc.; John Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees,
No. 15-1317 (8th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Eight Circuit's May 3, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/ZtX2xxfrom Leagle.com.

Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC brought a class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) after receiving
unsolicited fax from MedTox.  The district court denied class
certification, finding the class not ascertainable.  The district
court also granted summary judgment to MedTox, holding that its
settlement offer -- $3,500 and a promise not to send more faxes --
mooted Sandusky's entire demand.


MIMI FOODS: Recalls Pizza Dough Ball Products
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution:
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Retail
CFIA reference number: 10528

  Brand name    Common   Size    Code(s) on        UPC
  ----------    name     ----    product           ---
                ------           ----------
  Compliments   Pizza    18 x    Julian Lot code   10068820125959
                Dough    650 g   numbers of 34515
                                 (December 11th,
                                 2015) to 06716
                                 (March 7th, 2016)
  Compliments   Pizza    650 g   Julian Lot code   0 6882012595 2
                Dough            numbers of 34515
                                 (December 11th,
                                 2015) to 06716
                                 (March 7th, 2016)
  Me-Va-Me      Pita     24 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718002655
  Restaurant    Dough            numbers of 34515
                Ball             (December 11th,
               (Ver #5)          2015) to 06716
               (100              (March 7th, 2016)
                pieces
                x 240 g)
  Me-Va-Me      Pita     19 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718002648
  Restaurant    Dough            numbers of 34515
                Ball             (December 11th,
               (Ver #5)          2015) to 06716
               (100              (March 7th, 2016)
                pieces
                x 240 g)
  Me-Va-Me      Pita     16 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718002624
  Restaurant    Dough            numbers of 34515
                Ball             (December 11th,
               (Ver #5)          2015) to 06716
               (200              (March 7th, 2016)
                pieces
                x 240 g)



  Me-Va-Me      Pita     16.8 kg Julian Lot code   10830718002631
  Restaurant    Dough            numbers of 34515
                Ball             (December 11th,
               (Ver #5)          2015) to 06716
               (100              (March 7th, 2016)
                pieces
                x 240 g)
  Mimi Foods    25 oz    21 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718004253
                Whole            numbers of 34515
                Wheat            (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
               (30 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    25 oz    17 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718002136
                Focaccia         numbers of 34515
                Dough            (December 11th,
                Ball             2015) to 06716
               (24 pieces)       (March 7th, 2016)
  Mimi Foods    8 oz     23 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718005083
                White            numbers of 34515
                Pizza            (December 11th,
                Dough             2015) to 06716
                Ball             (March 7th, 2016)
                (100 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    9 oz     23 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718005090
                White            numbers of 34515
                Pizza            (December 11th,
                Dough             2015) to 06716
                Ball             (March 7th, 2016)
                (60 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    12 oz    20 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718001368
                Caputo           numbers of 34515
                "00"             (December 11th,
                Pizza             2015) to 06716
                Dough             (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
                (60 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    250 oz   15 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718002396
                White            numbers of 34515
                Pizza            (December 11th,
                Dough             2015) to 06716
                Ball             (March 7th, 2016)
                (60 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    14 oz    15.9 kg Julian Lot code   10830718001375
                Caputo           numbers of 34515
                "00"             (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
                (60 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    9 oz     15 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718004093
                Whole            numbers of 34515
                Wheat            (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
               (60 counts)
  Mimi Foods    8 oz     23 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718001795
                25/75            numbers of 34515
                Whole            (December 11th,
                Wheat            2015) to 06716
                Pizza            (March 7th, 2016)
                Dough
                Ball
               (60 counts)

  Mimi Foods    5.5 oz   20 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718001092
                White            numbers of 34515
                Pizza            (December 11th,
                Dough            2015) to 06716
                Ball             (March 7th, 2016)
               (100 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    7 oz    20 kg   Julian Lot code    10830718005076
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (100 pieces)

  Mimi Foods    16 oz   20 kg   Julian Lot code    10830718005168
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (100 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    750 g   18 kg   Julian Lot code    10830718002402
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough            2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (24 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    8 oz    15.9 kg  Julian Lot code   10830718009081
                Caputo           numbers of 34515
                "00"             (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
                (100 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    7 oz    20 kg    Julian Lot code   10830718006073
                Semolina         numbers of 34515
                Dough            (December 11th,
                Ball             2015) to 06716
                (100 pieces)     (March 7th, 2016)
  Mimi Foods    25 oz  15.9 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718007254
                Sundried         numbers of 34515
                Tomato           (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
               (30 pieces)



  Mimi Foods    25 oz   15.9 kg  Julian Lot code   10830718006257
                Garlic &         numbers of 34515
                Rosemary         (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
               (30 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    25 g    18 kg   Julian Lot code    10830718005250
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough            2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (30 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    20 oz    17 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718004208
                Whole            numbers of 34515
                Wheat            (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
               (30 counts)
  Mimi Foods    12 oz   20.4 kg Julian Lot code    10830718005120
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough            2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (60 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    14 oz   15.9 kg Julian Lot code    10830718005144
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough            2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (40 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    20 oz   17.05   Julian Lot code    10830718005205
                White   kg      numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (30 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    32 oz   18 kg   Julian Lot code    10830718005328
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (30 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    950 g   19 kg   Julian Lot code    10830718002419
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (20 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    8 oz    23 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718004086
                Whole           numbers of 34515
                Wheat           (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough           (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
               (100 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    5 oz    14.2 kg  Julian Lot code   10830718002372
                Caputo           numbers of 34515
                "00"             (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
                (100 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    5 oz    17 kg    Julian Lot code   10830718001351
                Caputo           numbers of 34515
                "00"             (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
                (100 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    5 oz   16 kg    Julian Lot code    10830718002860
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (100 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    40 oz   16 kg   Julian Lot code    10830718005403
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (15 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    20 oz    17 kg   Julian Lot code   10830718009203
                Caputo           numbers of 34515
                "00"             (December 11th,
                Pizza            2015) to 06716
                Dough            (March 7th, 2016)
                Ball
                (30 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    10 oz   17 kg   Julian Lot code    10830718005106
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (60 pieces)
  Mimi Foods    6 oz    6 oz   Julian Lot code     10830718001108
                White           numbers of 34515
                Pizza           (December 11th,
                Dough           2015) to 06716
                Ball            (March 7th, 2016)
               (60 pieces)


NAVISTAR INC: "Ferraro" Fraud Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ferraro Foods Inc., on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Navistar, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-04644 (D.N.J., March 17, 2016), was transferred to the District
Court of Northern Illinois on April 26, 2016, and assigned Case
No. 2:16-cv-01502.

Plaintiff claims breach of warranty and fraud over the purchase of
2010-2013 model MaxxForce 11, 13, or 15 Advanced EGR diesel
engine, which allegedly does not comply with Environmental
Protection Agency emissions standards for trucks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      H. Laddie Montague, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: 215-875-3000
      Facsimile: 215-875-4613
      E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net
              elechtzin@bm.net

              - and -

      Joseph T. Piscitello, Esq.
      234 Delancey Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 636-9988
      Facsimile: (215) 636-9987
      E-mail: joe@piscitellolaw.com


NEW MIAMI, OH: Appeals Traffic Camera Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a southwest Ohio village's
attorney said he will ask the state's high court to overturn an
appeal court's approval of class-action status for motorists who
paid nearly $2 million in fines before a judge ordered New Miami
to turn off its traffic cameras.

New Miami's attorney, Felix Gora, said he will ask the state
Supreme Court to reject the approval of class-action status for
the lawsuit's plaintiffs, the Hamilton-Middletown Journal-News
reported.  Two Butler County residents and two Cincinnati
residents filed the lawsuit over the $95 speeding tickets.

The village's traffic cameras were installed in 2012 but ruled
unconstitutional after a little over a year.  The village
collected about $1.8 million on 45,000 citations during 15 months
of operation.

Gora acknowledged that it's an uphill battle to convince the high
court to take the case, but he said the issue is worth it.
"The Supreme Court in discretionary appeals is very careful, and
they take very few cases," Mr. Gora said.  "Of course we believe
it's a case that should be reviewed."

One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Josh Engel, said he is dismayed
that the village is continuing to pursue appeals on "procedural
issues."

"Most observers would probably say that the likelihood the Supreme
Court will take this case on a procedural appeal is low," Mr.
Engel said.  "We look forward to having this case back before the
Common Pleas Court as soon as possible so that we can begin the
process of getting refunds to motorists."

But the village's solicitor, Dennis Adams, said New Miami "didn't
ask to be sued" and has to defend itself.  Mr. Adams has
previously said the village has 10 years to pay the refunds if it
loses.


NEWARK, NJ: Parents Sue School District Over Drinking Water
-----------------------------------------------------------
News12 reports that parents have filed a federal lawsuit against
New Jersey's largest school district over lead found in drinking
water.

Attorney Joel Silberman says the lawsuit against Newark's public
schools seeks class-action status and was filed in federal court
on May 3.

The parents of four children allege in the lawsuit that the
district deliberately exposed children to harmful levels of lead.
Lead is known to severely affect a child's

The district shut off water fountains at half of its buildings in
March because of elevated lead levels.

Newark schools spokeswoman Dreena Whitfield says the district
hasn't been served with the suit yet.  She says students' safety
is the district's highest priority and the district is working to
"solve this historic issue once and for all."

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

The suit comes one day after Gov. Chris Christie announced plans
to require all New Jersey schools to test for lead in drinking
water every year.  Parents will have access to the test results.
The governor added $10 million to the state's budget for the
testing.


ORIDION MEDICAL: Recalls Capnostream Battery Packs
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2016
Posting date: April 27, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58100
Reason Affected products

This voluntary recall is due to a supplier defect in battery
manufacturing that may increase the risk of thermal damage to the
battery pack. Medtronic has received seven reports of thermal
damage out of 9817 battery packs. Of these seven reports, one
involved a fire resulting in smoke inhalation and minor burns.

Affected products:

A. CAPNOSTREAM20P, NELLCOR MODEL
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: CS08651-01
                         CS08657-01

Manufacturer: ORIDION MEDICAL 1987 LTD.
              7 HAMARPE ST
              JERUSALEM
              9777407
              ISRAEL

B. CAPNOSTREAM BATTERY PACK
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 16400

Manufacturer: ORIDION MEDICAL 1987 LTD.
              7 HAMARPE ST
              JERUSALEM
              9777407
              ISRAEL

C.  CAPNOSTREAM20P ROHS COMPLIANT
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: CS08651-02
                         CS08657-02

Manufacturer: ORIDION MEDICAL 1987 LTD.
              7 HAMARPE ST
              JERUSALEM
              9777407
              ISRAEL


PACIFIC SEAFOOD: 9th Cir. Affirms Injunction in "Boardman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order granting preliminary injunction to enjoin
the acquisition pendente lite of Ocean Gold Seafoods, Inc. by the
West Coast seafood processor entities owned by Frank Dulcich
(collectively, "Pacific Seafood").  The Ninth Circuit also
affirmed the district court's order denying a motion to compel
arbitration of antitrust claims against Dulcich, Pacific Seafood,
and an Ocean Gold entity.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 3, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/QalUyyfrom Leagle.com.

An antitrust action was brought by a group of West Coast fishermen
against Dulcich, Pacific Seafood, and Ocean Gold, another West
Coast seafood processor, which was commenced in 2010 and settled
in 2012.  Their settlement is documented in a Resolution
Agreement.

In December 2014, Pacific Seafood informed the other parties to
the Resolution Agreement that Pacific Seafood was planning to
acquire Ocean Gold.  A second group of West Coast fishermen then
filed an action against Dulcich, Pacific Seafood, and an Ocean
Gold entity, alleging antitrust claims under the Sherman Act and
the Clayton Act.

The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
acquisition pendente lite, which the district court granted. The
defendants then filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that
the dispute should be arbitrated pursuant to a provision in the
Resolution Agreement.  The district court denied this motion.

The case is JEFF BOARDMAN; DENNIS RANKIN; ROBERT SEITZ; TODD L.
WHALEY; SOUTH BAY WILD, INC.; LLOYD D. WHALEY; MISS SARAH, LLC; MY
FISHERIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PACIFIC SEAFOOD GROUP;
OCEAN GOLD HOLDING CO., INC.; DULCICH INC.; FRANK DULCICH; PACIFIC
SEAFOOD GROUP ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC.; PACIFIC SEAFOOD
WASHINGTON ACQUISITION CO., INC.; BANDON PACIFIC, INC.; BIO-OREGON
PROTEIN, INC.; PACIFIC CHOICE SEAFOOD COMPANY; PACIFIC COAST
SEAFOODS COMPANY; PACIFIC GARIBALDI, INC.; PACIFIC GOLD SEAFOOD
COMPANY; PACIFIC PRIDE SEA FOOD COMPANY; PACIFIC SEA FOOD CO.;
PACIFIC SURIMI CO., INC.; PACIFIC TUNA COMPANY, LLC; WASHINGTON
CRAB PRODUCERS, INC.; PACIFIC ALASKA SHELLFISH, INC.; SEA LEVEL
SEAFOODS, LLC; ISLAND FISH CO., LLC; PACIFIC RESURRECTION BAY;
PACIFIC CONQUEST, INC.; CALAMARI, LLC; JO MARIE LLC; LESLIE LEE,
LLC; MISS PACIFIC, LLC; PACIFIC FUTURE, LLC; PACIFIC GRUMPY J,
LLC; PACIFIC HOOKER, LLC; PACIFIC HORIZON, LLC; PACIFIC KNIGHT,
LLC; PRIVATEER LLC; SEA PRINCESS, LLC; TRIPLE STAR, LLC; PACIFIC
FISHING, LLC; PACIFIC SEA FOOD OF ARIZONA, INC.; STARFISH
INVESTMENTS, INC.; DULCICH SURIMI, LLC; BIO-OREGON PROPERTIES,
LLC; PACIFIC GROUP TRANSPORT, CO.; PACIFIC MARKETING GROUP, INC.;
PACIFIC RUSSIA, INC.; PACIFIC RUSSIA VENTURES, LLC; PACIFIC TUNA
HOLDING COMPANY, INC.; POWELL STREET MARKET, LLC; PACIFIC FRESH
SEA FOOD COMPANY; SEACLIFF SEAFOODS, INC.; COPPER RIVER RESOURCE
HOLDING CO., INC.; PACIFIC COPPER RIVER ACQUISITION CO., INC.; SEA
LEVEL SEAFOODS ACQUISITION, INC.; ISLAND COHO, LLC; S&S SEAFOOD
CO., INC.; PACIFIC SEAFOOD DISC., INC.; DULCICH REALTY, LLC;
DULCICH REALTY ACQUISITION, LLC; DULCICH JET, LLC; OCEAN COMPANIES
HOLDING CO., LLC, Defendants-Appellants, Nos. 15-35257, 15-35504
(9th Cir.).

Timothy W. Snider (argued) -- timothy.snider@stoel.com -- Rachel
C. Lee, and Randolph C. Foster -- randy.foster@stoel.com -- Stoel
Rives LLP, Portland, Oregon; Michael J. Esler --
esler@eslerstephens.com -- John W. Stephens, and Kim T. Buckley --
buckley@eslerstephens.com -- Esler, Stephens, & Buckley, Portland,
Oregon, for Defendants-Appellants.

Michael E. Haglund (argued) -- haglund@hk-law.com -- Michael K.
Kelley -- kelley@hk-law.com -- Shay S. Scott -- scott@hk-law.com
-- and Sara Ghafouri -- sghafouri@hk-law.com -- Haglund Kelley
LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


PAN ASIA: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10545

  Brand name   Common   Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  ----------   name     ----    product       ---
               ------           ----------
  Wang Korea   Fish     280 g   2017.04.050   87703 12779 1
               Cake
               (Stick
               Type)
  Wang Korea   Fish     1 kg    2017.07.30    0 87703 11546 0
               Cake


PAN ASIA: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 21, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail,
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10547

  Brand name    Common   Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  ----------    name     ----    product         ---
                ------           ----------
  N/A (Korean   Frozen   1 kg    NOV. 05, 2017   8 809183 070761
  Characters    Fish
  Only)         Cake


PASADENA HOSPITAL: "Espino" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Espino, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Pasadena Hospital Association, Ltd., doing business as, Untington
Hospital, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC618479 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), seeks to recover
reasonable attorney's fees, and reinstatement and reimbursement
for lost wages and work benefits pursuant to the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began his employment
with Huntington Hospital on or about December 5, 2011, as a
Certified Phlebotomy Technician 1 and he held that position until
he was unlawfully terminated on January 15, 2016.

The Defendant is a large hospital that provides a variety of
healthcare services to patients in the Los Angeles County area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rhonel T. Aquino, Esq.
          AQUINO LAW FIRM
          595 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 210
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 564 8801
          Facsimile: (626) 564 8802
          E-mail: rhonel@aquinolawfirm.com


PEOPLES BANK: Summary Judgment Dismissing "Gay" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPH LEE GAY, Individually and on Behalf
of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLES BANK,
Defendant, No. COA15-1103 (N.C. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of
North Carolina affirmed the trial court's order granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendant Peoples Bank and dismissing
Joseph Lee Gay's complaint.

A full-text copy of the court's May 3, 2016 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/6Lc3nufrom Leagle.com.

Gay filed the class action complaint against Peoples Bank on March
25, 2013, alleging the Bank had assessed "improper and multiple
overdraft charges."  Gay claimed that Peoples Bank "maximized its
income from overdraft fees by manipulating the timing and order in
which customer debit card charges were processed, charging
overdraft fees on accounts that were not actually overdrawn."  The
complaint asserted claims against Peoples Bank for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and unfair and deceptive trade
practices under the North Carolina General Statute sections 75-
1.1, et seq.

Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, by Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. --
stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- pro hac vice; Sigmon, Clark, Mackie,
Hanvey & Ferrell, P.A., by Amber R. Mueggenburg; Greg Coleman Law
PC, by Greg Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- pro hac vice,
for Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee and the Proposed Class.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Daniel
F.E. Smith -- dsmith@brookspierce.com -- and Reid L. Phillips --
rphillips@brookspierce.com --  for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-
Appellant.


RACERMATE INC: Recalls Blue Flywheels Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2016
Posting date: April 20, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57970

This recall involves CompuTrainers shipped prior to 2008 with a
blue flywheel by RacerMate Inc. The CompuTrainer is used to make
bicycles stationary for indoor training.  The attached blue
flywheels are a die cast wheel made of zinc, measuring 12 cm in
diameter. Flywheels manufactured after 2008 are silver in colour,
and are not included in this recall.

The blue flywheel can shatter while in use and throw metal pieces
into the air. This poses a risk of injury from impact to the rider
and any bystanders.

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

RacerMate Inc. has received five reports of flywheels that have
shattered, including three reports of injuries such as lacerations
and leg bruises.

Approximately 25,000 units of the affected products were sold
worldwide both in various retail stores and factory direct;
approximately 10-15 % of these units having been sold to Canadian
consumers.

The affected products were sold from 1988 to December 2007.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: RacerMate Inc.
              Seattle
              Washington
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using and remove the recalled
blue flywheels.  Consumers can contact RacerMate for instructions
on how to receive a free, silver replacement flywheel.

For more information, consumers may call RacerMate at 1-800-522-
3610 between 9 am and 4 pm Pacific Monday to Friday, or online and
click on Support to access the Blue Flywheel Recall Form.
Consumers may also email RacerMate at sales@racermateinc.com or
service@racermateinc.com

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/GOgxzN


S-L DISTRIBUTION: "Tavares" Class Action Deal Has Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANTONIO TAVARES, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. S-L DISTRIBUTION CO.,
INC., and S-L ROUTES, LLC, Defendants, No. 1:13-cv-1313 (M.D.
Pa.), Judge John E. Jones III granted the plaintiffs' unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement.  The
fairness hearing was held on April 20, 2016.

The parties have agreed to a $2,850,000 non-reversionary
settlement fund, from which attorneys' fees and expenses are to be
paid, as well as enhancement awards for the named plaintiffs and a
$5,000 award to plaintiff Antonio Oliviera.  This results in a net
fund of $2,070,000, to be distributed to 178 settlement class
members.  The average individual payout will be approximately
$11,692, determined based on a ratio of weeks the particular
plaintiff worked compared to the total weeks worked by all other
claimants during the relevant time period.  Further, because the
fund is non-reversionary, the plaintiffs who have opted to exclude
themselves from the settlement have perhaps unintentionally
benefited the remaining class members.  Those who opted out were
set to receive approximately $160,207.21 of the fund, all of which
will now go to the class, and enhance each claimants' award by an
average of $900.

A full-text copy of Judge Jones' May 2, 2016 memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/91rF5gfrom Leagle.com.

The class action arose from the plaintiffs' contention that, under
the Massachusetts Wage Act, they should be correctly characterized
as employees of the defendants and not independent contractors.
The plaintiffs are delivery drivers employed by the defendants.

Antonio Tavares, Ito Mosso, Emanuel Tavares, Julio Teixeira,
Antonio Oliveira, Angelo Teixeira, Melquisede Pulinario,
Plaintiffs, represented by Harold L. Lichten --
hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Stephen
Churchill, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Mark J. Gottesfeld,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC &
Matthew Thomson -- mthomson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C..

S-L Distribution Co., Inc., S-L Routes, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Joel L. Lennen -- jlennnen@eckertseamans.com --
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Adam M. Shienvold --
ashienvold@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott,
Matthew J Whipple -- mwhipple@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Michael R Borasky --
mborasky@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC.

S-L Routes, LLC, S-L Distribution Co., Inc., Counterclaim
Plaintiff, represented by Joel L. Lennen, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin
& Mellott & Adam M. Shienvold, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott.


SAMJIN INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Frozen Fish Cakes Due to Egg
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Samjin International Inc.
Distribution: Nova Scotia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail,
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10541

  Brand name    Common   Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  ----------    name     ----    product         ---
                ------           ----------
  N/A (Korean   Frozen   1 kg    NOV. 05, 2017   8 803125 100066
  Characters    Fish
  Only)         Cake


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Frozen Seafood Products Due to Egg
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 23, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Seoul Trading Corporation
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly
National, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10544

Seoul Trading Corporation is recalling Choripdong brand frozen
seafood products from the marketplace because they contain egg
which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg
should not consume the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold in British Colombia,
Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and may also have been
distributed in other provinces or territories.

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

If you have an allergy to egg, 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 these products.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The 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 products
from the marketplace.

  Brand       Common     Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name        name       ----    product       ---
  ----        ------             ----------
  Choripdong  Seafood    300 g   2017.05.10    7 61898 66724 8
              Mix                              7 61898 66722 4
              Pancake
  Choripdong  Seafood    300 g   2017.04.19    7 61898 68931 8
              Mixed                            7 61898 70044 0
              Pancake

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/74OUP8


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls IMMULITE & IMMULITE 1000 Systems
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2016
Posting date: April 29, 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-58170

Manufacturer has determined that it takes 24 minutes of incubation
prior to process the samples on the IMMULITE/IMMULITE 1000 System
for the patient sample and the pretreatment solution to reach full
equilibration when using pretreatment solution (LGFA) lot 055
contained in IGF-I Kit lot 411. If patient samples are run before
reaching full equilibration an under-recovery of up to -36% may
occur. If the sample is left to incubate for more than 24 minutes
prior to testing, no under recovery is observed.

Affected products
A. IMMULITE SYSTEM - IGF-1 (INSULIN LIKE GROWTH HORMONE)
Lot or serial number: 411
Model or catalog number: LKGF1

Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products Limited
              Glyn Rhonwy
              Llanberis
              LL55 4EL
              UNITED KINGDOM

B. IMMULITE 1000 SYSTEM - IGF-1 ASSAY
Lot or serial number: 411
Model or catalog number: LKGF1

Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products Limited
              Glyn Rhonwy
              Llanberis
              LL55 4EL
              UNITED KINGDOM


SOS FURNITURE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against SOS Furniture Company, Inc. The
case is captioned Andres Gomez, 1251 NW 20th St., Apt. 705, Miami,
Florida 33142, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOS Furniture
Company, Inc., doing business as: Mattress1 One, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21515-JLK. (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2016). The
Assigned Senior Judge is Hon. James Lawrence King.

SOS Furniture was founded in 2002. The Company's line of business
includes distributing furniture.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
          SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
          4200 NW 7th Avenue
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (786) 431 1333
          Facsimile: (786) 513 7700
          E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Sued Over Underpayment of Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------
Angela Neville, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that plaintiff
Charles Hicks recently filed a putative class action in an
Arkansas federal court on his behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated claiming that Southwestern Energy Co. and its
subsidiaries are defrauding him and the other class members
through underpayment of royalties and seeking in excess of $5
million in damages.

The dispute centers on the issue of whether Southwestern Energy is
using improper accounting methods to determine the royalties and
thereby shortchanging its royalty owners.  Today many royalty
owners who were looking to cash in on the oil and gas drilling
boom of a few years ago are seeking to find out why the gusher of
cash royalties has slowed down.

Mr. Hicks filed his suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas against Spring, Texas-based
Southwestern Energy Co. and several of its affiliates, including
SWN Production (Arkansas), Southwestern Energy Services Co. and
Desoto Gathering Co.

According to the complaint, the class consists of mineral owners
who fall in several specific categories, such as they signed a
"gross proceeds lease" that does not allow for deduction of post-
production expenses.  Mr. Hicks asserts that "upon information and
belief, there are more than 1,000 putative class members."

According to the complaint, the class members are suing
Southwestern Energy and the other defendants based upon the
defendants' alleged underpayment of royalties on natural gas from
wells in the geological formation referred to as the Fayetteville
Shale Play in Arkansas.  The suit claims that the defendants used
improper accounting methods, such as starting with a price that is
too low and taking deductions for PPEs, such as marketing,
gathering, compression and dehydration, and by failing to account
for and pay royalties.

As stated in the complaint, the class members are seeking
temporary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory judgment
and allege that they are entitled to recover for breach of the
prudent operator standard, breach of contract, violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, for fraud, constructive
fraud, conversion, for unjust enrichment, punitive damages, treble
damages and attorney fees and costs.

According to the complaint, Mr. Hicks and the putative class
members are seeking, among other things, an award of damages in
excess of $5,000,000 from the defendants including the
disgorgement of amounts for which the defendants have been
unjustly enriched, pre- and post-judgment interest, compensatory
damages, treble damages and punitive damages.

The class is being represented by Keith Grayson with the firm of
Grayson & Grayson, based in Heber Springs, Arkansas.  Mr. Grayson
was unavailable for comment.

John Ale, Southwestern Energy's general counsel, did not return a
call for comment.  Christina Fowler, the Southwestern Energy
communications adviser, declined to comment about the litigation.
Currently, Southwestern Energy is not represented by outside
counsel.


SPOTIFY: Lowery Balks at Tunecore's Settlement Opt-in Form
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnikoff, writing for Digital Music News, reports that
Tunecore is blindly leading songwriters down the wrong path,
according to longtime artist activist David Lowery.

The controversy surrounds an agreement forged between Spotify and
the National Music Publishers Association, or NMPA, one that is
now being forwarded to smaller songwriters and publishers belong
to Tunecore.  The only problem with that, according to artist
activist (and Spotify litigant) David Lowery is that it's
blatantly misleading and doesn't even include the contract itself.

Mr. Lowery is responding to this opt-in form, which is being sent
en-masse by Tunecore to member artists:

Here's where this is a declaration of war for Mr. Lowery.  By
agreeing to the NMPA/Spotify out-of-court settlement, songwriters
effectively disqualify themselves from participating in a massive,
class action lawsuit against Spotify over unpaid mechanical
publishing licenses.

Or, any legal action against Spotify related to unpaid
mechanicals, for that matter.  Mr. Lowery is heading one of two
class actions against Spotify, each valued at an estimated $200
million.  Spotify, smartly teaming with the NMPA, is now defusing
that action by dramatically reducing the number of songwriters and
publishers that can participate.

Mr. Lowery alleges that this is being done through trickery, and
withholding critical details.  Which led to this reaction by
Lowery on his heavily-read blog, The Trichordist:

"Are you fucking kidding me?  A Survey Monkey form?  If you are a
Tunecore songwriter you recently got an email asking you to sign
up for the NMPA/Harry Fox Agency/ Spotify settlement.

"Songwriters are directed to the above Survey Monkey form.  This
is it.  No details. Nothing.Nada. In particular there is no
mention of the possible statutory damages that songwriters are
waiving by opting in to this.

So it's your choice songwriters:
Sign up for a backroom deal cooked up between the NMPA, Harry Fox
Agency and Spotify? Or wait for a FAIR and TRANSPARENT process
supervised by a federal judge?

Wish all choices were this easy."

Mr. Lowery also supplied the following email to Digital Music
News, again noting that songwriters aren't being given access to
the settlement contract itself.  "As far as i can tell that's what
they did," Lowery relayed (we're waiting for a response from
Tunecore).

Meanwhile, the NMPA itself has been battling Lowery and
discouraging songwriters to join his class action (and
disqualifying any songwriter from doing so after joining the out-
of-court agreement).  That has the potential to absolutely deflate
both class actions, and dramatically reduce Spotify's liabilities.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Iron Workers Fund Suit Removed to N.D. Cal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Terraform Global, Inc.,
et al., Defendant, Case No. CIV536468 (Cal. Super., December 9,
2015), has been removed to N.D. Cal. on April 26, 2016, under Case
No. 3:16-cv-02270.

Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund acquired TerraForm Global
Class A common shares and claims to have lost money in the
transaction. TerraForm sustained considerable financial losses
prior to the IPO and whose condition was not made known to the
shareholders.

TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation
assets worldwide. The Company generates electricity through solar,
wind, and hydro-electric projects and serves utility, commercial,
industrial and government customers. TerraForm Global holds wind
and solar projects in South Africa, India and China.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brett Hammon, Esq.
      WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
      950 Page Mill Road
      Palo Alto, CA 94304
      Telephone: (650) 858-6000
      Facsimile (650) 858-6100
      Email: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Securities Suit Removed to N.D. Cal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anton Badri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Terraform Global, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. CIV536536 (Cal. Super., December 9, 2015), has been removed to
N.D. Cal. on April 26, 2016, under Case No. 3:16-cv-02269-RS.

Badri acquired TerraForm Global Class A common shares and claims
to have lost money in the transaction. TerraForm sustained
considerable financial losses prior to the IPO and whose condition
was not made known to the shareholders.

TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation
assets worldwide. The Company generates electricity through solar,
wind, and hydro-electric projects and serves utility, commercial,
industrial and government customers. TerraForm Global holds wind
and solar projects in South Africa, India and China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Tel: (858) 914-2001
      Fax: (858) 914-2002

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brett Hammon, Esq.
      WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
      950 Page Mill Road
      Palo Alto, CA 94304
      Telephone: (650) 858-6000
      Facsimile (650) 858-6100
      Email: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com


TICKETMASTER: Settles Class Action Over Excessive Delivery Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
You may have recently received an email that sounds similar to
this one:

Dear Class Member,

You are receiving this email because you are a Class Member in the
Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster Class Action Settlement.

The settlement has been fully approved and all appeals have been
resolved.  To the extent you are eligible to receive them, your
Discount, UPS Discount, and Ticket Codes will be placed in your
Ticketmaster.com account . . .

If so, congratulations. Ticketmaster is a wealthy target, and a
much maligned company, and you're probably entitled to some
winnings.

The bad news is that you will probably never see a dime of that
money.  Also, you very likely were actually ripped off somewhere
along the way, a bunch of lawyers have profited by using your name
and you can probably treat that email as just another bit of spam.
Welcome to the grotesque free-for-all known as the American class
action system.

The class action lawsuit at its heart is a solid idea.  Originally
it was created as a rule of judicial efficiency.  If one common
act harmed an entire group, there's no need for them to each
individually prove the same case.  Indeed, doing so risks a
confusion of justice if the quirks of one judge and jury lead to
awards for some and not others on the same set of facts.

It also allows restitution when harms are too small for individual
lawsuits.  Without a disincentive, companies would be free to
outsource moderate risks onto their customers, taking advantage of
them one nickel and dime at a time.  Ticketmaster's alleged
behavior is a perfect example of this.

The plaintiffs in Schlesinger claim that Ticketmaster has been
deceiving customers by charging excessive processing and delivery
fees, which were in reality profit centers for the company rather
than actual costs.  If true, these claims would make for a perfect
example of the class system in action.  The company would, indeed,
have committed fraud and should pay for it, but who's going to sue
over a $10 surcharge to see Chumbawumba? (This is a very old
lawsuit.)

Instead a plaintiffs' attorney can find just a few representative
cases and then sue in the name of everyone that the company
allegedly harmed.  Whether or not that's a good thing depends
almost entirely on which side of the bar you sit on, but when a
company has allegedly bilked its customers for vast amounts of
money it's important to have some check on

Nothing that Ticketmaster did, or any other defendant in a class
action, will ever actually be proven however, because very few of
these cases ever go to trial. I n fact, virtually none will.

This is where the wheels start to come off the wagon.  Schlesinger
is in fact a highly representative class action lawsuit, just not
in ways that should make any member of the bar proud.

The modern class action lawsuit has come under increasing
criticism for serving the interests of plaintiffs lawyers and, to
an increasing degree, defendants at the expense of the claimants
it purports to serve.  A study conducted by the law firm Mayer
Brown finds, among other things, that "the vast majority of cases
[produce] no benefits to most members of the putative class."

Setting aside securities cases, in which lawsuits are filed on
behalf of shareholders who already have a network of oversight
designed to represent their interests, in the case of consumer
class actions this is generally true.


TOKYO Y2K: Recalls Frozen Imitation Seafood Products Due to Egg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 23, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Tokyo Y2K Import Export Canada Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10560

Tokyo Y2K Import Export Canada Inc. is recalling Yamada brand
frozen imitation seafood products from the marketplace because
they contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with
an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The following products have been sold in Ontario and Quebec and
may have been distributed in other provinces and territories.

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 egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The 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        ---
  ----    ------             ----------
  Yamada  Frozen     454 g   BB 26JULY2016  8 854241 004448
          Imitation
          Breaded
          Scallop
  Yamada  Imitation  1 kg    BB 20APR2016   8 854241 00472 1
          Crab Meat          and
          Shredded           BB 03SEP2017
  Yamada  Frozen     10 kg   BB 19AUG2016   none
          Fish       2 x 5
          Tofu       kg

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


TSC STORES: Recalls Telescoping Lift Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 20, 2016
Posting date: April 20, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57806

This recall involves a telescoping lift for mechanically elevating
sheets of drywall. The brand name is Performance Built and the
model number is YTL 40203.

The drywall lift can fail during use causing the load of drywall
to fall onto the lift operator, posing an injury hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these lifts in Canada.

YTL International, Inc. has received two reports in the United
States of the drywall lifts failing and dropping their load. No
injuries have been reported.

Approximately 2,100 units were sold in Canada and approximately
17,000 units were distributed in the United States.

The affected products were sold from January 2013 to January 2016.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: TSC Stores L.P.
             Distribution Centre, N5V 2Z8
             London,
             Ontario
             CANADA

Manufacturer: Finehau Industry Group
              Hong Kong, China and Tian Xin District Tangxia Town
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled drywall lifts
and contact YTL International, Inc. for a return label for
returning the recalled product and receiving a full refund.

For more information, consumers can contact YTL International,
Inc. toll free at 888-723-6534 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday or online and click on RECALL.

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/m2ATLD


UNITED HEALTH: "Cummings-Reed" Sent to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIELLE CUMMINGS-REED, an individual,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP, OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC., and
DOES 2 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-02359-JAM-AC
(E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez granted the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Mendez's May 2, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/rk9iWrfrom Leagle.com.

Danielle Cummings-Reed brought the action against UnitedHealth
Group and Optum360 Services, Inc. alleging workplace
discrimination and wrongful termination, among other things.

Danielle Cummings-Reed, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
Robert LeClerc, Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP.

United Health Group, Defendant, represented by Robin Elizabeth
Devaux -- rdevaux@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Pritee K.
Thakarsey -- pthakarsey@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw Llp.

Optum360 Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura J.
Maechtlen -- lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Robin
Elizabeth Devaux, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Pritee K. Thakarsey,
Seyfarth Shaw Llp.


VALLEY HOPE: Faces "Cox" Suit in W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Valley Hope Association. The case
is captioned Robert Cox, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Valley Hope Association, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04127 (W.D. Mo., April 28, 2016).

Valley Hope is a nonprofit organization which provides drug and
alcohol addiction (Substance Use Disorder) treatment services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VERMEER: Recalls 2015 Model Trailers Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 22, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number:2016175TC
ID number: 2016175

On certain trailers, the tires could come into contact with fender
when the suspension fully compresses. This could result in tire
damage and could adversely affect vehicle handling, increasing the
risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will install a 1.9cm (3/4") spacer between the
axle and the trailer frame.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  VERMEER                 2015


VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of Vivint Solar, Inc. shareholders ("Vivint"
or the "Company") against certain officers of SunEdison Inc.
("SunEdison").   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Eastern District of Missouri, and docketed under 16-cv-
00628, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Vivint securities
between July 20, 2015 and March 7, 2016 inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vivint securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 5, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Vivint is a provider of distributed solar energy, which is
electricity generated by a solar energy system installed at a
customer's location, including residential, commercial and
industrial properties throughout the United States.  In July 2015,
SunEdison and Vivint announced a merger pursuant to which
SunEdison would acquire Vivint.  On this announcement, Vivint's
stock price increased $4.87, an increase of approximately 44.8%,
to close at $15.75.  On February 24, 2016, at the Company's
special shareholders meeting, Vivint shareholders voted to approve
the merger with SunEdison.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SunEdison would be unable to
obtain financing for the acquisition of Vivint; (ii) SunEdison's
liquidity was less than Defendants had stated; (iii) SunEdison
would not be able to complete the acquisition of Vivint; and (iv)
as a result, Defendants' statements about the merger between
SunEdison and Vivint were materially false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On February 29, 2016, after the market closed, SunEdison filed a
Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC,
disclosing that the Company would be unable to timely file its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2015.  The Notification of Late Filing included information that
in late 2015, former SunEdison executives had made allegations
concerning the accuracy of SunEdison's financial position.

On this news, shares of Vivint fell $1.37 per share or over 17%
from the stock's previous closing price to close at $6.52 per
share on March 1, 2016, damaging investors.

On March 2, 2016, during trading hours, The Wall Street Journal
published an article entitled, "SunEdison's Takeover of Vivint
Solar in Jeopardy as Banks Balk" stating that the Vivint-SunEdison
merger was in jeopardy.

On this news, shares of Vivint fell $1.63 per share or 25% from
the stock's previous closing price to close at $4.89 per share on
March 2, 2016, damaging investors.

On March 8, 2016, Vivint announced that it was terminating the
Merger Agreement.  Also on March 8, 2016, Vivint filed a lawsuit
against SunEdison in Delaware Chancery Court alleging breach of
contract.

On this news, shares of Vivint fell $1.04 per share or
approximately 20% from the stock's previous closing price to close
at $5.21 per share on March 7, 2016, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


WEBBERSFOOD: Recalls Caraway-Pepper Salami Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 21, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Webbersfood Ltd.
Distribution: Nova Scotia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10530

Webbersfood Ltd. is recalling caraway-pepper salami from the
marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium
botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described below.

The following product was sold unlabelled by Webbersfood Ltd. at
the Historic Farmers' Market, located at Brewery Square in
Halifax, Nova Scotia, on April 9, 2016.

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.

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

If you suspect you have become ill from eating a recalled product,
the CFIA recommends contacting your doctor.

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

This recall was triggered by test results. 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        ---
  ----    ------                     ----------
  None    Caraway-pepper   Various   None           None
          Salami


WILLIAM SACKETT: Court Rules on Echons' Bid to Compel Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ESMERALDO VILLANUEVA ECHON, JR., MARIBEL
ECHON, and JUSTIN ECHON, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM SACKETT, and
LEONIDA SACKETT, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW
(D. Colo.), Judge Nina Y. Wang granted in part and denied, in
part, the plaintiffs' Third Motion to Compel Discovery.

Judge Wang granted the motion as to the Interrogatory Responses
and the defendants were compelled to respond to the outstanding
interrogatories fully, in narrative form, no later than May 16,
2016.  The judge also ordered that the defendants must pay the
portion (but in any case, no more than 50%) of the reasonable
expenses associated with the Motion to Compel attributable to the
deficient interrogatory responses, to be determined by a
forthcoming motion for reasonable expenses to be filed by the
plaintiffs no later than May 16, 2016.

Judge Wang denied the Motion as to the Requests for Production.

A full-text copy of Judge Wang's May 2, 2016 order is available at
http://is.gd/bVvBx8from Leagle.com.

Esmeraldo Villanueva Echon, Jr., Maribel Echon, and Justin Echon
initiated the action on December 18, 2014 by filing a Complaint
asserting the following claims: (1) violation of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"); (2) violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (3) violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wage of Workers; (4) violation of the Colorado
Wage Claim Act; (5) Breach of Contract; (6) Breach of Contract --
Third Party Beneficiary Claim; and (7) Unjust Enrichment.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, William and Leonida
Sackett, who operate several businesses and manage a farm in Rocky
Ford, Colorado, held them in "debt bondage, requiring them to work
on their crops and in their market, clean and maintain their
rental properties, and perform various other jobs from 2011-2014,"
without pay.

Esmeraldo Villanueva Echon, Jr., Maribel Echon, Justin Echon,
Plaintiffs, represented by William Lawson Konvalinka, Colorado
Legal Services, Caleb Samuel Stewart, Colorado Legal Services &
Jenifer Cari Rodriguez, Colorado Legal Services.


* Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts May Proliferate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Odendahl, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that in
today's marketplace, consumers have a choice when purchasing such
things as cellphones, banking services and even medical
procedures.  Sign the contract and get the product.  Don't sign
the contract and don't get the product.

Increasingly, the choice consumers do not have is to sign the
contract and still be able to bring a class action against the
company.

A recent opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States has
affirmed the justices' earlier stance that arbitration agreements
can include class-action and class-arbitration waivers that
effectively prevent consumers from joining together to fight the
product manufacturer or service provider.

However, the ruling -- along with rumblings from the public and
concerns about businesses overreaching -- may be ratcheting the
pressure on Congress and federal agencies to bring new regulations
that would give consumers more choices.

In the meantime, Indianapolis attorney John Van Winkle believes
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts will proliferate.

Van Winkle of Van Winkle Baten Dispute Resolution senses a tension
between the Supreme Court seemingly giving leeway to arbitration
agreements and Congress wanting to rein in the more extreme
provisions.  Eventually either Capitol Hill will act or the
justices may impose some limits.

The current trend in consumer contracts is "potentially
troublesome," he said, and will not remain unchecked. Certainly,
if some agreements continue to try to overreach, Congress will
have an easier time taking action.

Attorneys were not surprised by the Supreme Court's December
ruling on arbitration clauses, DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, et al.,
577 U.S. (2015).  Going back to the 1970s, the court has held a
consistent view of the Federal Arbitration Act and upheld
arbitration agreements.

Class-action waivers are a fairly recent development.  They did
not appear in the agreements until a trend developed of class
actions erupting in arbitration contexts that were perceived to
put the defendants -- businesses --  at a disadvantage.

James McKenna of Jackson Lewis P.C. in Chicago said Imburgia fits
into the pattern of the Supreme Court enforcing the agreement as
written.

Sticking to precedent

Indeed, with Imburgia, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its precedent
that arbitration agreements that prohibit class actions and class
arbitrations are enforceable.  The ruling held that the Federal
Arbitration Act preempted a California law that barred class
waivers.

This case followed AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333
(2011) and American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133
S. Ct. 2304 (2013), both of which ruled class waivers are
enforceable in arbitration agreements.

In Imburgia, two consumers brought suit against DirecTV for being
charged early termination fees.  The service contract included a
waiver of class arbitration but noted if the "law of your state"
does not recognize such waivers as enforceable, then the entire
arbitration provision is unenforceable.

The California Court of Appeals found the language of the contract
indicated the parties had chosen California law to govern and the
Golden State's prohibition on class waivers prevailed.  But the
Supreme Court reversed, holding the lower courts must following
the ruling in Concepcion.

The irony of Imburgia is that Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote
the dissent in Concepcion, wrote the majority opinion.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, finding the Federal
Arbitration Act does not apply to proceedings in state courts.

"The decision steps beyond Concepcion and Italian Colors,"
Ginsburg wrote, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  "There, as
here, the Court misread the FAA to deprive consumers of effective
relief against powerful economic entities that write no-class-
action arbitration clauses into their form contracts."

Looking at Imburgia and the previous rulings, Thomas Stipanowich,
academic director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution
at Pepperdine School of Law, noted the trajectory the court has
been taking on arbitration law could change with the death of
Justice Antonin Scalia.

Many of the prior rulings were 5-4 splits with Scalia either
authoring or strongly influencing the decisions enforcing
arbitration agreements.  The court is now pretty much evenly
divided and depending on the judicial temperament and philosophy
of the individual confirmed to replace Scalia, the Supreme Court
could shift views.

To South Bend attorney Joseph Simeri, the court's decision was
disappointing in that it prohibits consumers from accessing the
court, leaving them little chance of getting a fair shot.

"Everybody wants to win," he said, "but they can accept losing if
they think it's fair."

Primarily arbitrating employment matters, Mr. Simeri said the
arbitration process can be the best process for certain
situations. Arbitration gets to the heart of the issue and is
quicker and less expensive than going to the courts.  But the key
is to keep the process fair with both sides volunteering to
participate and select the arbitrator.

If one side is allowed to select the arbitrator and set the
parameters for the process, Mr. Simeri worries lay persons,
already unable to go to court, will get discouraged and quit
fighting.

Not-so-plain language

Adding to the unfairness are the contracts themselves.  Consumers
either don't read the contract or don't understand the arbitration
clause. If they do read and understand, they don't have a choice
but to accept the terms in order to get the goods and services.

A study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found tens of
millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses yet three
out of four surveyed were unaware they were subject to them.  In
addition, the report noted class-action waivers appeared in
arbitration clauses to varying degrees with 57 percent of mobile
wireless contracts and 6 percent of payday loan contracts having
such provisions.

Looking closely at the contracts themselves, the CFPB study
discovered the arbitration provisions tended to be wordy, complex
and written at a higher grade level when compared to the rest of
the document.

Judith Fox, clinical professor at the Notre Dame Law School, said
arbitration agreements are confusing and essentially prevent
consumers from getting relief.  Dollar amounts at the center of
some disputes may be so small that holding the company accountable
is only practical when the consumers can join together.

As to businesses' contention that arbitration helps stop frivolous
lawsuits, Fox countered that if companies cleaned up their
business practices, they would not get sued.

Pressure to act

Congress and the CFPB have been considering action to limit abuses
in arbitration agreements.

Ms. Fox, who is on the CFPB Advisory Board, advocates banning all
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.  At the very least,
companies should be required to use plain language and give
consumers the ability to opt out.

Mr. Stipanowich doubts Congress, given its current makeup, will
take any action.  But the CFPB could institute a limit similar to
the regulation that the Securities and Exchange Commission
implemented on investor-broker arbitration agreements.  Mainly,
the SEC ruled class-action waivers were not enforceable. However,
if class-action waivers become unenforceable, consumers might find
their only choice is court.

Mr. Stipanowich anticipates if the waivers go, some companies will
throw out the arbitration agreement altogether.  The primary
reason for them is to avoid class actions and if that is no longer
an option, arbitration will be cut from contracts and the
businesses will turn to relying on the courts.


* CFPB Set to Announce New Rule on Arbitration Clauses
------------------------------------------------------
PYMTS.com reports that while most of the financial services world
has been buzzing about the coming payday lending regulations
expected shortly from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, it
seems another set of new rules may be about to quietly jump the
line.

Recent reports indicate that the CFPB will announce a new rule
governing arbitration clauses in consumer lending contracts at a
field hearing on the subject scheduled in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Arbitration -- a legally binding method of dispute resolution that
happens outside a courtroom -- is, as PYMNTS has reported in the
past, something of a strange topic in financial services in that
it is very controversial but in an extremely low-key kind of way.

Fans of arbitration in general note that it is a highly useful
tool in stopping frivolous and expensive lawsuits.  As of the late
20th century, litigation costs in the United States had literally
climbed to the level of 2 percent of GDP -- and plaintiffs'
attorneys developed a rather pronounced reputation for leveraging
the threat of a very expensive trip through the legal system to
get settlements for non-infractions since it was cheaper to pay
than fight.  The only winner in that scenario are scammers and
lawyers.  Arbitration, according to its staunchest defenders,
played a critical role in ending the era of the "hot coffee"
lawsuit by short circuiting expensive cases in favor of mediator-
led resolutions.

On the other side of the issue -- the side the CFPB is largely
expected to come down on -- are those who point out that
arbitration may be a fine tool in some cases, but not all.  They
further note that the persistent use of arbitration clauses in
contracts for almost every conceivable financial product or
consumer service is a problem because that list includes most
contracts for credit cards, checking and deposit accounts, prepaid
cards, money transfer services, auto loans, small dollar or payday
loans, student loans, cable service and mobile services.  The only
major financial service one won't find on this list is mortgage
loans, because it is illegal to put an arbitration clause into a
mortgage loan.

The issue, though not quite as famously contentious as payday
lending, does tend to draw out raised feelings when it comes up,
as it has periodically for the last several years since a
regulatory focus on the use of arbitration clauses has been part
of the CFPB's mandate since Day 1, since the firm is required by
Dodd Frank to:

"Conduct a study of, and provide a report to Congress concerning,
the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future
dispute between covered persons and consumers in connection with
the offering or providing of consumer financial products or
services."

The study has been written and presented to Congress and the
people. And now it is time for the rule.  What can we expect?

A Lot More Class Action Suits (And A Lot More Oversight)

Among the main complaints about arbitrations as a consumer
protection issue is that class action lawsuits are not possible
within an arbitration framework.  In short, once consumers click
"I agree" on the terms of service they didn't bother to read, they
essentially agree that no matter how illegal things go from there
on out, they are not going to sue collectively, but instead walk
the solo road of arbitration.

And there have certainly been documented abuses of that,
particularly among a spectacularly shady subset of debt collectors
who specialize in creating legal headaches for consumers with
expired debt.

Consumers like retired Baltimore electrician Clifford Cain Jr.,
who found he had lost a legal action that he didn't know he had to
a debt collector -- specifically, Midland Funding, a unit of the
Encore Capital Group.

Midland made several creative attempts to collect the debt in
Maryland, starting with the fact that it is not licensed to
collect debt there at all.  Mr. Cain was one of a number of
Marylanders swept up in a crop of mass suits that a later review
showed contained many cases of consumers who owed no money or who
owed debts that were long expired.

When Mr. Cain and several other consumers contended they'd been
wrongfully swept up in Midland's mass collection and sued as a
class, their case was dismissed.  Why?  All parties had agreed at
some point to an arbitration clause in whatever contract has gone
into collections, and class action lawsuits are not legally
allowed in arbitration matters.

Cases like that are why the CFPB is considered likely to make a
rule prohibiting the application of arbitration agreements as to
class actions.

The CFPB's study, "shows that . . . aggregated actions --
typically class action litigation -- have provided significant
benefits to consumers, through cash settlements and other benefits
made available to them and from agreements by companies to stop
harmful behavior.  Class litigation may also benefit consumers
through the deterrent impact of those settlement agreements on
other companies' conduct."

The new rule is also considered to likely require all arbitration
disputes between consumers and firms be submitted to the CFPB for
review -- with the possibility that disputes and awards will be
published on the Bureau's website.

Concerns Bubble As The Rule Drop Nears

While consumer watchdog groups have generally lauded an overhaul
of arbitration rules in consumer contracts, the move has its
critics, who note that consumers may not be quite as widely
benefited by this as they might appear to be on first glance.

Arbitration is inarguably subject to abuse -- the problem is so is
the civil tort system, particularly around class actions lawsuits.
There is a reason arbitration came into fashion.

Moreover as lenders, issuers and service providers now face the
possibility of large -- and in some cases very expensive --
lawsuits, they have to build risk into their models.  Those costs,
some have noted, will likely be passed onto customers and
accountholders.

Alternately, service providers and underwriters could also tighten
their requirements for contracting more tightly around credit in
the hopes of selecting a customer base they end up in a protracted
struggle with.

The problem with arbitration is really just the latest chapter in
the ongoing problem of protecting consumers from actors who are
truly out to cheat them, while not punishing all the good actors
and making it harder and more expensive for everyone to transact.

And, as with most of these issues, there aren't any easy answers.

But the CFPB will officially offer its first round of solutions
and take public comments on it in real-time at a field hearing.


* Chamber of Commerce Suggests Issues to Address in CFPB Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan S. Kaplinsky, Esq. -- kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com -- and
Mark J. Levin, Esq. -- levinmj@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard
Spahr LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, report that
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for Capital Markets
Competitiveness has sent a letter to Director Cordray suggesting a
series of issues for Mr. Cordray to address in his prepared
remarks at the CFPB's field hearing on arbitration scheduled for
May 5.

As the Chamber's letter notes, the CFPB  foreshadowed in the
materials given to the SBREFA panel  that the CFPB was
contemplating a ban on the use of class action waivers in
arbitration agreements.  The Chamber observes that the CFPB's
final arbitration study did not analyze whether the practical
effect of a rule prohibiting class action waivers would be to
eliminate the use of consumer arbitration from the consumer
financial services market altogether.  The Chamber suggests that
Director Cordray provide the CFPB's views on this issue in his
prepared remarks.

Among the other issues the Chamber would like Director Cordray to
address in his remarks is "how a consumer with a small claim based
on unique circumstances would be able to vindicate those legal
claims if companies, faced with the need to reserve millions of
dollars for class action defense, were to cease subsidizing
consumer arbitration programs."  The Chamber notes that under
current class action rules, many small claims that involve issues
of concern to consumers, such as alleged overcharges or the
failure to timely credit a deposit, are unlikely to be classable
because they are individualized disputes.  The Chamber observes
that for such claims, "consumers will therefore have virtually no
economically rational options for seeking redress: arbitration (in
which most companies pay for consumers to bring claims against
them, making it free to the consumer) will be gone; class action
litigation will not be available; and rational consumers are not
going to pay a $400 filing fee to pursue a $25 claim in court."

In a blog post on May 3, Professor Jeff Sovern commented on the
Chamber's letter, asking whether consumers would "really suffer if
they couldn't bring arbitration claims for $25?"  According to
Professor Sovern, the CFPB's arbitration study "found that
consumers almost never bring arbitration claims when less than
$1,000 is at issue, so the ability to assert small claims in
arbitration isn't worth much."  He asserts that consumers who want
to assert $25 claims could still do so in small claims courts.

Professor Sovern's comments overlook the fact that because the AAA
due process protocol requires a carve-out in arbitration
agreements for small claims that can be pursued in small claims
court.  The predicate of the Chamber's hypothetical example is a
one-off individual claim that is not classable because it is not
part of a systemic problem involving many consumers.  As a result,
small claims court is the only recourse for a $25 claim of this
kind and not class actions as Professor Sovern suggests.

In addition, the Chamber is likely concerned about non-classable
claims that, because they exceed the small claims court limit, are
ideal cases to be resolved in arbitration.  Neither the CFPB nor
Professor Sovern have determined how such cases will be resolved
if the result of the CFPB's rule is the abandonment of consumer
arbitration by consumer financial services providers.  Without
arbitration, consumers with such non-classable claims will lose
their only practical recourse.


* NLRB Strikes Down Dealership Arbitration Agreement
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Simpson, Esq. -- msimpson@laborlawyers.com -- of Fisher &
Phillips LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports
many of our dealership clients utilize binding arbitration
agreements to resolve employee disputes.  Arbitration agreements
provide a number of unique benefits to those dealerships that wish
to avoid the costs and negative publicity typically associated
with a jury trial.  By asking employees to agree to binding
arbitration, dealerships are able to address employment claims in
a less formal and more efficient setting than can be found in the
federal courthouse.

NLRB Strikes Down Dealer Arbitration Agreement

However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently found
that the arbitration agreement maintained by one California
dealership, Concord Honda, was unlawful because it contained a
class action waiver.  The NLRB directed the dealership to rescind
the arbitration agreement or revise it to exclude this key
provision.

In light of this decision, many dealers may feel pressure to
abandon their own arbitration programs or risk similar penalties.
We would caution you not to overreact.  Arbitration agreements
remain an important tool in defending employment claims and should
not be discarded on the basis of one flawed decision from the
NLRB.

Class Action Waivers Remain Important

One of the most significant advantages to arbitration is that it
allows dealerships to handle employees' threatened claims on an
individual, rather than class-wide, basis.  In 2011, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that companies can prohibit individuals from
pursuing most class action claims in court by requiring them to
arbitrate all claims on an individual basis.

In the employment context, this has become an extremely effective
tool in managing litigation costs. As class and collective action
claims rise under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Fair Credit
Reporting Act, Equal Pay Act, and other federal and state laws,
employers are able to manage defense costs by litigating a single
employee's claim in arbitration, as opposed to hundreds of
employees' claims in federal court.

Labor Board Remains Hostile; Courts To The Rescue?

This is exactly why the NLRB has put arbitration agreements in its
crosshairs.  According to the Board, any arbitration agreement
that requires employees to waive their right to pursue class or
collective actions is unlawful because it supposedly prohibits
employees from engaging in protected concerted activity with their
coworkers.  The NLRB has therefore consistently sought to
invalidate arbitration agreements including class action waivers.

There is just one big problem with the NLRB's approach -- it has
consistently been rejected by federal appellate courts.  In fact,
whenever the NLRB has held that an arbitration agreement
containing a class action waiver is unlawful, a federal court has
overruled the decision and enforced the agreement.

"We expect that the same will happen in this case.  Concord Honda
has appealed the NLRB's decision to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, where it will hopefully achieve the same result as other
companies that have challenged the NLRB's overreach," Fisher &
Phillips LLP's Mr. Simpson said.

What Should Dealerships Do?

"In the meantime, this is a critical time for you to reevaluate
existing arbitration agreements.  If your agreement has not been
updated in the last couple of years, it may not be providing all
of the protections that it should. Even worse, it may be subject
to attack by the NLRB.  We therefore encourage you to consult with
labor and employment counsel to make sure you have a lawful and
up-to-date arbitration agreement that protects you in the event of
employment litigation."


* Providence, R.I. Filed Securities Suits Against Corporations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Palazzolo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Bank of Nova Scotia, drug maker Cephalon Inc. and Brazilian
utility Eletrobras have at least one thing in common: They've all
been sued by the city of Providence, R.I., in the past year.

The 20-attorney legal department in Providence mostly defends the
city against lawsuits.  But since 2011, it has partnered with
outside law firms to file more than two dozen lawsuits alleging a
variety of securities and antitrust violations.  The outside law
firms have funded the litigation in return for a share -- a third
-- of any monetary award.

The "affirmative litigation" model -- while not without
controversy over potential conflicts -- has been growing in
popularity among municipal legal departments in recent years amid
a slow economic recovery and uneven regulatory enforcement at the
state and federal level, say city attorneys, trial lawyers and
legal experts.  And because plaintiffs' firms bear the litigation
load, cities enjoy only the upside of potential victories and
monetary awards.

"Just a few years ago, many municipalities considered class
actions with trepidation and maybe even skepticism," said
Paul Geller, a founding partner of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, one of the country's largest plaintiffs' firms that
specializes in securities litigation.  Mr. Geller said new
requests by municipalities for class-action lawyers now surface
weekly.

Such partnerships trace to the tobacco litigation in the 1990s,
when states paired with trial lawyers to sue cigarette makers. The
latest wave of cases builds on a decade-old trend of
municipalities and municipal pension funds taking companies and
banks to court, plaintiffs' lawyers said.

Municipalities have moved beyond such securities litigation in
recent years, filing lawsuits alleging among other things that
defendants sold them products at unfair prices, damaged the
environment and infrastructure, illegally marketed painkillers and
discriminated against minority residents.

While national figures on the number of cases filed by cities
aren't available, a search of recent filings shows a flurry of
activity.  There was a lawsuit filed in October by Perry, Iowa,
(population: 8,000) against makers of flushable bathroom wipes for
not being flushable.  And Berkeley, Calif., (population: 112,000)
brought a case in January against chemical maker Monsanto Co.
alleging its products contaminated waterways; a spokeswoman for
Monsanto said the company is not responsible for discharging
chemicals in the waterways.

Lawrence Rosenthal, a law professor at Chapman University in
California who worked in Chicago's law department, said the
arrangements make financial and practical sense.  The plaintiffs'
firm funds the litigation, said Mr. Rosenthal, and give cities the
expertise of experienced outside counsel.

Jeff Padwa, Providence's city attorney from 2011 to 2014, said he
devised an affirmative-litigation strategy over dinner with then
Mayor-elect Angel Taveras days before Mr. Taveras's 2011 swearing-
in.  At the time, the city's unemployment rate was 11% and its tax
base was shrinking.

Mr. Padwa said he modeled the legal department after the
Connecticut attorney general's office in the 1990s under Richard
Blumenthal, who positioned the state as one of the leaders in the
tobacco litigation and joined other states in a suit against
Microsoft over alleged antitrust violations.

Since 2011, Providence has filed 15 cases against corporations and
banks alleging securities violations as an institutional investor.
Most of the cases are still pending, but judges have dismissed
some.

In August, a federal judge in Manhattan rejected a Providence
lawsuit alleging Nasdaq and other stock exchanges gave certain
traders an unfair advantage, according to court documents. Nasdaq
declined to comment.

The city sued Brazilian electric company Eletrobras in August
2015, alleging current and former officers made false and
misleading statements to investors in connection with a bribery
scheme.  The company's lawyers said the complaint is based on "a
wholly unsupported assumption" that the company's costs were
inflated.

Bank of Nova Scotia and more than a dozen other investment banks
and financial firms face claims by Providence that they
manipulated Treasury securities auctions.  A spokesman for the
bank declined to comment on the 2015 lawsuit, which is pending.

Providence has also filed 10 "pay to delay" antitrust lawsuits
against pharmaceutical companiesalleging that they colluded to
delay the introduction cheaper generic drugs, causing the city to
overpay.

The city's 2015 lawsuit against drug maker Cephalon and other
pharmaceutical companies alleges they conspired to delay the
introduction of a generic version of narcolepsy drug Provigil.
Lawyers for the companies, which deny the allegations, have asked
a federal judge in Rhode Island to dismiss the case.

Mr. Padwa said cases filed by Providence have resulted in more
than $200 million in recoveries.  In class actions, the city sues
to recover its own losses as well as the losses of scores of
others allegedly harmed by a company's conduct.  As a result, its
cut has been small relative to the total.

In three cases that have settled, Providence has been awarded a
total of $62,000, according to current city solicitor Jeffrey
Dana.  A few of the cases have been dismissed, but most are
pending.

The relationships between plaintiffs' firms and public officials
have long faced scrutiny and generated controversy, especially
when firms donate to the campaigns of state attorneys general and
are later hired by those same officials to represent the states in
lawsuits.

The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the legal arm of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others have scrutinizedrelationships
between plaintiffs'firms and state attorneys general, raising
concerns about potential conflicts of interest, favoritism and the
use of a public entity for personal gain.

"Cities and counties are very, very ripe for these kinds of sales
pitches, because there is the promise of millions of dollars at a
time when a lot of them are really very cash-strapped," said Lisa
Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

Providence has filed more than a third of its lawsuits with the
help of lawyers from Motley Rice LLP, a South Carolina-based
plaintiffs' firm that has contributed at least $123,000 to Rhode
Island candidates since 2001, according to state campaign-finance
records.

A 2015 retainer agreement between Providence and Motley Rice in
one of the pay-to-delay lawsuits guarantees the firm a third of
any monetary recovery.

Providence MayorJorge Elorza received at least $4,150 in
contributions from Motley Rice attorneys in 2014 and 2015, the
records show. A spokesman for Mayor Elorza declined to comment on
the contributions.

Mr. Taveras, who stepped down in 2014 after his unsuccessful bid
for the governor's office, took in about $5,000 in contributions
from members of the firm. Now a shareholder at law firm Greenberg
Traurig LLP, he declined to comment.

Lawyers for Motley Rice didn't respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Padwa, now chief of staff and general counsel for the state
treasurer, said he hired outside legal counsel based on
reputation, experience and expertise, adding that several
plaintiffs' firms that represented Providence gave no money to Mr.
Taveras.

"I tried to hire the best firms with most experienced people," he
said.


                            *********

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  * * *