/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160601.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 1, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 109


ACEBO ROOFING: "Robles" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
APPLE INC: Won't Give Reimbursements for iPhone "Error 53"
ARIZONA PUBLIC: 9th Cir. Affirms NERC Class Action Dismissal
AUSTRALIA: Insulation Businesses Mull Class Action Over HIP
BARCLAYS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Ruling in Antitrust Case

BELL CANADA: July 15 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
BEYOND SYSTEMS: Consent To Injury Used to Avert Repeat Plaintiffs
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Five Class Suits in Conn. Super. Ct.
CALIFORNIA: Dept. Faces Class Action Over Fire Prevention Fee
CANADA: Lions Club Opts Out of Windsor Bingo Class Action

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Cova" Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Certification of Class of Dancers Sought
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Class Certification Sought in "Daluge" Suit
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Won't Bar Students From Filing Class Actions
DISH NETWORK: "Cozart" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA

DOLAR SHOP: Faces Chen Lin Suit Over FLSA, NY Labor Law Violation
DOMINO'S PIZZA: New York AG Files Wage Theft Class Action
DOVER, OH: Immigrant Advocacy Group Files Class Action
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: No-Poach Class Action Can Proceed
DS SERVICES: Court Denies Prelim. OK of "Eddings" Suit Settlement

E&M ASSOCIATES: Landlord Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
EGGCETERA CAFE: Faces "Campos" Class Action in Illinois
EPIC SYSTEMS: Can't Use Arbitration to Avert Collective Action
FACEBOOK INC: "Gallo" Sues Over Fake Webpage
FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Faces ERISA Class Action Over BrokerageLink

FINS CONSTRUCTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Lopez" Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Bid for Class Certification in "Carr" Suit Denied
FORD MOTOR: Certification of Ford Explorer Owners Class Sought
GENERAL MILLS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Hazardous Waste
GENERAL MOTORS: Fuel Economy Case Settlement May Cost $100MM

GERAWAN FARMING: Judge Allows Wage Class Action to Proceed
GERBER PRODUCTS: High Court Upholds $3MM Judgment in Wage Suit
GOYA FOODS: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION: Vasquez Seeks Certification of DCMWRA Class
HARRIS CTY, TX: McGruder Seeks Certification of Arrestees Class

HESKA CORPORATION: Class Certification Sought in "Fauley" Suit
HONEST CO: Faces "Cesarini" Suit Over False Product Advertising
IRON PROTECTION: "Bartz" Suit Asserts FLSA, Col. Wage Law Breach
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Begins Refund of Red Light Camera Tickets
KCBX TERMINALS: Settles Petcoke Class Action for $1.4 Million

LANDRY'S INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Griffith" Action
LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: "Evellard" Sues Over Share Price Drop
LEXISNEXIS: CCAF Urges Supreme Court to Review Settlement
LIBERTY INN: Faces "Arellano-Castillo" Suit in Illinois
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Can Bring Simultaneous ERISA Claims

LOS ANGELES, CA: Agency on Deafness Seeks Class Certification
MARRIOT OWNERSHIP: "Lennen" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
MARRIOTT VACATION: Faces Class Action Over Timeshare Sales
MCLEOD EXPRESS: Downs Wants to Send Court-Approved Class Notices
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Class of 9 Dept-Specific Collectives Certified

MICROSOFT CORP: July 25 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MONDELEZ INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Snack Foods Slack Fill
MOORE STEPHENS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Ruling
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Rejects Improper Influence Claim Over NIH Study

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Hermann" Files Suit Over Players' "TBI"
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Players' "TBI"
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Seals" Suit Over Players' "TBI"
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Walthour" Suit Over Players' "TBI"
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Concussion Suit in Minn. Advances

NEK: Faces Second Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
NEW YORK: Bill to Repeal Tampon Sales Tax Gets Final Court OK
P.J. 2035: "Elizalde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PANDA EXPRESS: Doesn't Pay Overtime, Calif. Class Suit Says
PAPA'S MEAT MARKET: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Min., OT Pay

PERRIGO CO: Faces Securities class Action in New Jersey
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Wins Prelim. OK of "Tannlund" Class Deal
ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY: Faces Data Breach Class Action
ROYAL OAK, MI: Lawmakers Attempt to Avert 2004 Flooding Suits
RUCKUS WIRELESS: Faces "Borrego" Lawsuit Over Merger with Brocade

SAC CAPITAL: September 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SNAPCHAT: Collects Personal Info, Class Suit Says
SOUTHERN WOLF: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Figueroa" Suit
SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court Ruling Also Poses Threats to Defendants
SPOTIFY: Lowery, Ferrick's Suits Over Royalties Combined

STAR LED LLC: "Reeder" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SUNOCO: Class Action Over Fuel Rewards Card Benefits Can Proceed
SUPERVALU INC: Class Certification May Lead to Settlement
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Castro" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation
TANGOE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

TAURUS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Handguns for $30MM
THERANOS INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action
TRENCH FLOORING: "Robinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
UNITED KINGDOM: Damages Action in Kenya Mau Mau Case Begins
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Class Action Mulled Over Tensioning System

VOLKSWAGEN: German Investors Call for Independent Emissions Probe
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Faces "Crowder" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
WILD WELL CONTROL: BTI/WWC Operators Seek Certification of Class
WORKFIT MEDICAL: Judge Approves $2.1MM Class Action Settlement
WPP GROUP: Faces "Blumberg" Suit Over Tracking Software on TVs

WYNN LAS VEGAS: "Barrett" Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy Act

* American Businesses Urge Congress to Weaken Robocall Laws
* Arbitration More Helpful to Class Members, Research Shows
* Senate Commerce Eyes TCPA Dual-Track Strategy for Legislation


ACEBO ROOFING: "Robles" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
Elder Leopoldo Garcia Robles, Jairo Ovidio Garcia Robles, Fredy
Otoniel Valladares Lopez a/k/a Alexandro Barrios, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Acebo
Roofing Corp., Pedro L Acebo, Octavio E Acebo, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-21817-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2016) seeks double
damages, reasonable attorney fees, all overtime wages still owing,
costs, interest and any other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as roofers. They claim to have
been denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167

APPLE INC: Won't Give Reimbursements for iPhone "Error 53"
Shaun Nichols, writing for The Register, reports that a class of
iPhone owners say that Apple has not lived up to its promise to
reimburse customers for bricked handsets.

A filing in the California Northern District Court seeks to move
forward with a class action case against the Cupertino iPhone
maker on behalf of customers whose phones were locked when a
February firmware update rendered some handsets inoperable.

The error was eventually traced back to the use of third-party
screen replacements and Apple issued a fix to address the issue,
but not before a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of

Earlier this month, Apple moved to dismiss the case, claiming that
by issuing an update to remedy the issue and offering to reimburse
customers for the hardware repairs, it was no longer liable for
the suit.

"Apple has already corrected Error 53 for everyone (including
Plaintiffs) by releasing a software 'fix' that allows affected
devices to be restored and by reimbursing consumers who paid for
'out-of-warranty' repairs or purchased new devices (from Apple or
otherwise) because of Error 53," Apple says.

"Under the circumstances, there is nothing left to litigate and
the claims in the [complaint] are all moot."

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, say that Apple has not lived up to its
claims of offering reimbursement, and they are now lobbying a
challenge to the company's motion to dismiss the case.

In their objection, attorneys for the aggrieved iPhone owners say
that Apple has not specifically notified any iPhone owners, and
has merely posted a web page with information on claiming a

"Specifically, Apple's website stated: 'If you believe that you
paid for an out-of-warranty device replacement based on an error
53 issue, contact Apple support to ask about reimbursement'," they

"Other than this vague reference to request reimbursement from
Apple, its website is devoid of any details about the purported
reimbursement program."

The next hearing date in the case is scheduled for June 16th.

ARIZONA PUBLIC: 9th Cir. Affirms NERC Class Action Dismissal
Catherine P. McCarthy, Esq. and Blake Urban, Esq., of Bracewell
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that on
March 2, 2016, in an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth Circuit") affirmed the
judgment of the district court dismissing a class action suit
brought by individuals and business entities located within the
State of California (the "Plaintiffs") against the Arizona Public
Service Company ("APS"). Waldon v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 14-
55076 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2016). The Plaintiffs alleged that APS
violated North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC")
reliability standards adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("FERC").  They claimed that these violations caused an
ensuing cascading blackout in 2011 that started in Arizona and
spread to parts of California and Mexico, which resulted in the
Plaintiffs incurring economic damages.  The Plaintiffs argued that
APS was negligent per se under Arizona law.  The district court
found that California law, not Arizona law, applied and dismissed
the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim under California law.

In affirming the district court, the Ninth Circuit found that,
while a violation of a statute creates a presumption of
negligence, it does not give the plaintiff a negligence cause of
action if the law does not otherwise impose a duty on the
defendant.  "'In the absence of a contract between the utility and
the consumer expressly providing for the furnishing of a service
for a specific purpose, a public utility owes no duty to a person
injured as a result of an interruption of service or a failure to
provide service.'" Id. at 2-3 (quoting White v. S. Cal. Edison
Co., 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431, 435-36 (Ct. App. 1994)). The Ninth
Circuit concluded, because the Plaintiffs were not customers of
APS and had no contractual claim to damages, the Plaintiffs failed
to state a claim under California law.  Further, the Ninth Circuit
found that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Arizona
law because "[f]ederal electric-reliability standards . . . create
a duty only between electric utilities and the government, and a
violation of the reliability standards does not support a claim of
negligence per se under Arizona law." Id. at 4 (citations

Significantly, the Ninth Circuit also found that NERC reliability
standards do not "proscribe certain or specific acts," but create
"a general standard," which does not support negligence per se.
Id.  The Ninth Circuit added that "[a]ccepting the plaintiffs'
theory would create broad state-law liability for public utilities
under a federal statutory and regulatory scheme that would
conflict with Arizona public policy." Id. at 5 (citing U.S.
Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 361 P.3d 942, 949 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2015); Lips v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp., 229 P.3d 1008, 1010
(Ariz. 2010) (en blanc) ("Courts have not recognized a general
duty to exercise reasonable care for the purely economic well-
being of others, as distinguished from their physical safety of
their property.  This reticence reflects concerns to avoid
imposing onerous and possibly indeterminate liability on
defendants and undesirably burdening courts with litigation."

AUSTRALIA: Insulation Businesses Mull Class Action Over HIP
Peter McCutcheon, writing for ABC News, reports that the botched
Home Insulation Program, which dogged Labor during the last
federal election, is now shaping up to be a headache for the
Coalition Government.

A campaign to support a class action for businesses devastated by
the sudden collapse of the government program was set to be
launched on May 25.

It is claimed the payment scheme set up by the Coalition
Government for affected businesses was woefully inadequate -- and
the plaintiffs are seeking more than $120 million in damages.

Matthew Hannam, whose company CIMCO has lost millions, is the lead
plaintiff in the class action involving 50 businesses.  His once-
thriving insulation manufacturing plant in Brisbane lies mostly

"We keep it running to stop the thing from basically falling
apart," he told 7.30.

"We basically just get it up and running in case we ever get
demand for the product again, which is not in the foreseeable
future at the moment."

He's one of hundreds of business owners who fell victim to the
collapse of the Rudd government's Home Insulation Program.

"It took a business that was basically operating since 1978,
turned it upside down and destroyed it," he said.

But the anger is now turning to the Coalition Government, with
accusations it failed to deliver on promises of compensation.  And
a class action is in the offing.

When the Rudd government introduced the program, it had ambitious
plans to insulate more than 2.5 million homes in under three
years.  But it all came to a sudden halt in early 2010 because of
four deaths, poor oversight and widespread fraud, sending many
businesses to the wall.

"The government had literally hijacked our entire industry and
started involving itself in areas that in had no understanding, no
expertise, and that was only ever going to end in disaster," Mr.
Hannam said.

"They reassured us, they promised us and then they pulled out the
rug from underneath us right at the height of the program."

Then-opposition leader Tony Abbott toured Mr. Hannam's factory --
situated in the heart of Kevin Rudd's electorate -- during the
2013 election campaign.

"Government shouldn't let people down," Mr. Abbott said during the

"I mean sometimes governments make mistakes but it should never
leave people high and dry and that's what's happened in this

The Government has been deceitful: company owner

Three years after Abbott's visit, Mr. Hannam feels he has been
abandoned by the Coalition.

"I think they've been deceitful," he said.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon said insulation businesses had
been let down by both Labor and the Coalition.

"They are at their wits' end to get a just resolution to this
nightmare," Senator Xenophon said.

"This whole issue become a political football for the Coalition,
now they've been in power for three years they've done nothing to
resolve it."

The Coalition delivered on its promise to set up a royal
commission, but it also promised to help those businesses
devastated by the failed program.

The Abbott government last year introduced an industry payment
scheme, but payouts were limited to registered installers --
manufacturers and deregistered companies missed out.

Mark Farrell, the lawyer running the case, said the Government had
promised compensation.

"What was delivered was not compensation, it was extremely limited
in numbers of clients and it excluded large numbers of both pre-
existing and new businesses," he said.

Industry minister Christopher Pyne was unavailable for an
interview, but a spokesman told 7.30 the scheme had paid out
nearly $13 million to 92 businesses, which was in line with the
recommendations of the royal commission.

"This compensation scheme doesn't match the rhetoric and promises
of the Coalition," Senator Xenophon said.

"It is a compensation scheme that abandons all those legitimate
businesses that have lost an enormous amount of money because of
the shut down of the scheme, and effectively it has left people
high and dry."

The liquidators of Mr. Hannam's installation business did receive
a pay out, but his manufacturing company got nothing.

"Compensating those who were damaged -- that's where they should
draw the line, and they haven't done that," he said.

Mr. Farrell said his clients were not looking to win the lottery.

"All they want is fair compensation and that means compensation
that relates to their actual losses -- that is the Australian
way," he said.

"A government needs to be held to same standard of behavior as
they require of their citizens and their corporate citizens.

"That's what our clients want."

BARCLAYS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Ruling in Antitrust Case
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that common sense has
prevailed at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in litigation
over an alleged conspiracy among 16 global banks to manipulate the
London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), a key interest rate
benchmark.  The appeals court held on May 23 that price-fixing
collusion among competitors is a violation of antitrust law, even
if it takes place in the context of an ostensibly cooperative
rate-setting process.

The 2nd Circuit's 61-page opinion, written by Judge Dennis Jacobs
for a panel that also included Judges Reena Raggi and Gerard
Lynch, vacated a controversial 2013 decision in which U.S.
District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of Manhattan tossed classwide
antitrust claims because the Libor rate-setting process is
collaborative, not competitive.  The ruling revives the banks'
exposure to potentially billions of dollars in damages from
investors who say they were victimized by artificial Libor rates.

Rate and market-rigging class actions against banks have become
all the rage among antitrust plaintiffs' lawyers, who've won
nearly $2 billion in settlements in consolidated litigation over
alleged tampering with the market for credit default swaps and
hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements tied to
manipulation of foreign exchange benchmarks.  The 2nd Circuit's
Libor decision will only make the class action bar more excited
about claiming collusion in the rate-setting process.

International regulatory and criminal investigators have levied
about $9 billion in fines and penalties against some of the banks
involved in the Libor rate-setting process, including Barclays,
Deutsche Bank and UBS.  Internal documents released in government
probes have shown some defendants manipulated the rate-setting
process to make themselves appear more stable in the financial
crisis and to give particular traders an advantage over
counterparties.  To derive the Libor rate, banks would submit
reports of the rate at which other banks were willing to lend them
money; those rates were winnowed and averaged to come up with a
daily Libor figure.

Judge Buchwald had said plaintiffs could not show their injury was
tied to antitrust violations because banks did not compete with
one another in the rate-setting process.  The 2nd Circuit,
however, said her reasoning was flawed.  As sellers of securities
that incorporated the Libor rate, the banks are competitors.
Investors in Libor-pegged instruments, according to the appeals
court, are buyers affected by the conspiracy.  Plain and simple.

"Schematically, appellants' claims are uncomplicated," the
appellate opinion explained.  "They allege that the banks, as
sellers, colluded to depress LIBOR, and thereby increased the cost
to appellants, as buyers, of various LIBORbased financial
instruments, a cost increase reflected in reduced rates of return.
In short, appellants allege a horizontal pricefixing conspiracy,
'perhaps the paradigm of an unreasonable restraint of trade.'"

The panel rejected as "immaterial" the banks' arguments that Libor
itself is not a product or a price and that the rules for setting
the rate were implemented by the British Bankers' Association, not
by the banks.  "The crucial allegation is that the banks
circumvented the LIBOR-setting rules, and that joint process thus
turned into collusion," the 2nd Circuit said. Investors "have
alleged an anticompetitive tendency: the warping of market factors
affecting the prices for LIBORbased financial instruments. No
further showing of actual adverse effect in the marketplace is

The 2nd Circuit also held there's no question that investors have
raised plausible claims of a conspiracy so their case can't be
dismissed as inadequately pleaded.  "Close cases abound on this
issue, but this is not one of them," the opinion said.  "These
allegations evince a common motive to conspire -- increased
profits and the projection of financial soundness -- as well as a
high number of inter-firm communications, including Barclays'
knowledge of other banks' confidential individual submissions in

The one sliver of hope for the banks in the appellate opinion is a
remand to Judge Buchwald to determine whether investors in Libor-
pegged financial instruments are the right plaintiffs to enforce
antitrust law.  As the panel pointed out, plaintiffs have to meet
two requirements to establish antitrust standing: They have to
show an antitrust injury and they have to show that they are
"efficient enforcers."  Judge Buchwald never reached the second
issue in her 2013 decision.  Now she will have to decide what the
2nd Circuit called "a closer call" than the question of whether
investors properly claimed an antitrust injury.

The banks, taking a cue from the appeals court, will doubtless
argue on remand that governments around the world are already
punishing them for Libor transgressions.  "There are many other
enforcement mechanisms at work here," the appellate opinions said.
"This background context bears upon the need for appellants as
instruments for vindicating the Sherman Act."

And even the 2nd Circuit agreed that private litigation may turn
out to be a bust if, for instance, "the corrupted LIBOR figure on
competition was weak and potentially insignificant, given that the
financial transactions at issue are complex, LIBOR was not
binding, and the worldwide market for financial instruments --
nothing less than the market for money -- is vast, and influenced
by multiple benchmarks."

Nevertheless, the 2nd Circuit opinion answers a question about
benchmark rates and antitrust claims that has divided trial judges
in federal court in Manhattan.  At least one of Judge Buchwald's
colleagues followed her reasoning, in a 2014 opinion dismissing a
case alleging manipulation of Japanese yen Libor. But, as Ms.
Frankel has written, Judges Lorna Schofield and Jesse Furman
squarely rejected Judge Buchwald's interpretation of antitrust
injury in more recent decisions.  Judges Schofield and Furman, in
cases involving supposed tampering with the foreign exchange and
ISDAfix benchmark rates, took care to distinguish the facts the in
class actions before them from the Libor allegations.  In
particular, they emphasized that the forex and ISDAfix rates were
determined through actual trades, not just by banks' voluntary

They also, however, said Judge Buchwald had misread U.S. Supreme
Court precedent to reach her conclusion.  In the May 23 opinion,
the 2nd Circuit agreed.  The important cases to consider, the 2nd
Circuit said, are 1940's U.S. v. Socony Vacuum Oil, the seminal
ruling on the per se illegality of horizontal price-fixing
schemes; and 1982's Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, which
said consumers can sue over supposedly collusive schemes that
ended up costing them money.

Investors in the various Libor classes had to go to the U.S.
Supreme Court to win the right to bring an interlocutory appeal of
Judge Buchwald's antitrust decision to the 2nd Circuit.  Thomas
Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, who won the Supreme Court case,
argued for plaintiffs at the appeals court as well. (It took an
additional nine pages to list all of the plaintiffs' firms and
amici involved in the 2nd Circuit appeal.) Robert Wise of Davis
Polk & Wardwell, who argued at the 2nd Circuit for all of the
banks, declined to comment.

BELL CANADA: July 15 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
Notice to Members of a Class Action Against Bell for Allegedly
Undisclosed Fees

Superior Court of Montreal No: 500-06-000572-111

On June 9, 2014, the Superior Court of the judicial district of
Montreal authorized a class action against Bell Canada and Bell
ExpressVu which seeks compensation for customers in Canada who
subscribed to home telephone, Internet and/or television services
(the "Services") in anyone of the following situations:

Any physical person in Canada having subscribed to any one of the
Services following a door-to-door visit between December 1, 2007,
and June 29, 2011, inclusively and who was charged fees higher
than those which had been indicated;

Any physical person in Canada having subscribed to any one of the
Services on the basis of an advertisement between December 1,
2007, and June 29, 2011, inclusively and who was charged mandatory
additional fees such as those relating to Touch-Tone, Internet
modern rental, MSN Premium Service network access, digital
service, HD services, rental for Fibe TV PVR and/or long-distance
network connection.

The representative is Ms. Huguette Charbonneau Daneau.

If you wish to opt out of the class action, you have until
July 15, 2016, to advise the clerk of the Superior Court for the
district of Montreal at 1 Notre Dame Street East, Montreal H2Y

A final judgment ruling in the legality of Bell Canada and Bell
ExpressVu's practice with respect to these matters must be
rendered before any compensation can be awarded.

To obtain a copy of the judgment authorizing the class action, the
originating application to institute the class action or the long
form of the present notice for further information, visit the
website of the representative's lawyers or contact them at:

Mtre Guy Paquette
300, Place d'Youville, Suite B-10
Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 2B6
Phone: 514-849-0771
Fax: 514-849-4817


Laura-Marie Paynter (English inquiries)
Yael Kidane (French inquiries)
680 Waterloo Street
P.O. Box 2520
London, Ontario, N6A 3V8
Phone: 1-800-461-6166 ext. 4228 (English)
       1-800-461-6166 ext. 2409 (French)

BEYOND SYSTEMS: Consent To Injury Used to Avert Repeat Plaintiffs
Christopher W. Carmichael, Esq., of Holland & Knight LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that airlines have frequent flyer
programs, restaurants and coffee shops have customer loyalty
programs, and plaintiff's class action firms have repeat class
action plaintiffs.  These frequent class plaintiffs are either
unlucky or they go looking for trouble.  See Beyond Systems, Inc.
v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 777 F.3d 712, 714 (2015) (noting that email
spam litigation accounted for 90% of plaintiff's income).  Some
serial litigants have been the lead plaintiff in multiple class
action lawsuits.  See Aliano v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2015 IL App
(1st) 143367, 10 (company described "the plaintiff as a
'professional class action plaintiff' who has filed 23 class-
action complaints in the past eight years, using the same
attorneys that represent him in this action.'").  Unfortunately,
the law does not prohibit the same person from filing multiple
class action lawsuits.  See Gordon v. Virtmundo, Inc., 575 F.3d
1040, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that plaintiff's status as a
"professional plaintiff" "should not itself undermine one's
ability to seek redress for injuries suffered").

There is, however, a way to defend those situations where a person
goes looking to file a lawsuit.  The common law principle that "no
wrong is done to one who consents" provides a means to defeat the
serial plaintiff's claim.  Beyond Systems, 777 F.3d at 718.
Because consumer protection claims are tort claims and common law
principles apply to such claims, the consent to injury principle
provides a response to the serial plaintiff that goes looking for
a cause of action.  The consent to injury principle focuses on the
serial plaintiff's conduct, in contrast to defenses which focus on
and seek to mitigate the defendant's conduct.  Shifting the focus
to the plaintiff's actions is essential when responding to a
serial class action plaintiff.

The doctrine volenti non fit injuria, which means "to a willing
person it is not a wrong," has been applied where a plaintiff
creates the circumstances that lead to the alleged injury.  For
example, the plaintiff in Beyond Systems created web pages with
email accounts that were not visible on its website and could only
be found by spam crawlers that located emails for spam message
sites.  777 F.3d at 714.  Since the plaintiff designed a system
specifically to receive spam emails, it could not sue when it
received the very spam emails it sought.  Id. at 718 ("the
evidence was 'overwhelming' that Beyond Systems consented to the
harm it claims it suffered.").

While each case is different, a case filed by a serial class
action plaintiff is vulnerable to challenge on the basis that the
plaintiff deliberately generated the cause of action.  A self-
created harm or purposeful action that generates injury does not
create a legally cognizable harm.  Gordon, 575 F.3d at 1057 ("The
fact that Gordon . . . endures no real ISP-type harm . . .
demonstrates that he has not been adversely affected by alleged
violations of the federal act in any cognizable way.").  A
plaintiff cannot set "a trap" for the defendant, "induce damages,"
and then seek to recover.  Lopez Lopez v. Aran, 894 F.2d 16, 20
(1st Cir. 1990).

The consent to injury doctrine provides a response to a serial
class action plaintiff.  The doctrine focuses on the reason why
the plaintiff filed the action and the circumstances that led to
the injury become the focus, rather than the defendant's conduct.
If the class plaintiff created the injury, the action is subject
to dismissal.

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Five Class Suits in Conn. Super. Ct.
Five class action lawsuits have been filed against Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
International GmbH, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford
Judicial District.  The cases are:

-- Riley Holman, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the estate of Jean Powers, deceased, the
Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067757-S, April 28, 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

-- Terri Rossi, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of Richard Truzzi, deceased, the
Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, HHD-CV-
16-6067805-S, April 28, 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone (630) 232 6333
          Facsimile (630) 845 8982
          E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com

-- Wilma Jean Sheets, and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067764-S, April 28, 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

-- John Skrincosky, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, (Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067780-S, April 28, 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

-- Franklin Willis, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, (HHD-CV-16-6067781-
S, April 28, 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages
as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety of
patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use, and
as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless
disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.

According to the complaints, the Defendants negligently designed
and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling,
prescribing information and patient medication guide which
rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),
throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent
platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood

CALIFORNIA: Dept. Faces Class Action Over Fire Prevention Fee
The Foothills Sun-Gazette reports that nearly 1 million rural
property owners may be getting some significant money back from
the State of California, if a statewide tax payer advocacy group
has anything to say about it.

In a May 5 letter to the California Farm Bureau, Jon Coupal,
president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in
Sacramento, said the organization has completed its final hurdle
to bringing a class action lawsuit against the California
Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and the Board
of Equalization (BOE).  The lawsuit claims CDF illegally charged a
fire prevention fee and the BOE illegally collected the fee, which
was actually a tax illegally passed by the Legislature. HJTA
argues that the "fee" "provided no additional or new services to
property owners, and many property owners receive no service at
all; therefore it clearly meets the Proposition 13 definition of a
tax, which requires a two-thirds vote of lawmakers."  Under
Proposition 13, the levying of any new taxes on existing services
would require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.
However, when the fee was passed by the Legislature more than five
year ago, it barely garnered a simple majority and should not have
become law.

The fee was created by Assembly Bill X1 29, which was signed into
law July 7, 2011 to establish a fee for fire prevention services
in the 31 million acres of State Responsibility Area (SRA).  In
Tulare County, this largely affects homeowners on the eastside,
north of Woodlake and east of Exeter, Lindsay and Porterville up
to federal land boundaries, including Three Rivers and
Springville.  On July 1, 2014, the fee increased from $150 to
$152.33 per hospitable structure.  If the habitable structure is
also within the boundaries of a local agency that provides fire
protection services, the property owner will receive a $35.00
reduction for each habitable structure.  Cal Fire claims the fee
funds a variety of important fire prevention services and
activities that lessen risk of wildfire to communities and
evacuation routes.  These include fuel reduction, defensible space
inspections fire prevention engineering, emergency evacuation
planning, fire prevention education, fire hazard severity mapping,
implementation of the State and local Fire Plans and fire-related
law enforcement activities such as arson investigation.

Mr. Coupal wrote that HJTA filed its suit shortly after the law
was signed by the governor, but that the combination of the
backlog in the California courts as well as state attorneys filing
mountains of paperwork has delayed the process further. Only 11
property owners of the nearly 1 million effected elected to opt-
out of the class action suit prior to the March 7, 2016 deadline.
"After HJTA responded to each of the state's challenges--nearly
four years of legal work . . . It is our hope and intention that
the legal process will now proceed rapidly."

Although HJTA attorneys are confident in their case, Mr. Coupal
strongly urged homeowners to continue to pay the fee.  Property
owners have 30 days from the mailing of the bill to pay it.  If
you are late, there is a 20 percent penalty, plus interest.  For
every 30 days after that, another 20 percent penalty is added,
plus interest.  The fee is a lien on property, and failure to pay
can result in foreclosure.

Under the law, the BOE is responsible for collecting the fee. The
bills scheduled for mailing now are for Fiscal Year 2015/16, which
includes July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.  The fee applies to
the homeowner of record as of July 1, 2015, for all habitable
structures within the SRA.  The BOE will mail the bills for Tulare
County property owners on June 7, 2016.

Cal Fire has established a web site -- www.FirePreventionFee.org -
- which contains comprehensive information about the fee and
helpful links to maps, the law language, and answers frequently
asked questions.  Additionally, a customer service call center is
staffed Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (except holidays) to
further aid homeowners that have questions about the Fire
Prevention Fee.  The call center number is 1-888-310-6447.

If the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lawsuit is successful,
Coupal said the court may order refunds to people who have filed a
Petition for Redetermination.  For instructions on how to file
this form, go to www.hjta.org and click on the Fire Tax Protest
banner.  Once there, you can also sign up for free informational
bulletins on progress of the suit against the fire tax.

"Rural property owners have been paying this illegal tax for
years, but we remain optimistic that a court will ultimately grant
relief from this unconstitutional money grab," Mr. Coupal

CANADA: Lions Club Opts Out of Windsor Bingo Class Action
Bill Onslow, writing for Windsor Star, reports that the executive
board of the Windsor Downtown Lions Club decided to opt out of the
class action lawsuit between the bingo charities and the City of

It was decided that it would not be in the best interest of the
city, the public or the club to continue to be part of this class
action lawsuit.

The Windsor Downtown Lions Club continues to provide the sight-
impaired and the hearing-impaired of Windsor and surrounding area
with quality service and assistance as well as providing social
functions for these residents of our community.

We would like to thank the public for their support for the 96
years that we have been providing this service to the community
and, with your help, we will continue to do so.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Cova" Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
Charter Communications, Inc. notified the court that on May 13,
2016, it removed the case captioned "Reno Cova, Logan O'Connor,
and Zach Splaingard, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Charter Communications, Inc., Case No. 1622-CC00842,"
from the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City, Missouri
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division.

This suit focuses on the alleged sale or release by Charter of
subscribers' "personally identifiable information" without the
knowledge of subscribers.

Charter Communications, Inc. is an operator of cable television
systems in the US.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Benjamin R. Schmickle, Esq.
     701 Market St. Suite 1000
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Phone: 314.480.5180
     Toll Free: 877.205.4250

The Defendant is represented by:

     Matthew D. Guletz, Esq.
     Roman P. Wuller, Esq.
     Matthew D. Guletz, Esq.
     One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 2500
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Phone: (314) 552-6000
     Fax: (314) 552-7000
     E-mail: rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com

CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Certification of Class of Dancers Sought
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Michelle Labriola and Anna
Lapina individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated as class representative under Illinois Law and/or as
members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor
PINK MONKEY and John Doe One and Two, Case No. 1:15-cv-04123 (N.D.
Ill.), ask the Court for an order:

   (a) certifying the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the Illinois
       Minimum Wage Law as a class action, authorizing notice to
       the putative class, and appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel
       as class counsel; and

   (b) setting a schedule for the Plaintiffs to file supplemental
       evidentiary materials, if necessary.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant classified the Plaintiffs
and Class of similarly situated Dancers as "Independent
Contractors" when the Class should have been classified as

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Class Certification Sought in "Daluge" Suit
The Plaintiffs move to certify the case captioned GWEN B. DALUGE,
MURRAY YOUNG, AND HELENE K. BIRNBAUM, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00297-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), as a class action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Sean K. Collins, Esq.
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 320-8485
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
          E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
          200 West Madison Street, Suite 2670
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 561-4040
          Facsimile: (312) 929-0309
          E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com

DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Won't Bar Students From Filing Class Actions
Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, writing for The Washington Post, reports
that DeVry University and the University of Phoenix will no longer
bar students from filing class-action lawsuits or otherwise taking
their grievances to the courts, putting an end to mandatory
arbitration clauses that consumer advocates say rob students of
their rights.

For-profit colleges have come under fire for tucking arbitration
clauses into their enrollment contracts to protect their financial
interests.  Students are typically unaware the restriction exists
until problems arise and they try to seek redress.  And once they
do, the chances of a favorable outcome in arbitration are slim.

Although DeVry Education Group, the parent company of the for-
profit college, did not publicize its decision to eliminate the
arbitration clause, spokesman Ernest Gibble said the company took
action May 13 as a part of an "overall effort to rethink the
student experience."

Apollo Education Group, the publicly traded owner of the
University of Phoenix, said it would stop including the clause in
enrollment agreements at Phoenix and Western International
University starting July 1.

"We have worked hard to further improve the student experience at
all of our institutions, and it's clear that eliminating mandatory
arbitration is the right choice for all of our students," Greg
Cappelli, chief executive at Apollo, said in a statement.  "This
decision joins with a host of efforts already underway to improve
student outcomes."

A study from the Century Foundation found that traditional
nonprofit colleges rarely employ mandatory arbitration clauses,
which have become a standard feature in many contracts drawn up by
for-profit institutions receiving federal financial aid dollars.
Researchers say arbitration can be a secretive process that lets
companies dictate the terms of negotiations. Because arbitrators
rely on a company's repeat business, they are more inclined to
rule in the company's favor, the report said.

For-profit colleges have argued that they can lower the cost of
delivering education by avoiding pricey litigation.  They say
arbitration is an efficient way to resolve disputes, but federal
regulators disagree.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has found that the
agreements often lead to poor outcomes for consumers.  Arbitrators
in the cases the bureau examined rarely ruled in favor of
consumers, and even when they did, arbitrators awarded paltry
sums.  The bureau is crafting rules to prevent financial companies
from using arbitration clauses to bar consumers from taking part
in class-action suits.

For its part, the Department of Education is considering an all-
out ban or limiting the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in
enrollment contracts.  The issue came up in March during
negotiations to revise borrower defense to repayment, the process
by which students can have their federal loans discharged.

Advocates petitioned the agency to make it easier for students who
feel they've been wronged to hold colleges accountable.  They say
that making it easier for students to sue schools would lessen the
chance of the government having to provide relief, which would
save taxpayers from picking up the tab for the misdeeds of private

With negotiators failing to reach an agreement, it is now up to
the department to write the rules, which may put an end to
arbitration clauses in education contracts once and for all.

DISH NETWORK: "Cozart" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
Christopher M. Cozart, individually on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dish Network Service
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00894 (M.D. Tenn., May
16, 2016), seeks unpaid straight time and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, interest and attorney fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs claim to have worked off-the-clock without receiving
compensation for all hours worked, including unpaid meal breaks.

Dish Network Service Corporation is a direct-broadcast satellite
service provider, providing satellite television and satellite
Internet access. Plaintiff travelled on pre-set routes, providing
installation and repair services for Defendant's customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Tel: 615-354-1144
     Fax: 731-664-1540
     Email: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com

          - and -

     Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
     101 North Highland
     Jackson, TN 38301
     Tel: (731) 664-1340
     Fax: (731) 664-1540
     Email: cscott@gilbertfirm.com

DOLAR SHOP: Faces Chen Lin Suit Over FLSA, NY Labor Law Violation
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs,
YU ZHANG; TZU CHEUNG a/k/a Ken Cheung; XIN FENG WANG a/k/a Ruby
Wang; and YING NAN QI a/k/a Frank Qi, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
03599 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2016), alleges violation of the Federal
Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law.

THE DOLAR SHOP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a Dolar Shop operates the
New York hotspot store of Dolar Shop, a Chinese hotpot chain based
in Shanghai, China, with hot spot locations in Shanghai, Beijing,
Nanjing, Hangzhou, Taichang, Wuhan, Changsa, Zhuhai, Macau,
Suzhou, Hengyang, Zhuzhou, Wuxi, Zhangjiagang, and Indonesia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324

DOMINO'S PIZZA: New York AG Files Wage Theft Class Action
Marc Santora, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
system, as outlined in a lawsuit filed by the New York State
attorney general, was as simple as it was flawed.

A pizza is ordered from Domino's.  A pizza is made.  A pizza is

The workers who assembled and delivered the pie clock their hours
on a computer system, and those workers are then paid.

But for years, according to the lawsuit against the corporate
franchiser that owns Domino's Pizza, the computer system used by
franchises across the state systematically undercounted hours
worked by employees, shortchanging them hundreds of thousands of

The lawsuit, announced on May 24, was the latest salvo in a
campaign by the attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, against
what he says is a pattern of corporations shortchanging low-wage

Since 2011, Mr. Schneiderman has secured more than $26 million for
almost 20,000 workers who were bilked of wages.

But unlike past cases, this one directly targets the corporate
franchiser.  If the state wins, Mr. Schneiderman hopes the case
sets a precedent that makes it harder for corporations that run
franchise businesses to avoid responsibility for the actions taken
by the stores under their corporate umbrella.

"Wage theft is an epidemic causing harm to low-wage workers
struggling to support their families every single day,"
Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement.

Across the country, lawsuits involving wage theft have been on the
rise.  Broadly defined, wage theft involves employers' violating
minimum-wage and overtime laws and not counting work hours, and
management wrongfully taking employees' tips.

The surge in lawsuits, according to labor advocates, is a
reflection of the changing nature of the American workplace.

Increasingly, corporations are using franchises, subcontractors
and temp companies to fill jobs. One result is fierce competition
to fill jobs with people who will work for the lowest possible
wages.  And, in turn, corporate franchisers can insulate
themselves from charges of wage violations by creating a degree of
separation between the corporation and the employees.

The Labor Department, through its wage and hour division, has
recovered more than $1 billion in unpaid wages across the country
since 2010.

Still, even with both federal and state prosecutors focused on the
issue, the abuses continue, labor advocates say.

In 2014, the New York State attorney general lodged a victory
against 23 Domino's Pizza outlets in New York for wage theft,
securing $448,000 in restitution for workers.

That year, Domino's also settled a class-action lawsuit brought by
employees for $1.3 million for wage violations in New York.

That lawsuit accused a Domino's franchisee, DPNY Inc., of a
variety of unfair labor practices, including not giving a legally
required lunch break, not paying for uniforms and paying a
subminimum tip wage even when the workers did untipped work, like
cleaning ovens and floors or distributing fliers.

But the new case being brought by Mr. Schneiderman seeks to hold
the corporate franchiser, Domino's Pizza L.L.C., responsible.  It
accuses the company of forcing franchisees to use a computer
accounting system even though it was aware it was flawed.

"Domino's corporate executives knew about the violations, denied
responsibility and failed to take action," he said.  "For the
first time, we will prove that the Domino's corporate franchiser
is legally responsible for rampant wage theft occurring at its

In a statement, Domino's defended its conduct, saying that it had
worked with the attorney general's office for more than three
years and calling the lawsuit baseless.

"We were disappointed to learn that the attorney general chose to
file a lawsuit that disregards the nature of franchising and
demeans the role of small business owners instead of focusing on
solutions that could have actually helped the individuals those
small businesses employ," the company said.

"We believe that every employee deserves to be treated fairly and
paid what they are entitled to under the law.  We also believe
that franchising is a tremendous source of economic opportunity in
this country in general and in New York State in particular."

In the course of a four-year investigation, the attorney general's
office obtained a sample of franchisee records entered into
Domino's own computer system.

"Those records showed that 78 percent of franchisees listed
instances of subminimum wages, and 86 percent of franchisees
listed instances of unlawfully low overtime rates," according to
Mr. Schneiderman's office.

DOVER, OH: Immigrant Advocacy Group Files Class Action
Michelle Faust, writing for WKSU, reports that an immigrant rights
advocacy group has filed a class-action federal civil rights
lawsuit against a Tuscarawas County school district. StateImpact
Ohio's Michelle Faust reports the court documents allege the Dover
City School District failed to educate and systematically
discriminated against Latino students.

Plaintiffs allege Dover school administrators gave inadequate
instruction to English-language learner students, and that records
tracking which teachers taught those students were falsified.  The
suit also claims students were actively encouraged to drop out.
Jeff Stewart is the director of the Ohio Immigrant Worker Project
-- the advocacy group that is suing.

"They're being encouraged not to take classes that will actually
have content which will actually count towards their graduation.

"Some people in the schools have an attitude that these children
are just not capable of learning."

The suit was filed by two parents and two students, but the court
filing estimates 125 students could have been impacted over a
three-year period ending this school year.  They allege and that
records tracking which teachers taught those students were
falsified, that coursework did not advance students towards
graduation, and administrators encouraged students to drop out of

Dover Superintendent Carla Birney released a statement through her
lawyer saying the district will follow the legal process, and that
the quotes attributed to her in the filing are "absolutely false."

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: No-Poach Class Action Can Proceed
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
decided on May 25 that a wage-suppression class action against
animation studios including DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. and The
Walt Disney Co.'s Pixar can move forward as a class action.

In a victory for thousands of visual-effects workers and their
lawyers, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California wrote in an 80-page order that plaintiffs in Nitsch v.
DreamWorks had met the burden of showing that the issues are
common enough to be tried on a classwide basis.

Judge Koh rejected the studios' argument that the suit should be
broken apart because there are too many individualized questions
about whether certain workers knew of the companies' alleged "no
poach" conspiracy before the 2010 statute of limitations cutoff.

At a hearing earlier this month, Keker & Van Nest's Robert Van
Nest, arguing for DreamWorks, emphasized that there are emails and
blog posts suggesting widespread knowledge of the agreements
before that time.

Mr. Van Nest, whose team on May 25 received a favorable verdict
for Google Inc. in its copyright brawl with Oracle Corp., was not
immediately available for comment.

But Judge Koh saw that as "generalized evidence applicable to wide
swaths of the class, rather than evidence truly specific to
individual class members."  For example, she wrote, "the cited
blog posts would have been available to the entire class after the
date of posting."

At the same time, Judge Koh held open the possibility that the
roughly 60 individuals who had sent emails indicating knowledge of
the conspiracy could be dealt with separately.

"Certification of the proposed class will not deny defendants the
ability to raise individualized statute of limitations defenses,
should the evidence indicate that the question must be resolved
separately as to particular class members," she wrote.

The suit stems from an alleged yearslong agreement among
DreamWorks Animation, Pixar, LucasFilm Ltd. and other studios not
to lure away each other's employees. Plaintiffs lawyers at Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro and Susman Godfrey contend that the practice
held down workers' pay.

It is similar to a case involving Silicon Valley heavyweights
Google and Apple Inc. that settled in early 2015.  In the
animators' case, plaintiffs estimate the class size to be roughly
10,000 people, with damages totaling about $650 million.

Judge Koh on May 25 denied the plaintiffs' attempt to add the
years of 2001 to 2003 to the class period, which now runs from
2004 to 2010, because it had not been fully argued.  But she
allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

The defendants claim that without that 2001-2003 period, the
estimated damages would shrink by a third.

Jeff Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman said he was
"pleased" with the order.  The case is still in discovery, and
trial has been set for summer 2017.

DS SERVICES: Court Denies Prelim. OK of "Eddings" Suit Settlement
The Hon. Vince Chhabria entered an order denying, without
prejudice, the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
of the class action lawsuit styled CHRIS EDDINGS, et al. v. DS
SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 15-cv-02576-VC (N.D.

Judge Chhabria opined that the parties here have not given the
Court enough information to evaluate the relative value of the
proposed settlement.  He noted that the Plaintiffs assert that the
value of the settlement fund is "approximately 75% to 90% of the
total unpaid overtime owed to Class Members and over 50% of the
total unpaid overtime and meal and rest premium pay," but the
Court needs more than this type of bare assertion.  He said that
the Plaintiffs seeking preliminary approval should show their work
by explaining the relative value of their claims in significant

"A party moving for preliminary approval should cite case law and
apply it to explain why each claim or defense in the case is more
or less likely to prove meritorious," Judge Chhabria said.  He
added that the Court expresses no view on the merits of this
settlement; rather, it denies the motion for preliminary approval,
without prejudice to renewal, because it does not yet have enough
information to evaluate the settlement's merits.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at

E&M ASSOCIATES: Landlord Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
Julia Marsh, Kaja Whitehouse and Kevin Sheehan, writing for The
New York Post, report that a city landlord who lives in a $3
million Long Island mansion pays his building supers and porters
as little as $3.45 an hour while housing them in rat-infested
hovels, a new lawsuit charges.

Real-estate mogul Irving Langer paid two of his supers a paltry
$275 to $400 a week, even though they toiled an average of 80
hours fixing tenants' toilets, taking out their trash and trying
to get rid of vermin, according to the men's multimillion-dollar
class-action suit filed on May 23 in Manhattan federal court.

The former supers added that they were given living quarters that
were moldy, leaky and rat-infested.

"No bathroom, no sink, no cabinets, no nothing," said one of the
plaintiffs, Usvaldo Contrera, 51.

The suit seeks back wages and overtime on behalf of more than 250
workers, said their lawyer, Marc Rapaport.

A rep for Langer -- who owns 3,000 rental units, mostly in low-
income buildings -- and his business, E&M Associates, declined to
comment, saying they were not aware of the lawsuit

EGGCETERA CAFE: Faces "Campos" Class Action in Illinois
TEODULO CAMPOS, a/k/a LUIS CAMPOS, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v.
EGGCETERA CAFE and DINO BASTAS, individually, Defendant, Case:
1:16-cv-05195 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2016), was filed pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Located in Mokena, Illinois, Eggcetera Cafe offers traditional
American breakfast and lunch dishes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
     224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 763-6880

EPIC SYSTEMS: Can't Use Arbitration to Avert Collective Action
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals
court ruled on May 26 that companies cannot use arbitration
agreements to bar employees from taking collective legal action, a
decision that some plaintiffs lawyers see as shifting the tide in
their favor.

Ruling against Wisconsin healthcare software firm Epic Systems
Corp., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit in Chicago said that the National Labor Relations Act
outlaws agreements that strip workers of their right to sue as a

"This decision will have a greater effect on workers' ability to
protect their workplace rights than any court ruling in decades,"
Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altber.com -- of Altshuler Berzon in San
Francisco said in an email.

Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote in Lewis v. Epic that companies may
require workers to pursue disputes in arbitration through
agreements and still comply with Section 7 of the NLRA.  But they
may not deny workers both their ability to bring a class action in
court and their right to arbitrate collectively, she wrote.

"If Epic's provision had permitted collective arbitration, it
would not have run afoul of Section 7 either.  But it did not, and
so it ran up against the substantive right to act collectively
that the NLRA gives to employees," Judge Wood wrote.

Epic was sued in federal court in 2015 by Jacob Lewis, who was
employed as a technical writer.  Mr. Lewis alleged that the
company had misclassified him and other technical writers as
contractors and deprived them of overtime pay.  Mr. Lewis is
represented by Hawks Quindel and Habush Habush & Rottier in
Madison, Wis.

The company sent Mr. Lewis and other workers an arbitration
agreement in an email in 2014, stating that by continuing to work
for the company, they were deemed to have accepted it.  The
agreement required disputes to be resolved in arbitration and on
an individual basis only.

The trial court denied Epic's motion to compel arbitration on the
basis that it was in violation of the NLRA and thus unenforceable,
and the company appealed.  The May 26 ruling affirms the district
court's decision.

Judge Wood acknowledged that the decision creates a split with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in D.R.
Horton Inc. v. NLRB that the Federal Arbitration Act trumps the
NLRA.  That was the wrong analysis, she wrote, arguing that while
contracts compelling arbitration are permissible, clauses that
conflict with federal law are not.

Attorneys at Seyfarth Shaw, which argued for Epic, did not respond
to an email seeking comment on whether they would petition the
Supreme Court to review the case.

A similar case, Morris v. Ernst & Young, is pending a decision in
the Ninth Circuit following oral arguments last November.

Hawks Quindel attorney Caitlin Madden in a written statement
called the Seventh Circuit decision a "major victory" for workers.
It "makes clear that employees have the right to act together when
an employer is not paying them correctly," she said.

FACEBOOK INC: "Gallo" Sues Over Fake Webpage
Vincent Gallo, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc. a
Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-03363 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2016) seeks special,
consequential and general damages with allowable interest,
injunction, exemplary and punitive damages resulting from
intentional infliction of emotion distress, unfair business
practices and for violation of the Lanham Act False Designation of
Origin, California Common Law Right of Publicity, California
Statutory Right of Publicity, State Common Law Unfair Competition
and the California Penal Code.

Facebook owns the registered domain name facebook.com. Gallo
alleges that there exists a fake account
https://www.facebook.com/vincent.gallo.927 containing unauthorized
photographs of the Plaintiff and written statements impliedly
written by Plaintiff himself despite his claim that he never had a
Facebook page.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph P. Costa, Esq.
     Lindsay T. Cinotto, Esq.
     17383 Sunset Blvd., Suite A350
     Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
     Tel: (310) 394-6611
     Fax: (310) 394-6612

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Faces ERISA Class Action Over BrokerageLink
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a
proposed class action accuses Fidelity Management Trust Co. of
breaching its ERISA fiduciary duties for allegedly receiving
unreasonable compensation through its brokerage window feature and
a kickback scheme with an investment advice company.

According to the complaint, filed May 20, Fidelity selected mutual
funds with higher expense ratios for the plan brokerage window
that allowed the investment firm to rake "significant amounts" in
revenue-sharing payments in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The allegations in the complaint are without merit and Fidelity
will defend against them vigorously, Stephen Austin, a spokesman
for Fidelity, told Bloomberg BNA May 23.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts by participants in the Delta Air Lines Inc.
retirement plan.  According to the complaint, as of 2014 the plan
had approximately $7.5 billion in assets, of which more than $2.8
billion where invested through Fidelity's brokerage window--

By selecting mutual funds with higher expense rations, Fidelity
has exercised its discretionary authority over plan assets in a
manner designed to increase its compensation at the expense of
participants, the complaint alleges.  The participants have paid
Fidelity "enormous fees" simply for obtaining access to mutual
funds that were already established on Fidelity's platform, the
complaint says.

Participants also allege that Fidelity earned unreasonable
compensation by engaging in a kickback scheme with Financial
Engines Advisors, LLC for providing investment advice services. In
order to be included as the investment advice service provider on
Fidelity's platform, Financial Engines allegedly agreed to pay --
and still pays -- Fidelity a significant percentage of the fees it
collects from 401(k) participants.

These fees weren't being paid for any substantial service being
provided by Fidelity to Financial Engines or to participants, the
complaint says.  Moreover, the complaint alleges that Fidelity was
"doing nothing more than providing an electronic mechanism for
implementing instructions the participants could implement on
their own."

Zelle, LLP represents the participants.

FINS CONSTRUCTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Lopez" Suit
Juan Pablo Lopez moves for conditional class certification,
judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of
potential "opt-in" plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JUAN PABLO
LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated
NICOLE L. ARMBRUSTER, Case No. 2:16-cv-02408-MVL-JCW (E.D. La.).

The Action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

FLOWERS FOODS: Bid for Class Certification in "Carr" Suit Denied
The Hon. Lawrence F. Stengel entered an order in the lawsuit
OXFORD, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06391-LS (E.D. Pa.), granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.

The Court further ordered that:

   (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is denied
       as moot;

   (2) Defendant's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order is
       denied as moot;

   (3) Section (d), entitled Motion Schedule, of the Scheduling
       Order dated April 4, 2016, is vacated.  The remaining
       sections of the Scheduling Order shall remain in effect;

   (4) The following Motion Schedule shall apply:

       a. Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under
          Section 216(b) shall be filed by June 1, 2016.
          Defendants' opposition shall be filed by July 18, 2016.
          Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by August 29, 2016;

       b. Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification and
          defendants' motion for decertification of any
          conditionally certified FLSA collective action shall be
          filed within 60 days after the close of discovery or
          within 90 days after the close of any FLSA notice
          period; and

       c. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 45
          days after the court rules on the plaintiffs' Rule 23
          class certification motion.

The Action is brought to obtain declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief resulting from the Defendants' alleged
misclassification of their Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York
bakery distributor drivers as "independent contractors."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Patricia A. Bloodgood, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
          Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Esq.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Gordon Rudd, Esq.
          David Cialkowski, Esq.
          111 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com

FORD MOTOR: Certification of Ford Explorer Owners Class Sought
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JAMES T. CASSIDY and FAITH H.
CASSIDY, individually and as Representatives of others similarly
situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2-15-cv-02483 KDE-KWR
(E.D La.), move the Court for an order certifying this class:

     All persons who purchased or leased in Louisiana at least
     one of the following vehicles: 2011 Ford Explorer, 2012 Ford
     Explorer, 2013 Ford Explorer, 2014 Ford Explorer or 2015
     Ford Explorer.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
          700 S. E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
          E-mail: jml@kulaw.com

               - and -

          Edward J. Womac, Jr., Esq.
          Brian J. Branch, Esq.
          3501 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 486-9999
          Facsimile: (504) 486-4178
          E-mail: ewomac@edwardwomac.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Keith W. McDaniel, Esq.
          Lance B. Williams, Esq.
          Joshua H. Dierker, Esq.
          & WELCH, LLC
          195 Greenbriar Boulevard, Suite 200
          Covington, LA 70433
          E-mail: kmcdaniel@mcsalaw.com

               - and -

          Janet Conigliaro, Esq.
          400 Renaissance Center
          Detroit, MI 48243
          E-mail: jconigliaro@dykema.com

               - and -

          Joel Dewey, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Yeatman, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          The Marbury Building
          6225 Smith Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21209-3600
          E-mail: Joel.dewey@dlapiper.com

GENERAL MILLS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Hazardous Waste
Robin Bravender, writing for E&E reporter, reports that one of the
judges Donald Trump is eyeing for a Supreme Court nomination
rejected a class-action lawsuit over hazardous waste buried
decades ago by General Mills Inc.

Judge Raymond Gruender of the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals joined two of his colleagues in an opinion siding
with General Mills and reversing a lower court's decision to allow
a class-action lawsuit in the environmental contamination case.
Judge Gruender, a George W. Bush appointee, was among the 11
judges named by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee on
a list of possible judges he'd nominate to the Supreme Court.

The case involves property owners who sought to bring a class-
action lawsuit against the food manufacturing giant over
contamination in the Como neighborhood of Minneapolis.  General
Mills operated an industrial facility in the area from about 1930
to 1977, and the company buried as much as 1,000 gallons of
hazardous substances per year at the site from 1947 until 1962,
according to court documents.  Local property owners claimed that
General Mills released the harmful chemical trichloroethylene
(TCE), threatening residents' health and hurting their property

The three-judge panel on the 8th Circuit said that the case didn't
meet the legal standards for a class-action lawsuit and that a
lower court had erred by certifying a proposed class.

"Although there may be common matters in this litigation that can
be decided on a class-wide basis, we think it is clear that
individual issues predominate the analysis of causation and
damages that must be litigated to resolve the plaintiffs' claims,"
the opinion issued on May 20 said.  "This matter is thus
unsuitable for class certification . . . and the district court
therefore abused its discretion in certifying the class."

General Mills has been conducting groundwater cleanup on the site
with federal and state officials for nearly 30 years, according to
court documents, and has installed so-called vapor mitigation
systems to prevent the intrusion of TCE into buildings above
contaminated areas.  One of General Mills' experts told the
district court that 327 homes in the Como neighborhood had soil
vapor testing and didn't have detectable TCE concentrations;
General Mills installed mitigation systems in 118 homes in the

According to U.S. EPA, TCE -- used as a solvent and refrigerant
-- is a toxic chemical that can cause cancer in humans.  Acute
concentrations of vapors can irritate the respiratory system, and
prolonged exposure can harm the liver, kidneys and central nervous

General Mills argued in its appeal to the 8th Circuit that a class
action wasn't warranted due to the "exceedingly complex issues of
injury and causation unique to each of the proposed plaintiffs in
this class," according to the opinion written by Judge Clarence
Beam, a President Reagan appointee.  Another Reagan appointee,
Judge Roger Wollman, also signed onto the opinion.

Before joining the 8th Circuit in 2004, Judge Gruender was an
assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri and
was the Missouri state director for Republican Bob Dole's 1996
presidential campaign.

His record -- like those of the other 10 judges on the list -- has
become fodder for environmentalists and other liberal groups
warning that Mr. Trump shouldn't fill the current Supreme Court
vacancy or any others that may arise during the next presidential
administration.  Conservative legal experts and Republicans,
however, have lauded Mr. Trump's list, which he released in order
to quell concerns on the right about whom he might pick to replace
the late Justice Antonin Scalia (Greenwire, May 19).

The Washington Post's editorial board slammed Trump for his
unusual move of releasing a list of potential Supreme Court picks.

By doing so, the board said, "Mr. Trump has practically guaranteed
that none of the judges he offered will be seen as fair over the
next several months, their every ruling scrutinized for evidence
that they are applying for the job -- even if they try to conduct
their duties evenhandedly."

The editorial board similarly criticized Democratic presidential
candidates for describing judicial "litmus tests" they would use
to select candidates for the high court, saying doing so "puts the
country on a dangerous path."

Before Mr. Trump's list, "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said that if
he won the presidency, he would ask President Obama to withdraw
Judge Merrick Garland from consideration for the court so that Mr.
Sanders could nominate someone who has publicly committed to
overturning the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance," the
editorial said.  "Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton
promised that she would have 'a bunch of litmus tests' for her
judicial nominees, including on Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage,
the Voting Rights Act and, yes, Citizens United, too."

GENERAL MOTORS: Fuel Economy Case Settlement May Cost $100MM
Patrick George, writing for Jalopnik, reports that if you bought a
2016 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia or Buick Enclave, good for
you! You're about to get cold, hard cash (in debit card form but
still) from General Motors.  This is after the automaker screwed
up fuel economy labels on nearly 150,000 vehicles, overstating
that number by 1-2 MPG.  Gas is so cheap right now that most SUV
owners may not even care.

But here's the benefit to those owners as a result, from Market

Customers who purchased a 2016 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia or
Buick Enclave can choose between a debit card or a 48-
month/60,000-mile service protection plan on top of their existing
factory warranty, the company said on May 20. Those who leased
vehicles will be offered the debit card, GM said.

The debit cards are likely to range between $450 and $900,
depending on whether customers purchased or leased their vehicles.
The type of vehicle and terms of leases will also affect how much
customers receive.  GM alerted dealers to the program on May 20,
and letters were expected to go out to customers starting May 25.

How much will GM itself be out because of this? About $100
million, according to Reuters.  Also, there's already a class-
action lawsuit in the works.  That stings.

GERAWAN FARMING: Judge Allows Wage Class Action to Proceed
Robert Rodriguez, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a
federal judge in Fresno is allowing a class-action lawsuit to move
forward against Gerawan Farming, one of Fresno County's largest
agriculture companies.

The lawsuit, filed in 2014, alleges that Gerawan has violated
state and federal laws, including failing to pay minimum wages,
failing to compensate employees for breaks, and failing to pay
wages owed.

Gerawan's attorney, David Schwarz, said the company had not broken
the law.

"Class certification motions are often granted, seldom denied, and
have nothing to do with the merits of the case," Schwarz said.
"Gerawan's history of paying the industry's highest wages is
undeniable.  Nothing in the allegations disproves nor even alleges

The May 20 decision by federal Judge Dale A. Drozd means the case
can proceed as a class action on behalf of the thousands of
workers employed by Gerawan from Feb. 3, 2010, to the present.

The number of current or former Gerawan workers who could benefit
could be in the thousands.

Judge Drozd appointed the Encino law firm Kingsley & Kingsley and
the Bakersfield firm Martinez, Aguilasocho & Lynch as co-class
counsel to represent the workers.

The decision comes at a time when Gerawan Farming and the United
Farm Workers union continue to battle over labor issues.
Mario Martinez, a co-counsel in the class-action lawsuit, also
represents the UFW in other legal matters.

GERBER PRODUCTS: High Court Upholds $3MM Judgment in Wage Suit
Andrew Demillo, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
sharply divided Arkansas Supreme Court on May 26 said a baby food
manufacturer must pay more than $3 million to workers for the time
they spent dressing and undressing into uniforms and protective

In a 4-3 ruling, the high court upheld a lower court's ruling that
Gerber Products Co. should have compensated more than 800 workers
at its Fort Smith facility for the time they spent changing into
uniforms, donning protective gear such as ear plugs and washing
their hands, as well as undressing after their shifts ended.
Justices sided with the workers who said Arkansas' Minimum Wage
Act required the company to compensate for the activities despite
an agreement with the union.

"We hold that the donning and doffing activities constitute
compensable work under the AMWA, despite the custom and practice
under the collective-bargaining agreement," Justice Karen Baker
wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling drew sharp objections from three justices, who said in
a dissenting opinion that because of the decision "the floodgates
will open to litigation at the enormous cost to businesses in

"In addition, the majority undermines the collective-bargaining
process and destroys any confidence employers and employees have
in the enforceability of their agreements," Justice Rhonda Wood

Gerber had argued the workers' union had agreed to not be paid for
the time in a contract that also included larger wage increases
for the employees.  The company said in a statement it was
disappointed with the ruling and was evaluating its options.

"Gerber has always honored its responsibilities to its employees
as part of the collective bargaining process and under the
collective bargaining agreement," the company said.  "Gerber will
continue its commitment to fully comply with all federal and state
wage and hour laws, regulations and all other employment laws."

John Holleman, an attorney for the workers, called the decision
"landmark" and said it will benefit other workers around the state
who aren't being for similar activities that are required as part
of their job.

"This is a situation where clearly we had both the law and basic
principles of fairness and justice on our side," Mr. Holleman
said.  "These people are clearly working at this time and they
deserve to be paid."

GOYA FOODS: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
Jacquelyn Ferry, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, report that a new putative consumer class action claiming
damages in excess of $5,000,000 was filed earlier this month in
the Northern District of California against Goya Foods, Inc.
("Goya").  The plaintiff, a purchaser of Goya octopus products
from the website Amazon.com, alleges that Goya tricked consumers
into purchasing its products by labeling them as octopus when in
reality, the products contained jumbo squid.  The plaintiff
alleges that independent DNA testing showed that Goya's products
were in fact jumbo squid, which is significantly cheaper and of
lower quality than octopus.

The plaintiff alleges that the cost of octopus has increased in
recent years due to diminishing octopus populations as a result of
over-fishing. Octopus populations had allegedly fallen by 45% in
2014, causing a sharp rise in the price of octopus.  While octopus
populations have been suffering, jumbo squid populations have been
thriving, potentially due to squid's ability to adapt to the
changing ocean conditions caused by global warming.  As a result,
the cost of octopus has risen dramatically compared to the cost of

There are four Goya products at issue in this litigation: (1)
Octopus in Garlic; (2) Octopus in Olive Oil; (3) Octopus in
Pickled Sauce (Marinara); and (4) Octopus in Hot Sauce.  The word
"Octopus" is front and center on each box, and there is no
indication that the products contain any form of squid, the
plaintiff alleges.

Other than the fact that octopus and squid have similar textures
and are both cephalopods (i.e., they have bilateral body symmetry,
a prominent head, and a set of tentacles), they are completely
different species.  As a result of Goya's actions, the plaintiff
alleges that he and other purchaser of Goya octopus products would
not have purchased those products on the same terms if they had
known that the products really contained squid.

The plaintiff claims that Goya has intentionally replaced the
octopus with squid as a cost cutting measure.  The plaintiff
asserts a host of claims on behalf of himself and a putative
nationwide class of potentially millions of purchasers of Goya
octopus products.  Those claims include breach of express
warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose, unjust enrichment, violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), violation of California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.

Both the CLRA and UCL are powerful tools for California class
action plaintiffs.  The UCL forbids "unfair, unlawful and
fraudulent" conduct in connection with a broad array of business
activities. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200.  And the CLRA
applies to "consumer" transactions involving the "sale or lease of
goods or services," and prohibits 24 separate business acts or
practices.  Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1761, 1770. The sweeping
liability standards of the UCL and CLRA may present a challenge
for Goya as it decides whether to answer the complaint or move to
dismiss in early June.

New False Advertising Class Action against Goya Foods, Inc. Claims
Octopus Is Missing from Products

GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION: Vasquez Seeks Certification of DCMWRA Class
Luis Alexander Vasquez moves for conditional certification of his
class under the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act in
his purported class action lawsuit captioned LUIS ALEXANDER
VASQUEZ A/K/A WILBER ALEXANDER on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals v. GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., C.R.
1:15:cv-02106 (GMH) (D.D.C.).

Mr. Vasquez contends that the 2015 Amendments to the DCMWRA expand
the collective action remedies available to him to include both an
opt-in collective action analogous to Fair Labor Standards Act
Rule 216(b), and an opt-out class action pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure Rule 23.

Alternatively, if the Court denies the Motion, the Plaintiff moves
to file an Amended Complaint adding the opt-in Plaintiffs as named

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Virginia R. Diamond, Esq.
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: (703) 627-5510
          Facsimile: (703) 820-0630
          E-mail: vdiamond@ashcraftlaw.com

               - and -

          Rebekah Miller, Esq.
          Benjamin Douglas, Esq.
          1825 K Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 783-6400
          Facsimile: (202) 416-6392

HARRIS CTY, TX: McGruder Seeks Certification of Arrestees Class
The Plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit styled LOETHA
SHANTA MCGRUDER, ROBERT RYAN FORD, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SHERIFF RON HICKMAN, ERIC STEWART
VILLAGOMEZ, JILL WALLACE, Case No. 4:16-cv-01436 (S.D. Tex.), ask
the Court to certify a declaratory and injunctive class.

According to the Motion, this case is about Harris County jailing
some of its poorest people because of their inability to pay a
small amount of money.  The Plaintiffs are arrestees, who are
imprisoned by the County because they cannot afford to pay the
amount of money generically set by the fixed "bail schedule" used
by Harris County and the jail with which it contracts.

On behalf of the many other individuals subjected to the
Defendants' illegal post-arrest wealth-based detention scheme, the
Plaintiffs challenge in this action the use of Harris County's
predetermined schedule of money bail that operates to detain only
the most impoverished of arrestees.

The Plaintiffs also ask to join in the Motion for Class
Certification filed in related case ODonnell v. Harris County.
They assert that they represent the same Class of similarly
situated individuals seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in
ODonnell v. Harris County: All individuals who are or will be
detained by Harris County for any amount of time after arrest
because they are unable to pay money bail.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal S. Manne, Esq.
          Lexie G. White, Esq.
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          E-mail: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Michael Gervais, Esq.
          560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          E-mail: mgervais@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Bernhardt, Esq.
          314 E. Highland Mall Blvd., Suite 108
          Austin, TX 78752
          Telephone: (512) 637-5220
          E-mail: rbernhardt@fairdefense.org

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
          601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          South Building, 9th Floor
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 670-1004
          E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

HESKA CORPORATION: Class Certification Sought in "Fauley" Suit
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SHAUN FAULEY, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
HESKA CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02171 (N.D.
Ill.), seeks an order from the Court certifying this class:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent one or
     more facsimiles regarding Heska Corporation's goods or
     services from March 12, 2011, through July 21, 2014, that
     either (1) contain no "opt-out notice" explaining how to
     stop future faxes or (2) contain an opt-out notice stating,
     "To unsubscribe from Heska's promotional faxes, please call
     800-464-3752, ext. 4565 or fax (970) 619-3008, and indicate
     your clinic name and fax number."

The Case arises out of Heska Corporation's alleged practice of
sending faxes advertising its veterinary products across the
country.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Plaintiff received 20
such faxes from 2011 to 2014, and brought a lawsuit alleging that
Heska's faxes violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of

According to the Motion, records produced in discovery and
reviewed by both parties' experts show that Heska sent many
thousands of faxes during the four-year class period.  The
Plaintiff alleges these faxes are unsolicited advertisements, and
that they lack the "opt-out notice" required for a fax sender to
claim "established business relationship" or "prior express
invitation or permission."

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff as class
representative and appoint the law firm of Anderson + Wanca as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

HONEST CO: Faces "Cesarini" Suit Over False Product Advertising
MICHAEL CESARINI, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HONEST COMPANY, INC.
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-00880
(C.D. Cal., May 13, 2016), claims violations by the Defendants of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair
Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, breach of
express warranty and negligent misrepresentation in relation to
their advertising of foaming hand soap, honest auto dishwasher
gel, honest dish soap and other honest brand products.

THE HONEST COMPANY, INC. markets and sells home cleaning and
personal care products throughout California and the United
States, through various retailers including Target, Costco, and

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
     2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 350
     Newport Beach, CA 92663
     Phone: (949)263-5992
     Fax: (949)209-1948
     E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

        - and -

     Ross Cornell, Esq., Esq.
     111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 612-1708
     Fax: (562) 394-9556
     E-mail: ross.law@me.com

IRON PROTECTION: "Bartz" Suit Asserts FLSA, Col. Wage Law Breach
PATRICK BARTZ, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
FRICHTEL, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01078 (D. Col., May 11, 2016),
alleges willful violations by the Defendants of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, Colorado Wage Act, and Colorado Minimum Wage

Iron Protection Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of General
Cannabis. IPG provides security and training services to
government agencies, multinational corporations, diplomats,
dignitaries and non-profit organizations, both domestic and

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Begins Refund of Red Light Camera Tickets
Heather Miller, writing for WGNO, reports that if you paid a
ticket through the Jefferson Parish red light camera program, you
might be owed a refund.

According to a news release from the state Treasurer's Office, a
class action suit filed in Jefferson Parish led to refunds for
more than 50,000 people who paid red light camera tickets.  The
treasurer's office said there are $1.3 million worth of checks
that were never cashed.

Most people will get a $23.18 refund, the treasurer's office said.

The red light ticket program operated in Jefferson Parish from
2007-2010.  Officials abandoned the program after questionable
payments came to light from the Arizona-based red light camera
company to local lobbyists.

Louisiana residents are encouraged to search the treasurer's
unclaimed property database online or call the Treasury's toll-
free hotline at 1-888-925-4127 (Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30

KCBX TERMINALS: Settles Petcoke Class Action for $1.4 Million
Joseph S. Pete, writing for The Times, reports that companies that
handled petcoke on the Calumet River have agreed to pay more than
$1.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit after clouds of the
black, powdery oil refining byproduct swept across Chicago's
Southeast Side in 2014.

Residents sued KCBX Terminals, Koch Carbon, Chicago Fuels
Terminal, Calumet Transload Railroad, and Hammond-based
Beemsterboer Slag and Ballast Corp. for "failing to take
reasonable and adequate measures to prevent petroleum coke and
coal dust from contaminating communities located in Chicago,

The companies agreed to pay $1.455 million into a settlement fund
that will be divided among affected people who submit claim forms.
People who own property between Torrence Avenue on the west, 95th
Street on the north, the Illinois-Indiana border on the east and
114th Street on the south are eligible for cash payments.

Claims in the class-action lawsuit must be filed before Sept. 24.

Beemsterboer Slag Corp. and KCBX closed petcoke storage facilities
on the Calumet River last year after the city, state and federal
authorities cracked down, requiring that any petcoke be enclosed
so winds couldn't again blow it around the residential

KCBX continues to operate a petcoke facility at 108th Street,
where the grainy substance is shipped off so it can be burned in
energy plants and steel mills, often abroad.

LANDRY'S INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Griffith" Action
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JEFFREY GRIFFITH, JONATHAN
themselves and all others similarly situated v. LANDRY'S, INC.,
No. 8:14-cv-03213-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), file with the Court their
motion for class certification.

Plaintiff Jonathan Blocher, on behalf of himself and other former
and current tipped employees of the Defendants' restaurants,
challenges the legality of Landry's Employee Discount Program -- a
program that the Defendants have implemented and administer in a
uniform way at all of their restaurants.  The Plaintiff moves for
certification of this class:

     All individuals who worked at Chart House and/or Landry's
     Seafood House restaurants in Florida at any time during the
     Relevant Class Liability Period [beginning December 14,
     2009] for whom Defendants claimed a tip credit to meet
     Defendants' minimum wage obligations under Article X,
     Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and who participated
     in Defendants' Employee Discount Program.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Avenue N.E., Suite 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: "Evellard" Sues Over Share Price Drop
Steeve Evellard, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Lendingclub Corporation, Renaud
Laplanche and Carrie L. Dolan, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02627
(N.D. Cal., May 16, 2016) seeks to recover compensable damages for
violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint says the Defendant made materially false and
misleading statements about its business, operational and
compliance policies with regards to its initial public offering.
Plaintiff alleges that internal controls were inadequate to ensure
that loans conformed to customer criteria and third-party
transactions were fully and timely disclosed.

LendingClub's stock fell $2.48 per share, or nearly 35%, to close
at $4.62 per share on May 9, 2016. Plaintiff purchased LendingClub
common stock and lost substantially.

LendingClub operates as an online marketplace that connects
borrowers and investors in the United States. Its marketplace
facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small
businesses, including unsecured personal loans, super prime
consumer loans, unsecured education and patient finance loans, and
unsecured small business loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (818) 532-6449
     Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc Gorrie, Esq.
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Telephone: (212) 697-6484
     Facsimile (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com

LEXISNEXIS: CCAF Urges Supreme Court to Review Settlement
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm filed a petition
with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to review a class
action settlement that it argues is unfair to class members.

On May 19, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class
Action Fairness, or CCAF, filed its petition for writ of
certiorari with the nation's highest court.

CCAF's petition was filed after a federal appeals court refused to
review the deal -- one of two reached over the sale of personal
data reports to debt collectors -- for a second time.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit initially ruled
against CCAF in a Dec. 4, 2015 decision.

Two weeks later, the center asked the Fourth Circuit to rehear the
case against LexisNexis, a company known for providing computer-
assisted legal research and business research and risk management

The appeals court denied CCAF's petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc Jan. 4.

CCAF argues the Fourth Circuit failed to follow governing Supreme
Court law that recognizes the "inherent potential for abuses" of
the class action settlement process.

"The Supreme Court has an opportunity to bring clarity for
thousands of class members who want to opt out of class actions,"
said Adam Schulman, a CEI attorney.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could resolve
splits in circuit court decisions over whether the law provides
damages claimants the right to opt out of class actions and, if
not, whether the Due Process Clause guarantees that right.

The sole statute at issue in the litigation, the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, does not permit private parties to seek injunctive

"Review by this Court is needed to resolve such conflicts and to
protect the due process rights of literally hundreds of millions
of absent class members in this and other cases," CCAF's 29-page
petition states.

The center argues the settlement was unfair to the class and that
class attorneys sought excessive fees -- more than $5 million, on
top of their fees from a related settlement.

The class action centered around LexisNexis Risk and Information
Analytics Group's sale of personal data reports to debt collectors
-- in particular, its Accurint reports.

The reports are used to locate people and assets, authenticate
identities and verify credentials.  The Accurint database contains
information on more than 200 million people, and millions of such
reports are sold each year.

The action claims the defendants -- including LexisNexis Risk &
Information Analytics Group Inc., now LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL
Inc.; Seisint Inc., now LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc.; and
Reed Elsevier Inc. -- prepared and sold Accurint searches and
reports, that these reports were "consumer reports" under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, and that the defendants failed to follow
certain FCRA requirements that apply to consumer reports,
including handling disputes about the reports' contents and
providing consumers with full copies of reports about them.

A federal district court did not decide whether the reports were
consumer reports, or that either side was right or wrong. Instead,
both sides agreed to settle, thus resolving the case and providing
benefits to consumers.

Two settlements were proposed -- by the same group of lawyers.

Class counsel included Leonard Bennett of Consumer Litigation
Associates PC in Newport News, Va.; Dale Pittman of the Law Office
of Dale W. Pittman PC in Petersburg, Va.; Michael Caddell and
Cynthia Chapman of Caddell & Chapman in Houston, Texas; and James
Francis of Francis & Mailman PC in Philadelphia.

One deal, on behalf of 31,000 people, established a $13.5 million
settlement fund covering payments to class members, $3.375 million
in attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards totaling
$30,000 to the class representatives.

CCAF did not object to that settlement, but to another deal, on
behalf of 200 million people.

The second settlement established no fund, rather it put in place
a new regime for the next several years with regards to Lexis'
reports and paid the attorneys $5.5 million -- on top of their
fees from the other settlement -- and did not allow class members
to opt out.

Judge James R. Spencer of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia ruled on Sept. 5, 2014 that both proposed
settlements were a "fair, reasonable and adequate bargain" between
the defendants and the plaintiffs.

However, some class members objected to the settlements, and filed
a notice of appeal with the Fourth Circuit.

The objectors argued that Lexis violated the FCRA "willfully,"
making statutory damages of $100 and $1,000 available to all of
the class members.

The Fourth Circuit, in its Dec. 4, 2015 ruling, found no error in
the district court's release of the statutory damages claims as
part of the settlement, and affirmed.

"Willfulness is a high standard, requiring knowing or reckless
disregard of the FCRA's requirements," the appeals court wrote.

The objectors also took issue with certification of the settlement
class under Rule 23(b)(2), on the grounds that the monetary relief
sought was not incidental to injunctive or declaratory relief.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that the terms of the deal
made opt-out rights unnecessary.

CCAF has argued the appeals court's decision sets an "unfortunate
precedent" for future class action cases.

"The Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh circuits and even the Supreme Court
have all found differently -- injunctive relief is only
appropriate where class members' claims allow for injunctive
relief," Mr. Schulman said following the Fourth Circuit's ruling
last year.

LIBERTY INN: Faces "Arellano-Castillo" Suit in Illinois
Edgar Maximo Arellano-Castillo individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Liberty Inn, Inc. dba
Liberty Restaurant and George Frangos, individually, Defendants,
Case: 1:16-cv-05280, (N.D. Ill., May 17, 2016), was filed pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant called "Liberty Restaurant"
located at 419 South Milwaukee Avenue, Illinois 60048.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Can Bring Simultaneous ERISA Claims
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a
class of participants in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.'s pension
plan seeking past service credit can bring simultaneous claims for
recovery of benefits and equitable relief under ERISA, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled.

In its May 20 decision, the three-judge appellate panel held that
under CIGNA Corp. v Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011), if participants
are unable to recover benefits based on plan interpretation and
enforcement, they can still receive reformation of the plan as an
equitable remedy.

The appeals court agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit's application of Amara in Silva v. Metro. Life Ins.
Co., 762 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2014). There, the Eighth Circuit held
that a plaintiff may seek both a claim for benefits under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(1)(B) and equitable
relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) (153 PBD, 8/8/14).

The dispute at issue stems from Liberty's acquisition of Golden
Eagle Insurance Co. in 1997.  A group of former Golden Eagle
employees filed an ERISA class action against Liberty to recover
benefits.  They also asked the court to award them equitable
remedies--something that is available under ERISA Section
502(a)(3)'s catchall provision.

They alleged that during the acquisition, Liberty told them that
they could participate in Liberty's defined benefit pension plan
with full credit for the years of service they worked at Golden
Eagle.  Upon retirement, they learned they wouldn't get such

The district court certified the class and later granted summary
judgment to Liberty, holding that the administrator didn't abuse
its discretion in calculating benefits without reference to their
service at Golden Eagle (128 PBD, 7/3/13).  The district court
also held that the participants couldn't simultaneously seek
benefits under Section 502(a)(1)(B) and equitable relief under
Section 502(a)(3).

Alternative Theories of Liability

The appeals court agreed that under the plain language of the
plan, it was reasonable to determine that the participants'
service time with Golden Eagle was excluded from benefit accruals.

However, it reversed the district court's decision that the
participants' equitable claims were in essence claims for monetary
relief of their denial past service credit benefits.

Participants may present both claims as alternative -- rather than
duplicative -- theories of liability, the appeals court said.
This approach is an accurate application of U.S. Supreme Court
precedent because it allows participants to plead alternative
theories of relief without obtaining double recoveries, the court

The district court also erred in granting summary judgment to
Liberty since there was a factual dispute of whether Liberty
breached its fiduciary duty by failing to inform Golden Eagle
employees that past service credit for the purpose of benefit
accrual didn't include the period prior to October 1997, the court

The opinion was written by Judge Harry Pregerson and joined by
Judge Consuelo M. Callahan and District Judge Stanley A. Bastian,
sitting by designation.

The Butler Firm, Jack Winters Jr., and Nicholas & Tomasevic
represented the participants.  Jackson Lewis PC represented

LOS ANGELES, CA: Agency on Deafness Seeks Class Certification
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled GREATER LOS ANGELES AGENCY
ON DEAFNESS, INC., a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization; RONDOL HOBART
v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; DOES 10-10, Inclusive,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04269-CJC (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), filed with the
Court their second amended motion to certify the proceeding as a
class action.

A hearing will be held on July 11, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., to consider
the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg W. Garrotto, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-9200
          Facsimile: (310) 229-9209
          E-mail: jjggarrotto@msn.com

MARRIOT OWNERSHIP: "Lennen" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
Anthony Lennen and Beth Lennen, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott Ownership
Resorts, Inc., Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, Marriott
Resorts Travel Company, Inc., Marriott Title Insurance, MVC Trust
Owners Association, First American Financial, First American
Trust, FSB, First American Title Company, Orange County Florida
and Orange County Comptroller, Martha O. Haynie, Defendants, Case
No. 6:16-cv-00855-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla., May 20, 2016), seeks
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, pre-judgment interest
and any other relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act.

Anthony and Beth Lennen purchased Marriott's points-based
timeshare product which, they were made to believe, conveys a
Florida timeshare estate and a beneficial interest in a Florida
land trust. Plaintiffs allege that it was all a farce and it was
just a use license for selected corporately-owned timeshare
estates in 44 locations in 11 different states.

Marriott International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principle place of business located in Baltimore, Maryland and is
into the hotel and condominium business. Marriott Ownership
Resorts, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in Orlando, Florida. It is a developer that operates a
timeshare plan. Marriott Resorts, Travel Company, Inc. is a
Delaware Corporation with its principle place of business located
in Orlando, Florida. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation,
Inc. is a South Carolina Corporation with its principle place of
business in Orlando, Florida and is a management firm.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Stephen Polaszek
     3407 W. Kennedy Blvd.
     Tampa, FL 33609
     Tel: (813) 574-7678
     Email: chris@polaszeklaw.com

          - and -

     Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
     Roger A. Sachar, Jr., Esq.
     1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: (212) 619-5400
     E-mail: lferrara@nflllp.com

          - and -

     Soomi Kim, Esq.
     2400 South College Drive
     High Point, NC 27260
     Tel: (336) 471-8769
     E-mail: soomiwork@gmail.com

MARRIOTT VACATION: Faces Class Action Over Timeshare Sales
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that
Marriott Vacation Club's timeshare sales are actually an illegal
"racketeering" scheme, a new proposed class-action lawsuit says.

The lawsuit takes aim at Marriott's points program, which replaced
traditional sales of timeshare weeks at specific resorts in 2010.
According to the suit, Marriott timeshare customers pay fees
associated with owning real estate -- such as closing costs and
recording fees -- but don't actually own any real estate.

The suit also targets First American Title Company -- the trustee
for Marriott's land trust -- and Orange County and Orange County
Comptroller Martha Haynie.  The plaintiffs are two timeshare
buyers, Anthony and Beth Lennen.

The lawsuit says Marriott timeshare buyers "are being duped into
believing they are obtaining title to a real-property interest . .
. . when, in fact, they are merely getting a right-to-use
license," the lawsuit says.

MCLEOD EXPRESS: Downs Wants to Send Court-Approved Class Notices
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MICHELLE D. DOWNS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. MCLEOD EXPRESS
LLC, and MARK R. MCLEOD, an individual, Case No. 2:16-cv-02060-HAB
(C.D. Ill.), asks the Court for an order:

   (1) directing the Defendants to provide forthwith to counsel
       for the Plaintiff a list of the names and last known
       addresses of each individual they employed as a driver
       within the City Division to transport corn meal and corn
       germ at ADM in Decatur, Illinois, at any time during the
       period beginning March 8, 2013, and ending March 8, 2016;

   (2) approving the proposed form of notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Devine, Esq.
          607 East Adams, Suite 1510
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (217) 788-0798
          Facsimile: (217) 788-1660
          E-mail: jamesalbertdevine@gmail.com

               - and -

          John A. Baker, Esq.
          415 South Seventh Street
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (217) 522-3445
          Facsimile: (217) 522-8234
          E-mail: jab@bbklegal.com

MEDSTAR HEALTH: Class of 9 Dept-Specific Collectives Certified
The Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit titled DANIELLE FREEMAN, et al. v. MEDSTAR
HEALTH INC., et al., Case No. 14-628 (CKK) (D.D.C.), granting-in-
part and denying-in-part the Plaintiffs' revised motion for order
authorizing notice to similarly situated persons.

The Plaintiffs are current and former hospital employees, who
bring claims against MedStar Health, Inc. and against six MedStar
hospitals.  In addition to the individual claims that they bring
in the Action, the Plaintiffs seek to bring collective action
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to 20
departments of four hospitals at which they, severally, have
worked -- Franklin Square Hospital, Harbor Hospital, Union
Memorial Hospital, and Washington Hospital Center.

The Court grants the motion as to nine proposed department-
specific collectives unaffected by the motion for partial summary
judgment.  The Court conditionally certifies these nine
collectives, and authorizes the sending of notices to all
employees, who worked in any of these nine departments within
three years of the date of this Order:

   -- MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center:

      * Intensive Care Unit; and
      * Pharmacy Department;

   -- MedStar Harbor Hospital:

      * Oncology Department;
      * Orthopedic Department;
      * Pediatric Department;
      * Telemetry Department; and

   -- MedStar Washington Hospital Center:

      * Cardiac Arrhythmia Center;
      * Unit 4D; and
      * Trauma Department

The Court also ordered that the Revised Motion is denied as to all
proposed collectives other than the nine collectives.

The Court says it will definitively resolve the final form of the
notice to be sent to the employees in those collectives after
providing the parties an opportunity to resolve several remaining
issues regarding the notice and the methodology for distributing
that notice.  The Court directed the parties to confer regarding
the remaining issues pertaining to the notice, and must file a
Joint Status Report regarding the parties' attempt to resolve
those issues jointly by no later than June 3, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at

MICROSOFT CORP: July 25 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
If You Bought Microsoft Software or a Computer with Microsoft
Software Between December 23, 1998 and March 11, 2010 (inclusive)
You May Have Legal Rights in a Class Action Lawsuit


Class action proceedings have been certified or authorized by the
courts of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec alleging that
beginning in 1988, Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive conduct
resulting in overcharges for the following Intel-compatible
personal computer ("PC") operating systems and Intel-compatible PC
applications software: Word, Excel, Office, Works Suite, Home
Essentials, MS-DOS, and Windows ("Microsoft Software").

The Courts have not yet made any decision on the merits of the
claim or the defences in any of the three separate class actions.


You are a class member in one of the class actions if you live in
Canada at the time of this notice and, between December 23, 1998,
and March 11, 2010 (inclusive) you purchased for your own use (not
for resale) genuine Microsoft Software or a PC loaded with genuine
Microsoft Software from someone other than Microsoft, and do not
opt out of the appropriate class action (the "Class Members").


If you are a Class Member, you do not need to do anything to
continue to be included in the appropriate class action.  You will
be bound by any decisions in the appropriate class action and you
may share in any money that may ultimately be paid to Class
Members.  Unless you exclude yourself from the appropriate class
action, you cannot bring your own lawsuit.

You should preserve any records relating to proof of purchase and
the purchase amount of any Microsoft Software or PC loaded with
Microsoft Software.


If you do not want to be a Class Member who is legally bound by
these class actions, you must exclude yourself by July 25, 2016.
To learn how to exclude yourself, contact class counsel at the
address and website information below.

If you exclude yourself by the deadline, you may be able to bring
your own lawsuit, but you cannot collect any money that may
ultimately be paid to Class Members as a result of these class


If the class actions are successful, class counsel have agreements
with the representative plaintiffs in each of the class actions
that they are paid a percentage of the total amount that they
obtain for the Class Members.  The agreements can only be enforced
if approved by the courts.  The courts will also have to approve
the amount that is paid to class counsel.


More information can be found at www.cfmlawyers.ca/microsoft/ or
www.bptavocats.com or www.strosbergco.com/microsoft

You can also contact class counsel at the contact information

It is strongly recommended that you review the long form of this
Legal Notice which can be obtained on class counsel's websites.

If you are resident in B.C., contact:
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman
400-856 Homer Street,
Vancouver, BC V6B 2W5
1-800-689-2322 or (604) 689-7555
Attn: Linnae Roach

If you are resident in Quebec, contact:
Bouchard Page Tremblay, s.e.n.c
510-825 boul. Lebourgneuf,
Quebec, QC, G2J 0B9
1-855-768-6667 or (418) 622-6699
Attn: Brian A. Garneau

All other Canadian residents, contact:
Sutts, Strosberg LLP
600 - 251 Goyeau Street
Windsor, ON, N9A 6V4
1-800-229-5323 extn.8296
Attn: Heather Rumble Peterson

This notice contains a summary of some of the terms of the
certification/authorization orders in the class actions.  If there
is a conflict between the provisions of this notice and the
orders, including the schedules to the orders, the terms of the
courts' certification/authorization orders in each class action
shall prevail.

Michael Wyland, writing for Nonprofit Quarterly, reports that a
Native American college student in South Dakota has filed a class
action lawsuit against Mid-Central Educational Cooperative, a
local public education agency serving 13 rural school districts.
Alyssa Black Bear alleges that Mid-Central failed to honor its
contract with the South Dakota Department of Education as it
administered two federal grants intended to help Native American
and other low-income youth in the state prepare for and be
successful in college.  The lawsuit does not request a specific
amount in damages and does not name any additional plaintiffs,
though more aggrieved former and current students may join the
suit at a later time.

NPQ readers may remember allegations that Mid-Central's
administration of up to $62 million in federal GEAR UP program
grants was riddled with waste, fraud, poor record-keeping, and
countless conflicts of interest.  Black Bear's 13-page complaint
identifies state agencies, several nonprofit organizations, and
several individuals that had some role in administering and/or
evaluating the grant funded program.  Mid-Central has 30 days to
respond to the complaint.

Meanwhile, Mid-Central is suing one of its former nonprofit
partners, the American Indian Institute for Innovation (AIII), for
unspecified damages for "breach of contract, as well as fraud and
deceit and taking Mid-Central's property for its own use,"
according to the story reporting the lawsuit.  AIII's founder and
chief financial officer was Scott Westerhuis, who was also the
longtime senior finance official at Mid-Central.  Last September,
Westerhuis murdered his wife and four children, burned the family
home to the ground, and committed suicide less than a day after
being told that the state had suddenly cancelled Mid-Central's
GEAR UP management contract.  Mid-Central had previously sued the
Westerhuis estate for more than $2 million related to GEAR UP,
alleging that there was a "reasonable chance" that he has
misappropriated funds from Mid-Central.  AIII, for its part, is
also suing the Westerhuis estate in an attempt to recover GEAR UP
funds it says were misappropriated.

In the wake of the scandal and as a consequence of the state
education department's decision to terminate all contractual
agreements with it, Mid-Central has decided to dissolve in 2017.
Its member school districts will align with other educational
cooperatives in the state to share costs and curriculum for
special education, related services, and professional development
provided to their students and employees.

Will Mid-Central have any money left for Black Bear and other
plaintiffs to collect? Can they sue the school districts that make
up Mid-Central, or the state education department that failed to
exercise proper oversight as it promised to the federal
government, or will sovereign immunity protect these governmental
entitles from responsibility to the students who were

MONDELEZ INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Snack Foods Slack Fill
Jamie Kelly, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit against food and beverage company Mondelez
International claiming some of its packaging contains non-
functional slack fill is just the latest example of customers
suing over what they see as deceptive marketing, a consumer
advocate says.

"We have seen great number of cases being brought in regard to
non-functional slack fill," Bonnie Patten, executive director of
truthinadvertising.org, recently told Legal Newsline.  "I think
there were 34 cases in 2015, and it looks like 2016 is on track to
have similar number of cases.  It's definitely a hot item for
class actions at the moment."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
California District, alleges that the company's "Go Paks," which
contain snack foods such as Teddy Grahams, are under-filled by 25
percent or more.

Ms. Patten said that one of the reasons consumers have been more
file such class action suits over slack fill is likely because
they can easily see the amount in a package.

"Because it's a very visual issue, consumers can readily
understand this issue," she said.  "They have an expectation of
how much they're going to receive when they buy something, so they
really do feel misled when they open the package and only, say, 60
percent of the volume is taken up by the good."

She pointed to the fact that as many as a dozen cases were filed
against spice maker McCormick between June and November 2015.  In
those cases, consumers allege that McCormick reduced the amount of
black pepper in a container by 25 percent, but kept the same size
container and charged the same price.

"If I've been buying the same product for 'x' number of years,
there's an assumption that it stayed the same," she said.

Even as they become more popular, such cases aren't necessarily
easy to win, Ms. Patten said.  At the federal level, food, drugs
and cosmetics are covered by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act,
which doesn't allow private individuals to file suits about
misleading packaging.

States, however, are free to write their own laws that do allow
such lawsuits.  There isn't much case law on the subject, and that
can be a strong defense, so it's difficult to predict an outcome,
she said.

Even when consumers do prevail, though, it isn't necessarily a big
payday for any of the litigants.

"I don't think plaintiffs will get an economic windfall in these
kinds of cases," Ms. Patten said.  "My best guess is that if
there's a settlement, you're going to see a change in packaging,
which obviously is very costly for corporations.  And then what I
would guess is that consumers will either get a rebate or a
coupon, because the claims here are about quantity of product, not
that they didn't want the product in the first place."

A spokeswoman for Mondelez International declined to comment,
citing a corporate policy against speaking about pending lawsuits.

MOORE STEPHENS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Ruling
Michael Cohn, writing for Accounting Today, reports that Moore
Stephens' Hong Kong firm won a victory in a New York federal
appeals court on a case that could have a far-reaching impact on
class-action lawsuits involving audit reports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed on
May 20 prior rulings in a securities class-action lawsuit against
Moore Stephens Hong Kong for its audits of Puda Coal, a publicly
traded, U.S.-listed company headquartered in China, which at one
time held a 90 percent ownership stake in a Chinese coal company,
Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co.

In September 2009, Puda's chairman transferred Puda's entire
interest in Shanxi Coal to himself, leaving Puda a shell company.
The transfer was reflected in shareholder meeting minutes and in
documents filed in China's State Administration of Industry and
Commerce.  But Puda's financial statements for 2009 and 2010
included all of the assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, and
net income for Shanxi Coal.

Nevertheless, Moore Stephens Hong Kong issued clean audit opinions
for Puda's 2009 and 2010 financial statements under Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board standards.  When the Shanxi Coal
transfer became public knowledge in April 2011, Moore Stephens
resigned as Puda's auditor and announced that its 2009 and 2010
audit opinions could no longer be relied upon.

Puda's investors filed a securities class-action lawsuit shortly
after news broke of the Shanxi Coal transfer, alleging that Moore
Stephens (and others) violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and
Rule 10b-5).

At the trial, a witness, Anita C.M. Hou, testified that Moore
Stephens failed to comply with the auditing standards of Hong Kong
and/or the People's Republic of China.  However, she also admitted
that she was not an expert on PCAOB standards and could not opine
on whether the audits complied with PCAOB standards.

Moore Stephens brought forward Alexander H. Mackintosh as its own
expert witness on PCAOB standards.  He opined that Moore Stephens'
2009 and 2010 audits fully complied with PCAOB standards.  The
district court struck out Hou's testimony and granted summary
judgment in favor of Moore Stephens on the grounds that Hou did
not have the necessary expertise to offer opinions on matters
relevant to the case.

The appeals court agreed with the lower court and also found Moore
Stephens did not act recklessly or with the intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud.  The court cited a 2015 Supreme Court case,
Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry
Pension Fund, which found that statements of opinion are
actionable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 as false
or misleading only if the issuer of the opinion held a subjective
belief inconsistent with the opinion, or if the opinion omits
material facts about the issuer's inquiry into or knowledge
concerning a statement of opinion if those facts conflict with
what a reasonable investor would take from the statements of
opinion itself.

"Audit reports, labeled 'opinions' and involving considerable
subjective judgment, are statements of opinion subject to the
Omnicare standard for Section 11 claims," said the Second Circuit
in its ruling on May 20.  "There is no evidence that Moore
Stephens did not believe its 'clean audit opinions' for Puda's
2009 or 2010 financial statements.  Nor is there evidence that
Moore Stephens omitted material facts about the basis for its
audit reports.  Plaintiffs-appellants cannot sustain their Section
11 claim."

Of critical importance for accountants, the Second Circuit held
that audit reports involve significant subjective judgment and are
statements of opinion subject to the Supreme Court's ruling in

"The court ruled it is essentially an opinion on the financial
statements, and you have to meet the standard under a Supreme
Court decision called Omnicare to show that the auditors either
didn't believe that opinion at the time that they offered it, or
omitted facts that would make the opinion untrue, which is a
pretty big step up in the proof you would have to make against an
auditor than merely showing that the underlying financial
statements have an error," said Brian Massengill, a partner at the
law firm Mayer Brown LLP, which represented Moore Stephens in the

The ruling could be influential on future cases involving audit
firms, even if it doesn't establish a direct precedent. However,
the Second Circuit includes the Southern District of New York,
where most securities lawsuits are brought, including this one.

"Because they did it in a summary order, it is not precedential,
so it doesn't require any court to follow it," said
Mr. Massengill.  "But it is the reasoning of a panel in the Second
Circuit, so I think courts would certainly look to this decision
and the Second Circuit's reasoning under Section 11."

The chances of a successful appeal to the full court or the
Supreme Court are remote, as the full appeals court agrees to hear
only a tiny fraction of cases decided by the panel that handed
down the ruling.

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Rejects Improper Influence Claim Over NIH Study
Mike Florio, writing for Pro Football, reports that the NFL has
remained silent in the hours since news emerged of a Congressional
report that the league unduly influenced the selection of a
researcher to lead a National Institutes of Health study regarding
head trauma.  While the NFL still has not yet provided specifics,
the league has issued a categorical rejection of the conclusion.

"We are reviewing the report but categorically reject any
suggestion of improper influence," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy
told PFT via email.

Given the league's position, and based on the precedent created by
the league's zealous opposition to a New York Times report
regarding flawed concussion research and (tenuous) links between
Big Shield and Big Tobacco, it's safe to assume that, eventually,
a lengthy and detailed response will be provided by the NFL.
Whether that persuades the media or the public or otherwise undoes
the preliminary damage from the 91-page report remains to be seen.

For now, the report has created an impression that the league
wanted to steer a study regarding Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
in living patients away from someone whom the league regarded as
being adverse to its interests.  Regardless of whether the league
did or didn't exert undue influence, it's not a surprise that the
league would have concern about a test for detecting CTE in
players who have not yet died.  If/when a test is developed and
if/when it results in the widespread detection of CTE in NFL,
college, and/or high school players, the NFL could experience
something far more dangerous to the future of the league than a
class-action lawsuit.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Hermann" Files Suit Over Players' "TBI"
RONALD W. HERMANN, II, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE and THE
cv-01042-KJM-AC, (E.D. Cal., May 17, 2016), alleges that
Defendants failed to implement procedures to protect Plaintiff and
other Georgia football players from the long-term dangers
associated with "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs" that resulted
from playing college football.

SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE is a collegiate athletic conference with
its principal office located 2201 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd.
North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Logan, Esq.
     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.234.5260
     Fax: 415.373.9495
     E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com

        - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     John Driscoll, Esq.
     211 North Broadway, 40th Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: 314.932.3232
     E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Players' "TBI"
JOSEPH MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01222-
TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 17, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
failed to implement procedures to protect Plaintiff and other
Auburn University football players from the long-term dangers
associated with "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs" that resulted
from playing college football.

Defendant Southeastern Conference is a collegiate athletic
conference with its principal office located 2201 Richard
Arrington Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 and with
member institutions in eleven states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Winingham, Esq.
     2859 North Meridian Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46208
     Phone: 317.920.6400
     Fax: 317.920.6405
     E-mail: winingham@wkw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com


        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     Todd M. Logan, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.234.5342
     Fax: 415.373.9495
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

        - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554-9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     John Driscoll, Esq.
     211 North Broadway, 40th Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: 314.932.3232
     E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Seals" Suit Over Players' "TBI"
RICHARD SEALS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE and THE
cv-00412-RJS (D. Utah, May 17, 2016), alleges that Defendants
failed to implement procedures to protect Plaintiff and other
University of Utah football players from the long-term dangers
associated with "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs" that resulted
from playing college football.

Defendant WAC is a collegiate athletic conference with its
principal office located at 9250 East Costilla Avenue, Suite 300,
Englewood, Colorado 80112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark F. James, Esq.
     10 West Broadway, Suite 400
     Salt Lake City, UT 84101
     Phone: 801.363.6363
     Fax: 801.363.6666
     E-mail: mjames@hjdlaw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     Todd M. Logan, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.234.5342
     Fax: 415.373.9495
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

        - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554-9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     John Driscoll, Esq.
     211 North Broadway, 40th Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: 314.932.3232
     E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Walthour" Suit Over Players' "TBI"
Brandon Walthour, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vanderbilt University,
Southeastern Conference and The National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Defendants, Case 6:16-cv-00834-CEM-TBS, (M.D. Fla.,
May 17, 2016), alleges that Defendants failed to implement
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Vanderbilt football
players from the long-term dangers associated with "traumatic
brain injuries" or "TBIs" that resulted from playing college

Vanderbilt University is a private university located at 2201 West
End Ave., Nashville, Tennessee 37235.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David P. Healy, Esq.
     SunTrust Financial Center
     3522 Thomasville Road, Suite 301
     Tallahassee, FL 32309
     Phone: 850.222.5400
     Fax: 850.222.7339
     E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 45.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

        - and -

     Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: bthomassen@edelson.com

        - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554-9098
     E-mail: jraizer@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     John Driscoll, Esq.
     211 North Broadway, 40th Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: 314.932.3232
     E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Concussion Suit in Minn. Advances
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the National Hockey League must face claims that former
players developed long-term neurological conditions from too many
concussions, a federal judge ruled.

A complaint the players filed in St. Paul, Minnesota, says the
concussion program the league created in 1997, which led to
documentation of game-related head injuries through 2004, shows
that the league knew concussions could ultimately lead to
neurocognitive illness.

Files from this program that the litigation has since brought to
light includes an August 2014 email wherein NHL spokesman Gary
Meagher said the league "has never been in the business of trying
to make the game safer at all levels."

U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson refused May 16, to dismiss the
master complaint based on the NHL's claim about labor law pre-

"Not one of the eight [union contracts] in effect during that 40-
year timeframe is mentioned in the amended complaint," the ruling

Nelson also emphasized that each plaintiff in this class action is
retired and no longer subject to any collective bargaining

"At this stage of the proceedings, the court must rely only on the
pleadings, or documents fairly embraced by the pleadings, and not
a cherry-picked record introduced solely to contradict plaintiffs'
allegations," she wrote.

Though the NHL also wanted a stay, Nelson said "discovery is
necessary to shed light on the nature of plaintiffs' claims, when
those claims accrued, and which -- if any -- [collective
bargaining agreements] might be relevant."

"If a full record ultimately reveals that plaintiffs' claims
accrued while they were subject to a [collective bargaining
agreement], and that those claims are substantially dependent on
interpretation of the [agreement], then the court could properly
determine that the claims are preempted by labor law preemption,"
she added. "In the meantime, however, defendant's motion to
dismiss is premature and must be denied, and, therefore,
defendant's motion to stay is denied as moot."

The plaintiffs are represented by Zimmerman Reed in Minneapolis;
Chestnut Cambronne; Bassford Remele; Heins Mills & Olson;
Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen; and Gustafson Gluek.

Zimmerman Reed in Scottsdale, Arizona, represents the plaintiffs
as well, as do Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White in Baltimore;
Corboy & Demetrio in Chicago; Goldman, Scarlato & Penny in Wayne,
Pennsylvania; the Levine Law Firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
Namanny, Byrne, & Owens in Lake Forest, California; Hellmuth &
Johnson in Edina, Minnesota; Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd;
Stuart Davidson, Janine Arno, Kathleen Douglas, and Mark Dearman
in Boca Raton, Florida, and Leonard Simon in San Diego.

Faegre Baker Daniels in Minneapolis represents the league, along
with Proskauer Rose in New York; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom; Geoffrey Wyatt, John Beisner, and Jessica Miller in
Washington, D.C.; and Shepard Goldfein, James Keyte, Michael
Menitove, and Matthew Martino in New York.

The attorneys did not respond to requests for comment May 20.

NEK: Faces Second Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
WCAX News reports that there are new developments tied to
allegations of hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud in the
Northeast Kingdom.

A second class-action lawsuit has been filed against a pair of
developers and their financial managers.

Three foreign investors who each ponied up a half million dollars
for projects at Jay Peak are seeking punitive damages against
Ariel Quiros and Bill Stenger, and also Raymond James Financial
and People's United Bank.

The complaint echoes claims made by the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the developers misused and diverted investor's
funds in a Ponzi-like scheme.

NEW YORK: Bill to Repeal Tampon Sales Tax Gets Final Court OK
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
state Senate gave final legislative approval on May 25 to a bill
to repeal New York state's sales tax on tampons and other feminine
hygiene products--the so-called "Tampon Tax."

The bill (A7555/S7838) goes to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who praised the
Legislature on May 25 for voting to repeal a "regressive and
unfair tax on women" and said he would sign it into law.
Proponents say that if he does, New York will join a growing
number of states that have eliminated sales taxes on tampons,
sanitary napkins and panty liners as discriminatory against women.
Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are among the other
states to have enacted similar tax repeals in recent years (NYLJ,
April 13).
The Senate approved the bill 56-0. It passed the Assembly on May
16 by a 141-0 margin.

Its chief sponsors are Sen. Sue Serino, R-Hyde Park, and
Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, D-Manhattan.

A class-action complaint, Seibert v. New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance, 1514/2016, was filed earlier this year
seeking a declaration in Manhattan state Supreme Court that the 4
percent sales tax on feminine hygiene products is unconstitutional
(NYLJ, March 4).

P.J. 2035: "Elizalde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
Arturo Ortega Elizalde, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. P.J. 2035 NY Corp., d/b/a
Huntington Station Food Plaza and Porfino Tineo, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02589 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2016), seeks unpaid wages,
liquidated damages and attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act; and compensation for not
receiving notices and statements required by New York Labor Laws.

P.J. 2035 NY Corp. operates a supermarket in Suffolk County, New
York, at 2035 New York Avenue, Huntington Station, NY 11746, where
Plaintiff was employed as a stocker. Ortega claims to have been
denied overtime pay as well as pay stubs reflecting his actual
work hours rendered.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Tel: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com

PANDA EXPRESS: Doesn't Pay Overtime, Calif. Class Suit Says
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action in Los
Angeles Superior Court accuses Panda Express of stiffing workers
for overtime.

PAPA'S MEAT MARKET: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Min., OT Pay
Francisco Garza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Papa's Meat Market Inc., Gabino Infante,
individually and Maria Infante, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-14166-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum
wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
interests, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and injunctive
relief and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants used to operate a full-service meat market in Venice,
Florida where Plaintiff worked. He claims to have received below
the mandated minimum wage rate.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Diane P. Perez, Esq.
     201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 985-5676
     Facsimile: (305) 985-5677
     E-mail: diane@dianeperezlaw.com

PERRIGO CO: Faces Securities class Action in New Jersey
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on May 24 disclosed
that a class action complaint was filed against Perrigo Company
plc in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Perrigo Company plc ("Perrigo") securities between April 21,
2015 and May 11, 2016, and on behalf of all investors in Perrigo
as of November 13, 2015, for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by Perrigo's officers and directors. Perrigo,
together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets,
and distributes over-the-counter ("OTC") consumer goods and
pharmaceutical products worldwide.

Perrigo Accused of Improperly Dissuading Investors From Agreeing
to Tender Offer

According to the complaint, on April 8, 2015, competing drug
manufacturer Mylan offered to purchase Perrigo for $205 per share,
representing a nearly 30% premium to Perrigo's total market
capitalization.  On April 21, 2015, Perrigo publicly rejected
Mylan's offer and falsely told investors that it "substantially
undervalues Perrigo and its growth prospects" and that the offer
does not take into account the full benefits of its acquisition of
Omega Pharma, a large OTC healthcare company in Europe.  Even
though Mylan subsequently raised its offer to approximately $235
per share, Perrigo continued to engage in a public campaign to
convince shareholders to reject Mylan's proposal, citing the 5-10%
organic revenue growth that it would achieve as a standalone
company.  The complaint alleges that these statements were
misleading because Perrigo knew that: (1) Mylan's offer did not
undervalue Perrigo; (2) Perrigo would not be able to achieve 5-10%
organic growth as a standalone company; (3) the company's "durable
competitive position and durable growth strategy" was rapidly
deteriorating; and (4) Perrigo was experiencing serious issues
integrating the Omega acquisition and significantly overpaid for
Omega's business.

On November 13, 2015, the majority of Perrigo's shareholders
declined to tender their shares, making the Mylan tender offer a
failure.  On February 18, 2016, Perrigo reported disappointing
fourth quarter 2015 financial results, and announced that it would
need to take a $185 million impairment charge related to its
restructuring of the Omega business.  On April 22, 2016, Reuters
reported that Perrigo's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") would be
appointed as the new CEO of competing pharmaceutical company
Valeant Pharmaceuticals.  Then, on April 25, 2016, Perrigo
drastically lowered its earnings guidance for 2016 and disclosed
issues with the integration of Omega, and said that it was
contemplating another impairment charge associated with the Omega
acquisition.  Since news of Perrigo's financial struggles became
public, Perrigo stock declined over 43% to close at $89.04 per
share on May 12, 2016.

Perrigo Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney
Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a shareholder rights law firm.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits.

REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Wins Prelim. OK of "Tannlund" Class Deal
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 24, 2016, in the case entitled
Michelle Lee Tannlund v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05149 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable James B. Zagel.

The minute entry states that:

   -- status hearing was held on May 24, 2016;

   -- Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Excess is granted;

   -- Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Revised
      Class Settlement is granted and Richard Hurrle's Motion to
      Intervene is denied;

   -- all other pending motions are denied without prejudice;

   -- a final approval hearing will take place on September 8,
      2016, at 12:00 p.m.; and

   -- next status hearing is set for August 9, 2016, at 9:15 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d1o3bPN3

Plaintiff Michelle Lee Tannlund filed this class action complaint
on July 7, 2014, on behalf of herself and a proposed nationwide
class alleging that Defendant, Real Time Resolutions, Inc., had
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227
("TCPA"), by making non-emergency calls to class members' cellular
telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system without the
consent of the called party.

Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written Revised Settlement
Agreement and Release, which settles the dispute on a class-wide
basis. The Revised Settlement Agreement is substantially different
from a settlement proposal that was filed earlier in this
litigation. The Revised Settlement Agreement contemplates a non-
reversionary common fund of $1.3 million with costs of notice and
administration paid by Defendant separately outside the fund, with
approximately 345,000 persons eligible to make a claim by
submitting a simple form stating that they received unconsented

A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://is.gd/D5p0yh from Leagle.com.

Michelle Lee Tannlund, Petitioner, represented by Mark Daniel
Ankcorn, Ankcorn Law Firm, PC.

Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryant Todd
Lamer -- blamer@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fanc Britt & Browne
LLP, Abraham J. Colman -- acolman@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
David S. Almeida -- dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton, LLP, David Mitchell Poell --
dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
LLP & Henry Pietrkowski -- hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- Reed
Smith LLP.

Richard Hurrle, Intervenor, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke,
Burke Law Offices, LLC, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law Offices, LLC, Jennifer
Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC & Mary B. Reiten,
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.

ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY: Faces Data Breach Class Action
Joe Robertson, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a
Rockhurst University employee hopes to represent some 1,200 school
staffers in seeking damages for a data breach in April.

Someone duped university staff into supplying information on IRS
W-2 forms, including Social Security numbers, in an act of fraud
April 4.

The lawsuit filed on May 19 in Jackson County Circuit Court by
Alexandria Stobbe said the university was willful and reckless in
exposing the personal information in "flagrant disregard" for the
employees' rights to privacy and property.

The lawsuit is asking the court to allow a class-action litigation
on behalf of all the affected employees.

University staff are at "an imminent, immediate and continuing
increased risk of identity theft, identity fraud and medical
fraud," the lawsuit said.  The university harmed them, it said, by
failing to establish and implement appropriate administrative
safeguards to protect the information.

A Rockhurst spokesman said the university would not comment on the
pending lawsuit.

In April, Rockhurst University President Thomas B. Curran said in
a letter to employees that he was angry the institution had been
victimized and that the university was working with the IRS to
monitor any fraud from the action.  The university also said it
would provide free services to employees for two years to arrange
protections of their credit cards and protect against identity

The university reported in April that the fraud was committed by
someone who impersonated a university administrator, requested W-2
information and provided a fake email address.

Mr. Curran said in his letter at the time that the university was
taking steps to notify and train staff about data fraud schemes.

Ms. Stobbe's lawsuit states that the fraud committed against the
university has damaged employees' peace of mind and personal
security, compelling many of them to purchase credit card
reporting services and Internet monitoring services, to purchase
and review credit reports and bank statements, and to institute
credit freezes or close accounts.

The employees "have suffered and will continue to suffer such
damages for the foreseeable future," it said.

The theft of Social Security numbers presents a particularly
difficult process for those who may need to get them changed, the
lawsuit added.

The employees also have been deprived of the value of their
personal information, which many services collect and sell to
solicitors and other users.

The lawsuit seeks actual, unspecified amounts of damages, plus
legal fees.

ROYAL OAK, MI: Lawmakers Attempt to Avert 2004 Flooding Suits
Dave Spencer, writing for WJBK, reports that it was August 2014
when a day of rain caused the worst flooding our area has ever
seen.  Now almost two years later, flood victims are suing their
cities and some lawmakers are trying to stop lawsuits like these
from taking place.

FOX 2's Dave Spencer takes us to one Royal Oak neighborhood that
was one of the hardest hit areas.  Now, nearly 600 homeowners in
that city alone are part of a class action lawsuit against the
county for that flood.

"Everything that was in the sewage water had to be thrown away,"
said Joe Schramski.

Having a finished basement in their Royal Oak neighborhood meant
costly repairs after the flood.

"Two months about $15,000 in damage," said Matthew Voss.

But as for who or what is responsible for the flood -- that's up
for debate.

"Someone has to be held accountable other than homeowners,"
Mr. Voss said.

"The sewers generally work good, they've worked for about 100
years or however long they were put in," said Mr. Schramski.  "It
was unforeseeable."

Neither of these two homeowners joined a class action lawsuit, but
hundreds of their neighbors have -- accusing Jim Nash, the Oakland
Water Resource commissioner, the county and the cities they serve
of ignoring a system defect when it comes to sewage disposal.

RUCKUS WIRELESS: Faces "Borrego" Lawsuit Over Merger with Brocade
ROBERT D. BORREGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., GEORGES
GYANI, RICHARD LYNCH, and SELINA Y. LO, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
00340-UNA (D. Del., May 11, 2016), is a securities lawsuit over
the planned merger of Ruckus and Brocade Communications Systems,

Ruckus Wireless, Inc. is a wireless technology company.  It is a
global supplier of carrier-class, "Smar Wi-Fi" products and

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Banko, Esq.
     Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde
     James M. Wilson, Jr.
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

SAC CAPITAL: September 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
The following statement is being issued by Scott + Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP and Motley Rice LLC regarding the Wyeth SAC
Capital Shareholders Litigation Settlement.



No. 13 Civ. 2459 (VM) (KNF)


TO: (a) All persons or entities who sold shares of Wyeth common
stock during the period January 14, 2008 through and including
July 18, 2008; and (b) All persons or entities who purchased
shares of Wyeth common stock during the period July 21, 2008
through and including July 29, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. EDT (the


YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
September 23, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Victor
Marrero at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 11B, New York, New York,
10007-1312, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the above-captioned action ("Action") for
$10,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as provided under
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation") should
be entered, dismissing the Action on the merits and with
prejudice; (3) the release by the Class of the Released Wyeth Lead
Plaintiffs' Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be
provided to the SAC Capital Defendants' Releasees; (4) this Action
satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (5) to
award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and litigation expenses out of
the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below);
(6) to grant the Wyeth Lead Plaintiffs' requests for reimbursement
of their costs and expenses incurred, in connection with their
role in prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class out of the
Settlement Fund; and (7) the Plan of Allocation should be approved
by the Court.


To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by filing a Proof of Claim on or before
September 12, 2016.  Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by
September 12, 2016 will subject your claim to rejection and
preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Action.  If you are a Member of the Class and
do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of
the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions
for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), online at
www.Wyethsaccapitalsecuritieslitigation.com or by writing to:

Wyeth SAC Capital Shareholders Litigation Settlement
c/o Heffler Claims Group
P.O. Box 58697
Philadelphia, PA 19102-8697
Phone:  1-844-777-8058

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Wyeth Lead Counsel:

Deborah Clark-Weintraub
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY  10174
Tel:  (212) 223-6444

Gregg S. Levin
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
Tel:  (843) 216-9000


Dated: May 23, 2016

SNAPCHAT: Collects Personal Info, Class Suit Says
Courthouse News Service, reported that Snapchat violates Illinois
law by collecting, storing, selling and sharing biometric
information, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.

SOUTHERN WOLF: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Figueroa" Suit
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RAMON FIGUEROA, on behalf of
himself and other persons similarly situated v. SOUTHERN WOLF
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and JOSE RAMON LOBO, Case No. 2:16-cv-00674-
EEF-MBN (E.D. La.), moves for conditional class certification,
judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of
potential "opt-in" plaintiffs.

The Action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court Ruling Also Poses Threats to Defendants
Hunton & Williams LLP reports that the Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. __ (2016), has been nearly universally
lauded by defense counsel as a new bulwark against class actions
alleging technical violations of federal statutes. It may be that.
But Spokeo also poses a significant threat to defendants by
defeating their ability to remove exactly the types of cases that
defendants most want in federal court.  The decision circumscribes
the federal jurisdiction, with all its advantages, that defendants
have enjoyed under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) for the past

Under Spokeo, a plaintiff needs more than a statutory right of
action in order to sue; he or she also needs a concrete,
particularized injury traditionally required by Article III.  The
plaintiff, Robins, accused Spokeo of violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by reporting information about him that was
not true: specifically, that he is married, has children, has a
job, is relatively affluent and holds a graduate degree. Slip. Op.
at 4. All false, according to Robins.

The Supreme Court found that while Robins had sufficiently alleged
a statutory violation, he had not alleged a concrete injury
sufficient to create Article III standing.  The Court held that
not every violation of a statute gives rise to federal standing,
even where Congress has created a right of action for statutory
violations.  For instance, while reporting an incorrect zip code
might technically violate the FCRA, "[i]t is difficult to imagine
how the dissemination of an incorrect zip code, without more,
could work any concrete harm." Id. at 11.

Defendants can now move to dismiss cases alleging technical
statutory violations but no actual injury.  But already, courts
applying Spokeo have revealed that the decision is anything but an
unalloyed boon to defendants.  In Khan v. Children's National
Health System, Case No. 8:15-cv-02125, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66404
(D. Md. May 19, 2016), Judge Chuang considered a motion to dismiss
a putative class action seeking recovery under a variety of
consumer protection statutes for a data breach of a health care
provider.  The defendant had removed the case under CAFA. Relying
on Spokeo, the court agreed that the plaintiff had not suffered a
concrete injury and lacked standing -- but instead of dismissing
the case, Judge Chuang remanded it to state court. There lies the
hidden danger of Spokeo.

Since 2005, defendants have been able to remove putative class
actions from state courts under 28 U.S.C. 1332(d) upon a showing
of minimal diversity and a $5 million amount in controversy.  With
CAFA, defendants could escape the more plaintiff-friendly
standards some states use in class actions, and take advantage of
federal standards for class certification, summary judgment and
admissibility of expert testimony, among other things.

But defendants cannot invoke CAFA jurisdiction (or any other type
of jurisdiction) in cases in which the named plaintiffs lack
Article III standing. See, e.g., Wallace v. ConAgra Foods Inc.,
747 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2014) (remanding action to state court
after CAFA removal because named plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing); Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2011)
(affirming dismissal of data breach class action for lack of
Article III standing).  That would pose no problem for defendants
if every state applied the same standing requirements as do
federal courts.  Of course, that is not true. Many states have
virtually no standing requirement. For instance, the California
Supreme Court has noted that while "Article III of the federal
Constitution imposes a 'case-or-controversy' limitation on federal
jurisdiction . . . [t]here is no similar requirement in our state
Constitution." Grosset v. Wenaas, 42 Cal.4th 110, 1117 n.13, 175
P.3d 1184 (Cal. 2008).  To sue in California, a plaintiff need
only be a real party in interest -- there is no "injury in fact"
requirement. Id. at 434-35 & n.5 (distinguishing claims arising
under California Unfair Competition Law, for which standing
requirement was created by referendum).

Similarly, in Massachusetts, a plaintiff need not have suffered a
concrete injury to recover statutory damages under some consumer
protection statutes.  For instance, to recover under Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 93A, which proscribes deceptive trade
practices, a plaintiff need not actually incur a loss -- "if he or
she is ready, willing, and able to purchase the product or service
at a price consistent with the relevant statute," that is
typically injury enough. Herman v. Admit One Ticket Agency LLC,
454 Mass. 611, 618, 912 N.E.2d 450, 456 (Mass. 2009). Chapter 93A
entitles plaintiffs to recover statutory damages even in the
absence of proof of actual damages (in addition to equitable
relief, attorney's fees and other remedies). See Aspinall v.
Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 442 Mass. 381, 400, 813 N.E.2d 476
(Mass. 2004). And Chapter 93A specifically authorizes class
actions. See Mass. Ge. L. ch. 93A, 9(2).

Plaintiffs seeking recovery under these sorts of state consumer
protection statutes -- where actual harm is not necessarily
required and statutory damages can be ruinous -- might now be
protected from removal to federal court.  Thus, in the very cases
for which CAFA was devised, it might no longer apply. Moreover,
Spokeo may incentivize the filing of cases with named plaintiffs
that barely chin the bar -- those who can allege a statutory
violation with no concrete injury -- to avoid federal court and
also maximize the size of the putative class.

So, for instance, a plaintiff could file a putative class action
in California state court seeking recovery under the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1747, et seq., alleging that a
store wrongfully asked for his or her zip code during a credit
card transaction.  Without more, is there a concrete injury? Maybe
not. After all, it's a fact pattern closely parallel to Judge
Alito's example in Spokeo of what wouldn't suffice as a concrete
injury for Article III purposes: zip code missteps.  But it is
also a fact pattern in which federal jurisdiction has been a
benefit to defendants.2 See Yeoman v. Ikea U.S.A. West, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-00701, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168968 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 4,
2014) (decertifying class seeking recovery under Song-Beverly for
improper request for zip code).  And it is a fact pattern that
might no longer be susceptible to federal jurisdiction.

Moreover, Spokeo might not merely roll back CAFA jurisdiction over
class actions seeking recovery under state consumer protection
statutes.  There is a very real possibility that it could limit
federal question jurisdiction in unintended ways. Spokeo itself,
after all, addressed FCRA violations.  Robins likely could have
filed suit in California state court seeking recovery for the same
statutory violation.  Post-Spokeo, a defendant could not remove a
procedural injury case, even on federal question grounds. The same
is true for other federal statutes for which Congress has created
concurrent federal and state jurisdiction, like the Truth in
Lending Act or the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  After
Spokeo, state courts -- at least those that have a lower standing
bar than federal courts -- will essentially have exclusive
jurisdiction over federal statutory actions that allow statutory
damages for technical or procedural violations.

Spokeo is a limitation on federal jurisdiction, and whatever the
immediate benefits to defendants, limitations on federal
jurisdiction will rarely inure solely to their advantage.  The
defense bar must develop strategies for countering the tactical
pleading that is likely to be part of Spokeo's legacy.

SPOTIFY: Lowery, Ferrick's Suits Over Royalties Combined
Andrew Flanagan, writing for Billboard, reports that in December
and January, Spotify was hit with back-to-back lawsuits from David
Lowery and Melissa Ferrick -- both professors and artists
-- who sought class action certification over royalties they
allege have gone unpaid to songwriters by the world's largest
streaming service. Lowery sought $150 million in damages in his
suit, while Ferrick sought $200 million.

Those suits were essentially the same in purpose and aim, and now
Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell of the Central District of California
has granted a motion for them to be consolidated. Spotify will,
the Judge writes, shortly file a motion to dismiss and/or to move
the case to New York.

At the time of Mr. Lowery's filing, Spotify said of the suit that
"the data necessary to confirm the appropriate rights holders is
often missing, wrong, or incomplete.  When rights holders are not
immediately clear, we set aside the royalties we owe until we are
able to confirm their identities.  We are working closely with the
National Music Publishers Association [NMPA] to find the best way
to correctly pay the royalties we have set aside and we are
investing in the resources and technical expertise to build a
comprehensive publishing administration system to solve this
problem for good."

Not long after that statement, Spotify and the NMPA reached a $30
million settlement over those "black boxed" royalties.  "Spotify
is larded with unlicensed tracks.  And it still will be, even
after the NMPA settlement.  It is an infringement machine.  What
investors in Spotify own is a copyright infringement machine.  My
understanding is that the only ways to get rid of all the
infringement is to go the class action route," Lowery told
Billboard after filing his suit.

A separate motion filed by Mr. Lowery sought to have the
communications between the NMPA, Spotify and those eligible to
take part in that $30 million settlement released to him, that
argument being that the private communications could be misleading
to potential members of Mr. Lowery -- and now
Ms. Ferrick's -- class action suit, accusing the two of "'intent
to threaten to influence the choice of remedies' of prospective
class members."  Mr. Lowery also argued that the settlement was
reached through illegal communications between Spotify and the
NMPA.  On the first, Judge O'Connell found "no justification on
this record" that suggests inappropriate or misleading
communications with those eligible for the NMPA settlement.  On
the latter point, Judge O'Connell writes that she "cannot make any
specific findings of abusive or unethical conduct based on the
record here.  The content of the agreement between Spotify and the
NMPA itself does not warrant corrective action."

STAR LED LLC: "Reeder" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
Frank Reeder, Plaintiff, v. Star Led, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:16-cv-61086-WJZ (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2016) seeks all overtime
wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees and any other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Star LED, LLC, owns and operates a high efficiency lighting
business and maintains a corporate office in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, where Plaintiff worked as an inside sales representative.
He claims to have been denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
      721 US Highway 1
      North Palm Beach , FL 33408
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      Email: dcard@consumerlaworg.com

          - and -

      Chad T. Van Horn, Esq.
      Matthew T. Moore, Esq.
      Van Horn Law Group, P.A.
      330 N. Andrews Ave. Suite 450
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 765-3166
      Fax: (954) 756-7103
      Email: matthew@cvhlawgroup.com

SUNOCO: Class Action Over Fuel Rewards Card Benefits Can Proceed
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has rejected Sunoco's bid to arbitrate a proposed
class action over alleged false advertising of its fuel rewards
card benefits.

U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied Sunoco's motion to compel arbitration in lead
plaintiff Donald White's proposed class action against the company
because Sunoco was not contractually entitled to arbitration.

While the cardholder agreement does provide for arbitration, Judge
Diamond wrote in his memorandum, it only does so for cardholders
and the issuer of the cards, Citibank.  Sunoco was not a party to
that agreement.

"Here it is apparent that the cardholder agreement was 'entered
into by the parties directly and primarily for the benefit of'
Citibank," Judge Diamond said.  "The agreement does not even
mention Sunoco or the rewards program."

He continued, "Rather, the record confirms that, like virtually
all credit card contracts, this agreement sets out the terms and
conditions by which the credit card provider (i.e. Citibank) makes
credit available to the cardholder."

Additionally, the judge said Mr. White, a Florida resident, did
not bring the class action on the basis of a breach of the
agreement with Citibank, but over alleged fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violations of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

While Mr. White claimed he was denied the five-cent-per-gallon
discount offered by Sunoco through the rewards program, Diamond
said Sunoco's promotional materials never stated that some
independently owned and operated Sunoco stations would not provide
the discount.

Mr. White alleged Sunoco knew its representations were "false and
misleading" and were intended to "induce customers to sign up for
the Sunoco Rewards credit card so they frequent Sunoco locations,"
according to Judge Diamond.

Judge Diamond said that courts have allowed nonsignatory parties
to enforce a contract when that party is incorporated into the
contract, or an alter ego of a signatory.  However, "Sunoco has
not even suggested, much less shown, that any of these theories is
relevant here.  Accordingly, it cannot seek enforcement of the
cardholder agreement's arbitration provision."

Neither has Sunoco shown that it was an agent of Citibank, Judge
Diamond said.

"Sunoco alone is responsible for ensuring the fuel discount is
properly applied," Judge Diamond said.  "Sunoco has admitted that
neither company is a 'corporate affiliate' of the other."
"Finally, plaintiff has not alleged that Sunoco engaged in
concerted action with Citibank or even that Citibank committed any
wrongdoing," Judge Diamond added.

Lastly, Judge Diamond held that estoppel did not require White to
arbitrate his dispute with Sunoco.

Judge Diamond explained that under alternative estoppel, a
nonsignatory can seek enforcement of arbitration if it can show
there is a close relationship between it and the signatory and the
alleged wrongs are related to the nonsignatory's contractual
obligations.  However, the judge said the theory did not apply in
the case against Sunoco.

SUPERVALU INC: Class Certification May Lead to Settlement
Rebecca Campbell, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Illinois resident Yvonne Averhart was one of many who filed a
class action lawsuit against SuperValu Inc. in April, alleging
that the company represents that its grated Parmesan cheese
product is composed of 100 percent cheese when it actually
consists of a mixture of cheese and non-cheese filler substance
derived from wood chips.

In her suit, filed on April 4 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Averhart alleges violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
breach of express and implied warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

In order to provide the validity of the case, an American Tort
Reform Association (ATRA) spokesman said the judge should require
Averhart's lawyers to show minimum evidence that the cheese
product is insufficiently cheesy before certifying the class.

"If a class is certified, the defendant will almost certainly
settle rather than risk a catastrophic verdict at trial," Darren
McKinney, spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association, told
Legal Newsline.

After Bloomberg News wrote about some brands of parmesan
containing no cheese at all earlier this year, a number of class
action suits started popping up around the country, naming such
companies as Kraft Heinz, Castle Cheese Inc. and Target as

The cheese -- or non-cheese -- in question contains substitutes
and fillers such as cellulose, also known as an anti-clumping
agent derived from wood pulp, according to the U.S. Food and Drug

While the substitutes and fillers have not been found to be
harmful for human consumption, the legal issue here is how
products have been misrepresented.

McKinney claims, however, that the suits are nothing more than a
game for class action lawyers.

"They know that if they can convince a judge to certify a class,
virtually every defendant will promptly seek to settle, regardless
of the facts of the case and/or whether the defendant earnestly
believes it did no wrong," he said.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Castro" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation
SALVADOR CASTRO, on behalf of himself and those similarly
LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-03232
(C.D. Cal., May 11, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California Labor
Code, and the California Business and Professions Code.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY is a multi-faceted transportation
services company and the largest truckload carrier in North

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Schonbrun, Esq.
     Michael D. Seplow, Esq.
     Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
     723 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100
     Venice, CA 90291
     Phone: (310) 396-0731
     Fax: (310) 399-7040
     E-mail: schonbrun.ben@gmail.com

        - and -

     Matt Dunn, Esq.
     Lesley Tse, Esq.
     9 Paradies Lane
     New Paltz, NY 12561
     Phone: (845) 255-9370
     Fax: (845) 255-8649
     E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com

TANGOE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 24
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Tangoe, Inc. securities from March 18, 2014 through
March 7, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tangoe investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Tangoe class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-853.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.


According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) defendants made errors in recognizing
Tangoe's revenue; (2) Tangoe's financial results were overstated;
and (3) as a result, statements about Tangoe's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

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 25, 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://rosenlegal.com/cases-853.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.

TAURUS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Handguns for $30MM
David Kopel, writing for The Washington Post, reports that Taurus,
which has agreed to pay up to $30 million (plus $9 million in
attorneys' fees) to settle a class action involving allegedly
defective Taurus handguns.  The class action Carter v. Forjas
Taurus, S.A. alleges that some Taurus models fire when they are
accidentally dropped.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida has scheduled a July 18 hearing on the
proposed class action final settlement; in the proposal, Taurus
does not admit the plaintiffs' factual claims.

THERANOS INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action
Cheryl Miller, writing The Recorder, reports that six days after
Theranos Inc. confirmed it was forced to void thousands of
unreliable blood test results, the Palo Alto-based startup was hit
on May 25 with a class action complaint alleging fraud, unfair
business practices and false advertising.

Attorneys with McCuneWright, representing a plaintiff identified
only as M.P.B., are seeking to certify a national class and an
Arizona subclass of Theranos customers.  McCuneWright partner
Joseph Sauder -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- said the firm believes
its complaint is the first to be filed after Theranos' May 19

"Theranos assured its customers that these tests were highly
accurate, industry leading in quality, and developed and validated
under, and compliant with, federal guidelines," states the
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  "However, the Edison machines did not
work, and Theranos' tests were not accurate. . . . As a result,
tens of thousands of patients may have been given incorrect blood-
test results, been subject to unnecessary or potentially harmful
treatments, and/or been denied the opportunity to seek treatment
for a treatable condition."

Theranos spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said the lawsuit is "without

"The company will vigorously defend itself against these claims,"
Ms. Buchanan said.

The lawsuit -- and those sure to follow -- is the latest round of
trouble for the company with a quintessential Silicon Valley
history.  Founded in 2003 by Stanford University dropout Elizabeth
Holmes, Theranos developed what's known as the Edison device.  A
tiny vial collects a few drops of blood to be analyzed by the
Edison, which transmits the results to a Theranos database at a
fraction of the costs of a traditional laboratory test and without
the usual needle stick.  The company was valued at as much as $9

Theranos announced a partnership with Walgreens in 2013 and opened
40 "wellness centers" in Arizona stores and one in a California
pharmacy, according to the suit.  But the company didn't have U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approval to use the Edison device
outside of a laboratory setting for anything but a herpes simplex
test, McCuneWright alleges.

In March, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found
serious problems with operations at the company's labs in Newark
and in Scottsdale, Arizona, revelations first reported by The Wall
Street Journal.  Regulators have proposed revoking the license for
Theranos' Newark lab and banning Holmes from the business for two
years.  The company said in statement that it has made significant
changes at its Newark lab.  Earlier this month, Theranos announced
that Sunny Balwani, president and chief operating officer of the
company, was stepping down and retiring.

The suit seeks damages of more than $5 million.

TRENCH FLOORING: "Robinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
Kalgeri Robinson, Anthony J. Jackson and Juan Vargas (Garcia),
Plaintiffs, v. Trench Flooring & Remodeling, LLC, and Paul O.
Trench, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01564-JFM, (D.Md. May 20,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interests, reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Trench Hauling Services, LLC is a trucking company in the State of
Maryland that has been forfeited with Paul O. Trench as the
Trustee of Assets. Plaintiffs worked as handyman, field
coordinator and drivers at various times during their employment.
They claim to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      George E. Swegman, Esq.
      Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Phone No.: (410) 244-7005
      Fax No.: (410) 244-8454
      Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com

UNITED KINGDOM: Damages Action in Kenya Mau Mau Case Begins
BBC News reports that a damages action on behalf of 44,000 people
who say they were ill-treated in the state of emergency in Kenya
in the 1950s has started at the High Court.

Lawyers for the group want compensation for personal injuries
allegedly caused by the British colonial administration when it
put down a guerrilla uprising.

The contested hearing, lasting six months, will consider 27 test

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to which legal liability
has passed, is expected to apply to adjourn the case.

'Wrongful conduct'

The Mau Mau, a guerrilla group, began a violent campaign against
white settlers in 1952 which led to a state of emergency being
declared in Kenya.

The claimants, 2,000 of whom have died since proceedings began,
were detained in screening centers, prisons, detention camps and
under a program known as "villagization", in which people were
forcibly resettled to keep them under control.

Simon Myerson QC told Mr. Justice Stewart that the group was
subjected to "unlawful and unjustifiable" conduct.

"This is not a moral crusade and these proceedings will not be
judged on any basis other than that set out in law," he said.
"But that does not prevent anyone drawing the conclusion that what
we -- the United Kingdom and its government -- did in Kenya during
the Emergency was wrong.

"It is because the facts demonstrate wrongful conduct that the law
affords redress."

He told the judge in London: "The men and women who suffered in
this way were not enemy insurgents upon whom a war had been
declared and who were casualties of the horrors that soldiers
sometimes see.

"They were, to a man, woman, and child, British subjects."

Forced labor

Mr. Myerson said all the test claimants gave evidence of violence,
abuse and suffering, and it led to the death of infant children of
four of them.

A third of them were sexually assaulted, and all but one subjected
to forced labor, he said.

Three years ago, after a separate class action, the then Foreign
Secretary William Hague announced that Britain would pay GBP19.9
million to 5,228 elderly Kenyans who suffered torture and abuse
during the Mau Mau uprising.

The UK government continued to deny liability and said it would
contest future claims.

Kenya gained independence in 1963.

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Class Action Mulled Over Tensioning System
Baron & Budd is investigating a potential class action lawsuit
against Volkswagen (VW) and Audi involving alleged timing chain
defects that can lead to thousands of dollars in engine damage.  A
similar case has been filed in the U.S. District Court, District
of New Jersey (In Re: Case No. 2:16-cv-02765).

In the suit, the plaintiff is alleging that VW and Audi knowingly
concealed a defect in the timing chain tensioning system of
certain models manufactured between the years 2008 and 2013 with
2.0L engines.  The plaintiff alleges that the tensioning system
can fail at any time, resulting in severe engine damage that can
necessitate either repair or replacement of a damaged part -- or
potentially the entire engine.

In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the defect is a
substantial safety hazard.  If the timing chain fails, the
affected vehicle can lose engine power.  This can lead to several
hazardous problems, such as the ability of the vehicle to
accelerate, a loss of steering control and an inability to use the
brakes.  According to the complaint, the drivers of the affected
vehicles, as well as their passengers, are at a risk for rear-end
collisions and other accidents.

The plaintiff alleges that VW and Audi knew of the defect, yet
failed to disclose the problem and the corresponding safety risks.

Models with the alleged defect include:

2008-2010 and 2012 VW Beetle
2009-2013 VW CC
2008-2012 VW EOS
2008-2012 VW Golf
2008-2012 VW GTI
2008-2012 VW Jetta
2008-2012 VW Passat
2008-2011 VW R32
2008-2010 VW Rabbit
2009-2012 VW Routan
2008-2012 VW Tiguan
2008-2013 VW Touareg
2011 VW Touareg Hybrid
2008-2012 Audi A3
2008-2012 Audi A4
2008-2012 Audi A5
2010-2012 Audi A6
2012 Audi A7
2008-2012 Audi TT
2010-2012 Audi Q3
2009-2012 Audi Q5
2012 Audi Q7

"These alleged actions on the part of VW and Audi are not only
extremely deceptive, but can also put drivers and their passengers
at a substantial risk of injury or death," said Roland Tellis,
head of the Consumer Class Action group at the national law firm
of Baron & Budd.  "No car buyer should be expected to have to deal
with this type of serious defect, much less be expected to pay
thousands of dollars should that defect lead to potentially
catastrophic engine damage."

If you bought or leased a 2008 to 2013 model year VW or Audi
vehicle that has this defect, you may qualify to take legal
action.  Please call the national law firm of Baron & Budd at 1
(866) 700-8994 to learn more.

                     About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton
Rouge, New Orleans, Austin and Los Angeles, represents individuals
and government and business entities in areas as diverse as
dangerous pharmaceuticals and medical devices, environmental
contamination, the Gulf oil spill, financial fraud, overtime
violations, deceptive advertising, automotive defects, trucking
accidents, nursing home abuse, and asbestos-related illnesses such
as mesothelioma.

VOLKSWAGEN: German Investors Call for Independent Emissions Probe
William Wilkes, writing for Marketwatch, reports that Germany's
largest investor association on May 23 called for an independent
investigation into Volkswagen AG's emissions-cheating scandal on
behalf of shareholders.

DSW, which represents around 25,000 Germany-based investors, said
it would table a motion at the auto maker's annual general meeting
in June to open an independent inquiry, on top of the one being
conducted internally.

The inquiry would specifically address the amount of money set
aside by Volkswagen to cover the costs of the emissions scandal,
which erupted last autumn when the company admitted it had
installed software in nearly 11 million vehicles to artificially
improve their performance in pollution tests.

Volkswagen said in April it had set aside EUR8 billion ($9
billion) to repurchase tainted diesel-powered cars and around EUR7
billion more for potential legal claims, penalties and
compensation.  DSW said an investigation was needed to clarify
whether those provisions were sufficient and to make sure that
controls and checks have been put in place to prevent further

"That's something that shareholders would certainly prefer to have
established by an independent investigator rather than Volkswagen
itself," DSW President Ulrich Hocker said.

DSW wants the independent inquiry to be complete in time for the
results to be published at Volkswagen's 2017 AGM.  The association
said additional unexpected costs could have a grave negative
impact on Volkswagen's results and thus are of particular concern
to Volkswagen shareholders.

DSW claims to have the backing of a sufficient number of
shareholders to force the question of an independent investigation
on to the agenda for the June 22 meeting.  However it will have
little chance of pushing its agenda through without the backing of
Volkswagen's core shareholders.

Three big shareholders -- the heirs to Beetle designer Ferdinand
Porsche, the state of Lower Saxony, and the Qatar sovereign-wealth
fund -- own about 92% of Volkswagen's voting capital. These
shareholders have since September resisted calls for a fully
independent investigation of the emissions-cheating scandal.

When the scandal was disclosed in September, the 'big three'
backed Volkswagen's decision to have U.S. law firm Jones Day
conduct and internal investigation.  However, Volkswagen
management and not Jones Day has the last word on publication of
the results of that investigation, which is expected to be
concluded by the end of the year.

DSW's move is the latest headache for Volkswagen following news
that the Norwegian sovereign-wealth fund will join a class-action
filed by 278 investors against the car maker over the emissions

News of the association's campaign also comes in the wake of
shareholder frustration about the continuing internal
investigation, whose findings haven't been released.  Volkswagen
had originally planned to publish the findings this spring, but
now claims they must be withheld until the conclusion of an
inquiry by the U.S. Justice Department on behalf of the
Environmental Protection Agency.  If the Justice Department finds
that Volkswagen is interfering in its investigation, the auto
maker could face legal penalties.

A Volkswagen spokesman declined to comment.

WEATHERFORD INT'L: Faces "Crowder" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
KURT CROWDER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant,
Case 4:16-cv-01356 (S.D. Tex., May 13, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC is an oil and gas service company
with a presence in every major oil and gas region of the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
     711 W. Alabama Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

WILD WELL CONTROL: BTI/WWC Operators Seek Certification of Class
The Plaintiffs in these two lawsuits, which are now consolidated,
ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of "All operators
employed by BTI/WWC during the past 3 years who were paid a salary
and/or a bonus, but no overtime compensation:"

       Case No. 4:15-cv-03711 (S.D. Tex.); and

   (2) TAYLOR WATKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
       similarly situated v. WILD WELL CONTROL, INC.,
       Case No. 4:14-cv-00352 (S.D. Tex.).

The collective action lawsuits are filed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs owed to current and
former employees of BTI Services, Inc. (BTI), now known as Wild
Well Control, Inc. (WWC), over the past three years, who were
misclassified as exempt and paid a salary and a bonus, but no
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs also seek the issuance of notice to all Putative
Class Members and the disclosure of the names, contact information
(including the addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers)
and dates of employment of the Putative Class Members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          1150 Bissonnet St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

WORKFIT MEDICAL: Judge Approves $2.1MM Class Action Settlement
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge approved a $2.1 million settlement in a federal
class-action suit against a health care facility staffing agency,
including more than $700,000 in attorney fees and costs to two
firms that represented some 900 aggrieved workers.

Western District Judge Elizabeth Wolford said the contingency fee
payment to Thomas & Solomon of Rochester and Klafehn Heise &
Johnson of Brockport, while about one-third larger than what the
firms would have received if paid by the hour, was "not
unreasonable on its face" for class-action representation.

"It is clear that plaintiffs' counsel performed significant work
on this matter," Judge Wolford wrote in Acevedo v. Workfit
Medical, 6:14-cv-06221/6:15-cv-06186.  "Although this litigation
did not involve as many potential class members as some wage claim
actions, it was moderately complex, involving federal law and
state law, and required plaintiffs' counsel to perform significant

Judge Wolford noted that by taking the case on a contingency
basis, the firms took the risk of receiving nothing in return for
the 2,000-plus hours their attorneys said they put in on the case.

Judge Wolford also approved just under $36,000 for plaintiffs'
counsel in costs.

The action involved workers' complaints that Workfit illegally
denied them overtime when they worked more than 40 hours a week,
instead offering only compensatory time off, in violation of state
and federal labor law.

The settlement provides for payments of $7,150 each to 200
plaintiffs and of $743 each to the 700 other members of the class
based on the hours they worked without overtime compensation,
according to the settlement.

Kevin Mulvehill -- kmulvehill@phillipslytle.com -- and
Linda Prestegaard -- lprestegaard@phillipslytle.com -- partners at
Phillips Lytle in Rochester, represented Workfit.

WPP GROUP: Faces "Blumberg" Suit Over Tracking Software on TVs
Fred Blumberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
NETWORKS, INC., AND DOES 1-50, DEFENDANT, Case 3:16-cv-02670-PGS-
LHG (D.N.J., May 11, 2016), alleges that Vizio collaborated with
Cognitive to clandestinely include tracking software on its Smart
TVs in violation of the purchasers' privacy.

Vizio Holdings Inc. is a major manufacturer of Smart TVs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
     David S. Senoff, Esq.
     Melissa Fry Hague, Esq.
     Paola Pearsan, Esq.
     One Logan Square
     130 North 18th St., Suite 1600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 790-1130

WYNN LAS VEGAS: "Barrett" Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy Act
TIMOTHY BARRETT and SHAYAN KAMRAVA, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC;
and WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Nevada limited liability
companies, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-01138-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal., May
11, 2016), alleges that Defendants' policy and practice of
recording telephone calls to and from their telephonic room
reservation's department without the consent of all parties
violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act.

WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC is in the business of hotel hospitality
and operates a casino in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6806
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

        - and -

     S. Masih Kazerouni, Esq.
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
     Phone: (866) 502-0787
     Fax: (866) 502-5065
     E-mail: mk@rkrlegal.com

* American Businesses Urge Congress to Weaken Robocall Laws
Herb Weisbaum, writing for NBC News, reports that it's one thing
Americans agree on: We hate robocalls and we want them stopped.

Companies realize this -- and yet, they're asking Congress to
weaken the rules and reduce the possible penalties for making
illegal robocalls.  Consumer groups vow that isn't going to happen
without a fight.

In the first four months of this year, the Federal Trade
Commission received more than 1.6 million complaints about
unwanted calls.  Sixty-four percent, or 1.1 million complaints,
were for robocalls.

"In the last few years, we've seen an explosion of these illegal
calls," said Bikram Bandy, who runs the FTC's National Do Not Call
Registry.  "Many of the complaints about robocalls are linked to
companies that are trying to defraud consumers."

There are 220-million landline and cellphone numbers on the Do Not
Call list, but scammers don't care who they call, when they call,
or how many times they call.

Consumer Reports estimates that 35 percent of all phone calls
placed in the U.S. are now robocalls.

Joel Fischman is one of nearly 33,000 people who have shared their
robocall horror stories on the End Robocalls website run by
Consumers Union.

'Robocall' Cellphones
Mr. Fischman, who lives in the Washington, D.C. area, told NBC
News that he is inundated with robocalls to his landline and cell
phone.  At one point, he was getting a dozen robocalls a day.

"It's an intrusion and I resent it very much," he said.  "Many of
these calls are offensive and sinister.  All robocalls should be

The rules: Who can and cannot call you

Federal regulations define robocalls as unsolicited pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to residential landline phones, and all
autodialed or prerecorded calls or text messages to wireless

All robocalls are not illegal.  The rules are different for
landline and mobile phones.

A business must have your written permission -- on paper or
electronically -- to make a telemarketing robocall to your phone.
Robocalls are allowed to a landline phone without this prior
consent if the caller is not trying to sell you something.  This
would include calls from charities, political parties and survey
companies.  Informational messages, such as a school closing or
flight delay are also exempt.

All autodialed or prerecorded non-emergency calls or texts to
wireless phones are prohibited without prior written consent,
regardless of the reason for the call.

The FCC does allow a few specific exemptions to this rule as long
as the person receiving the call or text is not charged for it.
These are for financial alerts -- such as possible fraud on a bank
account -- and health alerts for something like a reminder about a
prescription refill.  Even so, the consumer has the right to opt-
out of getting these permitted alerts at any time.

Brad Herrmann is founder and CEO of Call-Em-All, a company in
Frisco, Texas that makes about 10 million legal robocalls to
people who want to know about school closings or severe weather
alerts and have given prior permission to be contacted.  Clients
include Amazon, The American Red Cross, Texas Tech University and
H&R Block.

"There are times when people need to be contacted quickly and
efficiently," Mr. Herrmann told NBC News.  "Robocall is such a
negative word, but people rely on us.  They don't think of it as a
robocall, it is just information they want."

Mr. Herrmann said robocalls are an important means of
communication for schools, employers, neighborhood associations,
apartment complex managers and religious groups and organizations.

"We loath spam phone calls," he said.  "I desperately want the law
to get these illegal robocallers, so my business can thrive."

Congress gave debt collectors a pass
A provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 made it easier
for debt collectors to make robocalls when trying to contact
someone about a federal debt, such as a student loan.

In response to this, the FCC has proposed rules that would give
consumers the right to stop these unwanted debt collection calls,
restrict who can be called (not friends or relatives of a debtor)
and limit the number of calls per month.  The Commission is taking
public comment through June 6.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) gives the FCC
authority to regulate robocalls.  Violating the rules can result
in fines ranging from $500 to $1,500 per call.  Companies also
face class action lawsuits from those who received the calls.

Consumer advocates say the ability to take robocallers to court
encourages companies to follow the rules.  Businesses say it's
hurting their ability to communicate with their customers and
punishes them for honest mistakes. And they're asking Congress for

At a hearing, Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota), chairman of the
Commerce Committee, said TCPA litigation has become "a booming
business."  Robocall lawsuits are now the second most-filed type
of cases in federal courts, he said.  Last year, 3,710 TCPA
lawsuits were filed, a 45 percent increase from 2014.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida), the ranking member on the committee
said the TCPA is "one of the preeminent and most loved consumer
protection statues" on the books.  The idea of allowing greater
access for robocalls to mobile phones without the customer's
consent "is an idea that is dead on arrival with the American
people," he said in his opening statement.

Arguments for changing the law
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is asking Congress to make changes to
the TCPA.  The chamber says it does not want to abolish the law,
just update it to balance consumer protection with the potential
harm to legitimate businesses.

The "explosion of class action litigation" involving prohibited
robocalls to mobile phones -- with potential penalties that could
reach into the billions -- is a serious problem, said Harold Kim,
executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute
for Legal Reform.

"This litigation has created an enormous amount of risk and has
had a chilling effect on legitimate businesses, large and small,
who are trying to communicate with their customers," Kim told NBC

Faced with damages that could put them out of business, many
companies prefer to settle rather than go to court, he said.

The Chamber argues that a law passed in 1991, when few people had
cell phones and texting did not exist, needs to be modified to
reflect reality.  It's estimated that 90 percent of Americans have
a cell phone and for nearly half of them, a mobile device is their
only form of phone service.

Business groups want, among other things: a cap on damage awards,
a statute of limitations, an exemption from legal action for a
company acting in good faith or that called a reassigned mobile
number that had belonged to a previous customer.

Arguments against weakening the law
Consumer groups are opposed to any changes in the Telephone
Communications Protection Act that would reduce liability for
calling the wrong number.  They say it could result in more
robocalls or texts to cellphones.

"If robocalls were a disease, they would be an epidemic,"
Margot Saunders with the National Consumer Law Center told the
Senate hearing.

Ms. Saunders testified on behalf of 10 major consumer advocacy
groups.  Most consumers who receive robocalls do not take the time
to complain to a federal agency, and even a tinier percentage
(less than two tenths of 1 percent) actually files a lawsuit, she
said in her written testimony.  She cited one lawsuit where the
consumer took legal action after receiving nearly 28,000 unwanted
text messages. The company refused to stop despite repeated

"There's no constitutional right to make robocalls," Ms. Saunders
told NBC News "The problem is not that there are too many
lawsuits, the problem is that there are too many robocalls."

Consumer advocates see it this way: The consent requirement is not
over-burdensome.  A company can ask a customer if they want to be
contacted via robocall or text.  And they say, if you provide your
mobile number as your contact number, you've given that company or
organization -- whether it's your utility, hospital or airline --
permission to use that number to contact you.

They also suggest creating a database of reassigned wireless
numbers that companies could check to update their customer
robocall permissions.

"If there weren't any illegal robocalls, then there wouldn't be
any lawsuits, would there?" said Tim Marvin, who heads up
Consumers Union's End Robocalls campaign.  "The law should not be
weakened. There should not be more legal robocalls.  If anything,
we should do a better job of stopping these calls and restricting
who can make them."

What you can do
There are free services that can help you spot or block robocalls
or spam text messages.  NOMROBO works on Internet-based (VOIP)
phone networks.  It will roll out an app for both Android and iOS
smartphones in early June.

These apps can also help: TrueCaller and Hiya (Android and Apple),
and PrivacyStar (Android) and WhoApp (Apple).  These apps all have
access to your contacts.

* Arbitration More Helpful to Class Members, Research Shows
Legal Newsline reports that the recent media "barnstorm" against
arbitration clauses that prevent class action lawsuits doesn't
paint a complete picture, a Chicago attorney says, though the
federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is planning to ban

Matt Stromquist -- mstromquist@pilgrimchristakis.com -- a partner
at the Chicago-based Pilgrim Christakis -- a nine-person
litigation boutique firm focused on consumer finance and class
action litigation -- says the CFPB's own research shows that
arbitration is more helpful to class members.

"I think arbitration can, in many ways, be a much better avenue
for people, consumers especially, than joining a class action," he
recently told Legal Newsline.  "And I think statistics from the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's own study bear that out."

The CFPB, which was created to regulate the financial services
industry, released its set of proposed rules prohibiting mandatory
arbitration clauses that prevent class action lawsuits in
conjunction with a field hearing in Albuquerque, NM, earlier this
month.  The field hearing was the third such hearing it has held
on arbitration.  The first was held last March and the second was
held in October.

Under the CFPB's proposal, companies would be prohibited from
putting mandatory arbitration clauses in new contracts.

"We have investigated arbitration, and our research found that
very few consumers know anything about these 'gotcha' clauses,"
CFPB Director Richard Cordray said at the Albuquerque hearing.
"Even fewer consumers know how they actually work."

* Senate Commerce Eyes TCPA Dual-Track Strategy for Legislation
Kyle Daly, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is eyeing a dual-
track strategy for moving legislation that would update the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) suggested during a May 18 panel hearing on
the law that the committee consider acting on different bills that
would focus on alleged litigation abuses and consumer harms,

"If we could figure out how to divide this discussion into those
two categories, we're much more likely to find a solution to both
problems," Sen. Blunt said.

Committee chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said the suggestion of
splitting TCPA update efforts into two separate initiatives is
"one we might want to take a look at if everybody agrees that
would make sense."

Despite the potential strategy, it's unclear whether or how soon
the committee will act on such legislation this year to amend the
law, which limits the use of automated phone calls, or robocalls,
to consumers.

Lawmakers have already introduced two bills focusing on consumer
protection issues in recent months.  The committee has yet to act
on either the Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone Calls Act of
2015, or HANGUP Act (S. 2235), which would roll back an exemption
from TCPA limitations for federal government debt collection
included as an amendment to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, or
the Spoofing Prevention Act of 2016 (S. 2558), which would expand
a ban on falsifying caller ID information to include text messages
and calls from outside the U.S.

Senators and witnesses testifying at the hearing said the 25-year-
old TCPA is showing its age.  Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)
illustrated the changes the telecom world has seen since the law
was passed by bringing to the hearing a brick-sized cell phone
from 1992.  Sen. Thune said consumer behaviors and expectations
"would be unrecognizable to Congress 25 years ago."

Several witnesses and lawmakers suggested the law is being abused
by attorneys launching class actions against legitimate companies
mistakenly making robocalls to wrong numbers.  Sen. Daines said
there's a running joke that TCPA stands for "total cash for
plaintiffs' attorneys."

Becca Wahlquist, testifying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber
Institute of Legal Reform, called on the committee to advance
legislation addressing the "huge amount of litigation" brought
under TCPA.  Ms. Wahlquist said such litigation has resulted in
millions of dollars in attorneys' fees, minimal compensation for
class action members and considerable costs for legitimate
businesses that have erroneously called or texted numbers that
have been reassigned to people other than those they're trying to

Other hearing participants focused on consumer harms related to

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said if lawmakers overlook the
"anger" about such calls, they would be "doing a great disservice
to the people of America."

Sen. Blumenthal, several other committee members and witnesses
said phone carriers, lawmakers and regulators should all be doing
more to protect consumers from harassment by robocallers,
especially scam artists using robocalls to pull off their schemes.

Committee Republicans tended to focus more on abuse of the law in
their comments and lines of questioning.  Democrats, on the other
hand, seemed more worried about consumer protection questions. Yet
members of both parties appeared sympathetic to both concerns,
prompting Sen. Blunt's suggestion.


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  * * *