CAR_Public/140224.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 38

                             Headlines


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: O'Quinn May Amend Complaint vs. Jail Workers
ALLERGAN USA: Court Dismisses "Thompson" Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES PLAN: Faces "Allman" Suit in Massachusetts
AMERICAN HOME: Denial of "Hubbard" Matrix Benefits Upheld
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action

ANGIE'S LIST: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Indiana
ARCADIA GROUP: Removed "Satchell" Suit to C.D. California
BARCLAYS BANK: Accused of Manipulating Foreign Currency Market
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: MDL Panel Refuses to Consolidate RMBS Suits
BUCKLES & BUCKLES: Violates Debt Collection Acts, Suit Claims

CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf and Transport Vehicles Due to Fall Hazard
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Class Seeks Remedies Over TCPA Violations
COOPER TIRE: Investors Suffered From Corporate Greed, Suit Says
DEUTSCHE BANK: Scott+Scott Named Forex Suit Interim Lead Counsel
EQT PRODUCTION: Senate Committee to Consider Royalties Bill

FAIRWAY GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
GAP INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Cal. Suit Says
GE CAPITAL: Faces "Travaglio" Class Suit Over FDCPA Violation
GE CAPITAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
GREEN TREE: Magistrate Judge Denies Motion to Stay "Clark" Suit

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Overtime Suit Gets Conditional Certification
J CREW GROUP: Sued for Not Operating Blind-Accessible POS Devices
JCM BUSINESS: Fails to Pay Required Overtime, Cleaner Claims
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Chicken Label
LEM PRODUCTS: Recalls 5-Tray Dehydrators With Digital Timers

LUCENT ACE: Recalls LED Flashlights Due to Burn Hazard
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Minor League Players File Class Action
MERRILL LYNCH: Sued for Failing to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
MIDLAND CREDIT: Collects Debts in Violation of FDCPA, Suit Claims
MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Calif.

MONTICELLO, MN: Faces Class Action Over Telecoms Project
MORGAN & CURTIS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NESTLE USA: Accused of Misbranding Eskimo Pie Dark Chocolate Bars
NESTLE USA: Faces "Coffey" Suit for Mislabeling Juicy Juices
NESTLE USA: Misbranded Fruit Bars as "All Natural," Suit Claims

NETWORK EQUIPMENT: Obtains Final OK of "Newman" Suit Settlement
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Suit v. Tax and Finance Dept.
NJOY INC: Accused of Misrepresenting E-Cigarettes' Health Risks
PAPA JOHN'S: District Court Stays "Perrin" Suit Proceedings
PFIZER INC: Faces "Shurley" Suit in Nevada Over Lipitor Drug

RUIZ FOOD: Recalls Taquitos and Tornados
SOURIS MINI: Recalls Children's Clothing with Neck Drawstrings
SPRENGER + LANG: Ruling on Arbitral Award in "Wolf" Suit Upheld
STEPS RECOVERY: Bloomington Residents Sue Over Rehab Facility
SUB-ZERO INC: Removed "Carrasco" Class Suit to C.D. California

TARGET CORP: Faces "Knox" Suit in North Carolina Over Data Breach
TARGET CORP: Customer, Bank File Class Action in Wisconsin
TJX COMPANIES: "Valenzuela" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
UNITED SERVICES: Faces "Tucker" Suit Alleging Insurance Claims
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Wants Insurer to Cover Privacy Class Actions

VETERANS AFFAIRS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Suits Says
WELLPOINT INC: "Graehl" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
WELLS FARGO: "Gangi" FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
WELLS FARGO: 2nd "Gangi" FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
WELLS FARGO: "Hunt" FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

WELLS FARGO: 2nd "Hunt" FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
WELLS FARGO: Calif. Appeals Court Flips Ruling in Goodman Suit
WINCO HOLDINGS: Removed "McCormack" Suit to C.D. California
WING KEUNG ENTERPRISES: Class Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
WISCONSIN: Leonard's Suit vs. Dept. of Corrections Dismissed

ZALE CORP: Fails to Own Blind-Accessible POS Devices, Suit Says

* Maryland Officials Continue Probe on Cheese-Linked Listeria
* Northland Farmers in New Zealand Mull Class Suit v. Major Banks


                             *********


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: O'Quinn May Amend Complaint vs. Jail Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey granted in part and denied in
part Patrick O'Quinn's motion to amend his complaint captioned
PATRICK O'QUINN, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN COUNTY SHERIFF KEN FRIES, et
al., Defendants, CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-14, (N.D. Ind.).

Mr. O'Quinn filed his complaint on January 16, 2013, seeking
monetary damages and alleging that the Defendants -- individuals
employed by the Allen County Jail -- deprived him of his right
under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment when they denied him access
to recreational facilities, exercise, and fresh air while
incarcerated at the Jail.

Magistrate Judge Cosbey granted Mr. O'Quinn leave to amend his
complaint to add class action allegations seeking damages, but not
for injunctive relief.

A copy of the District Court's January 27, 2014 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/1uHX7Nfrom Leagle.com.


ALLERGAN USA: Court Dismisses "Thompson" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned FANCINE THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLERGAN USA, INC.,
ALLERGAN INC., and ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO.
4:13CV00030 AGF, (E.D. Mo.).

This putative class action came before the Court on the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
alternatively, on federal preemption grounds.

Judge Fleissig concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim under Missouri law.  Alternatively, the Plaintiff's claims,
which are all state law claims, are preempted by federal law.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/88yKRSfrom Leagle.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES PLAN: Faces "Allman" Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
James Michael Allman, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement
Benefit Program Variable Income Plan, State Street Bank & Trust
Company, Laura A. Einspanier, Carolyn E. Wright, Brian J.
Mcmenamy, Peter Warlick, Beverly K. Goulet, Mark Burdette, and
John & Jane Does 1-50, Case No. 1:14-cv-10138-NMG (D. Mass.,
January 17, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, on behalf of a class of current and former
pilots of American Airlines, Inc., who did not receive full
pension contributions allocated to their individual accounts as
mandated by USERRA and as required by the terms of the American
Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement Benefit Program for the periods in
which the American Pilots took leave from American Airlines to
honorably serve in the United States Armed Forces.

The Plaintiff contends that the fiduciaries responsible for the
administration of the Variable Income Plan portion of the American
Program and the management of the Variable Income Plan's assets
violated their fiduciary duties by failing to collect the proper
amount of contributions required under USERRA and the terms of the
Plan that were required to be made for the periods of the American
Pilots' military service.

American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement Benefit Program Variable
Income Plan is an employee benefit plan within the meaning of the
ERISA sponsored by American Airlines.  The Variable Income Plan is
a money purchase plan and a defined contribution plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jbarton@cohenmilstein.com
                  promerfriedman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
          Leigh E. O'Neil, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
                  joel@blockesq.com
                  leigh@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD PLLC
          1020 N. Washington Street
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (425) 239-7290
          Facsimile: (509) 326-2932
          E-mail: tjarrard@att.net

               - and -

          Robert W. Mitchell, Esq.
          ROBERT W. MITCHELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC
          1020 N. Washington Street
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 327-2224
          Facsimile: (509) 327-3374
          E-mail: bobmitchellaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
          CROTTY & SON, PLLC
          421 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1005
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 850-7011
          E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of "Hubbard" Matrix Benefits Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL NO. 1203, District Judge Harvey
Bartle, III, a memorandum was issued with respect SHEILA BROWN, et
al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-
20593, (E.D. Penn.).

Pat M. Hubbard, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide
Class Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from
the AHP Settlement Trust.  Based on the record developed in the
show cause process, the Court must determine whether the claimant
has demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support her claim
for Matrix Compensation Benefits.

Judge Bartle concluded that the claimant has not met her burden of
proving that she had moderate or greater mitral regurgitation on
an echocardiogram performed between the commencement of Diet Drug
use and the end of the Screening Period.  "Therefore, we will
affirm the Trust's denial of Ms. Hubbard's claim for Matrix A-1
benefits," she said.

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/yE9DfCfrom Leagle.com.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc., on Feb. 14 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of AmTrust securities between February 15, 2011 and
December 11, 2013, inclusive.

If you purchased AmTrust shares during the Class Period, please
contact us toll-free at (888) 773-9224, or at (212) 682-5340, or
by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

AmTrust, through its subsidiaries, underwrites and provides
property and casualty insurance in the United States and
internationally.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that
the Company: (1) manipulated its loan loss reserves in order to
inflate reported earnings; (2) manipulated its deferred tax
liabilities; (3) underestimated the discount rates for its life
settlement contracts in an effort to inflate the Company's
reported assets and total stockholder's equity; and (4) lacked
adequate internal and financial controls.

On December 12, 2013, a report published by Geoinvesting alleged
certain accounting improprieties at AmTrust, including
manipulation of the Company's loan loss reserves and manipulation
of the Company's deferred tax liabilities, and that the Company
had underestimated the discount rates for its life settlement
contracts.  Following this news, AmTrust securities declined $4.63
per share, or 12%, to close at $33.67 per share on December 12,
2013.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than April 7, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact
Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E.
42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-
5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


ANGIE'S LIST: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit against Angie's List, Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired ANGI securities between February 14, 2013 and
October 23, 2013, both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ANGI securities during the
Class Period, you have until February 24, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at:

     http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/angi

To discuss this action, and learn more about applying for Lead
Plaintiff, please contact us at 866-833-6245, or the attorney in
charge of the case, J. Elazar Fruchter, at 845-425-4658, or
jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material facts, regarding Angie's List's business model,
and operational policies, and that as a result of the foregoing,
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
strength and viability of Angie's List's business model during the
Class Period.  In particular, Defendants had stressed that Angie's
List's membership fees represented a significant source of working
capital and provided a relatively predictable revenue stream.

The Complaint further alleges that between September 30, 2013 and
October 24, 2013, Defendants disclosed, among other things, that:
(i) Angie's List's Chief Technology Officer had been terminated --
without explanation or naming a replacement; (ii) Angie's List had
slashed membership prices by roughly 75% in several key markets,
in a bid to attract new members; and (iii) Angie's List third
quarter 2013 financial results were much weaker than Defendants
had led the market to expect, and declining business metrics and
flaws in its business model were forcing Angie's List to issue
weaker fourth quarter 2013 financial guidance.  On this and other
negative disclosures, the price of Angie's List common stock
declined from $20.99 on October 2, 2013 to close at $14.64 on
October 24, 2013, a decline of over 30%.

                      About Wohl & Fruchter

Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.com-- represents
plaintiffs in litigation arising from securities fraud and
fiduciary breaches by corporate managers, as well as other complex
litigation matters.


ARCADIA GROUP: Removed "Satchell" Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Chantelly Satchell v. Arcadia
Group Limited, et al., Case No. 30-2013-00693384, was removed from
the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00084-DOC-AN to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Courtney Michelle Vasquez, Esq.
          Shirli Fabbri Weiss, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP
          401 B Street Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 699-2625
          Facsimile: (619) 764-6625
          E-mail: courtney.vasquez@dlapiper.com
                  shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Edward D. Totino, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
          E-mail: edward.totino@dlapiper.com


BARCLAYS BANK: Accused of Manipulating Foreign Currency Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food
Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated; Value Recovery Fund LLC; Augustus
International Master Fund, L.P.; and State-Boston Retirement
System v. Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas
Group, BNP Paribas North America Inc., Citibank N.A., Citigroup
Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co.,
HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank PLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Lloyds Banking Group plc,
Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, UBS AG, UBS
Securities LLC, and John Doe Nos. 1-50, Case No. 1:14-cv-00350-LGS
(S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2014) alleges violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix and restrain trade
in, and the intentional manipulation of, the foreign currency
exchange market through the manipulation of WM/Reuters FX rates
during the period of at least January 1, 2003, through the
present.

Plaintiff United Food is represented by:

          Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Esq.
          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: ghorn@lowey.com
                  pstphillip@lowey.com
                  rgirnys@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com

               - and -

          Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, PC (PA)
          200 Barr Harbor Dr.
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-2760
          Facsimile: (610) 862-9777
          E-mail: glawrence@lowey.com

               - and -

          Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (860) 526-1120
          E-mail: kleser@sfmslaw.com

Plaintiffs Value Recovery Fund LLC and Augustus International
Master Fund, L.P. are represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP (NYC)
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

Defendants BNP Paribas Group and BNP Paribas North America Inc.
are represented by:

          David C. Esseks, Esq.
          Brian Alexander de Haan, Esq.
          ALLEN & OVERY, LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 610-6300
          Facsimile: (212) 610-6399
          E-mail: david.esseks@allenovery.com
                  brian.dehaan@allenovery.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq.
          Eric Foster Leon, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NYC)
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4913
          Facsimile: (212) 446-6460
          E-mail: jserino@kirkland.com
                  eleon@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Khuzami, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 15th St Nw Ste 1200
          Washington, DC 20005-5765
          Telephone: (202) 879-5065
          E-mail: robert.khuzami@kirkland.com

Defendants HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank Plc are represented by:

          Edwin R. Deyoung, Esq.
          Gregory Thomas Casamento, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP (NYC)
          3 World Trade Financial Center, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10281-2101
          Telephone: (212) 812-8356
          Facsimile: (212) 740-8800
          E-mail: edeyoung@lockelord.com
                  gcasamento@lockelord.com

Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank and JPMorgan Chase & Co. are
represented by:

          Peter Edward Greene, Esq.
          Boris Bershteyn, Esq.
          Peter S. Julian, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square, 42nd floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3620
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: peter.greene@skadden.com
                  boris.bershteyn@skadden.com
                  peter.julian@skadden.com

               - and -

          Patrick Joseph Fitzgerald, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP (IL)
          155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606-1720
          Telephone: (312) 407-0508
          Facsimile: (312) 827-9320
          E-mail: patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com

Defendant Lloyds Banking Group plc is represented by:

          Marc Joel Gottridge, Esq.
          Lisa Jean Fried, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (NYC)
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
          E-mail: marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com
                  lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com

Defendant Morgan Stanley is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Moses, Esq.
          Keia Denise Cole, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
          E-mail: JMMoses@wlrk.com
                  kdcole@wlrk.com

Defendants UBS AG and UBS Securities LLC are represented by:

          Peter Sullivan, Esq.
          Rachel Alden Lavery, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP (NY)
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-5370
          Facsimile: (212) 351-6370
          E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com
                  rlavery@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Joel Steven Sanders, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8268
          Facsimile: (415) 374-8439
          E-mail: jsanders@gibsondunn.com

Interested Parties Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, Haverhill Retirement System and Employees' Retirement
System of the Government of the Virgin Islands are represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT SCOTT, LLP (CA)
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: MDL Panel Refuses to Consolidate RMBS Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Chiappardi, Erica Teichert and Igor Kossov, writing for
Law360, report that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
refused on Feb. 12 to centralize several cases in New York and
Kansas federal courts brought by the National Credit Union
Administration board accusing mortgage underwriters -- including
units of Credit Suisse Group AG, Barclays PLC and Morgan Stanley
-- of misrepresenting residential mortgage-backed securities.

In October the defendants in the cases requested that the
litigation over hundreds of millions of dollars in RMBS be
centralized, arguing that there was a single plaintiff among all
the actions and significant legal and factual overlap between the
New York and Kansas lawsuits.

But the five judges sitting on the panel ruled that the focus on
the NCUA as a unifying factor was "misplaced."  Two judges did not
take part in the decision.

The panel wrote in its opinion that while the roughly dozen
lawsuits in question share some common factual questions, they
involve different RMBS certificates purchased by different credit
unions from different defendants.

"As between the actions in Kansas and those in New York . . .
different representations made to different purchasers of RMBS
will be at issue, involving different discovery and motion
practice," the opinion stated.  "The proponents of centralization
have failed to convince us that any common questions of fact among
these actions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify
centralization at this time."

The lawsuits were brought by the NCUA on behalf of four liquidated
credit unions against mortgage underwriters and issuers that
include Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
Securities Corp., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc., Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., RBS Acceptance
Inc., RBS Securities Inc., UBS Securities LLC and Wachovia Capital
Markets LLC, according to the opinion.

The NCUA generally alleges that the offering documents for the
RMBS certificates contained several misstatements regarding
compliance with certain underwriting guidelines and reduced
documentation standards, as well as the disclosed loan-to-value
ratios, the opinion said.

According to two of the New York complaints, the NCUA accused the
financial institutions of presenting risky pools of default-prone
mortgage loans as AAA-grade securities, causing the credit unions'
demise.

The first round of lawsuits was lodged in the District of Kansas
starting in 2011, and the NCUA filed nine additional actions in
the Southern District of New York in 2013, which the defendants
say asserted the same legal claims and factual allegations,
according to court records.

The actions were some of several attempts by government agencies
to hold financial institutions accountable for the mortgage-backed
securities collapse that helped trigger the 2008 economic crisis.

Each of the RMBS purchases in question in New York took place
prior to 2008, and the financial institutions argued that the
claims could have easily been included in the Kansas actions,
according to their motion to centralize.

But the NCUA said that the financial institutions never
specifically identified what efficiencies would be gleaned by
transferring all of the actions to one venue, and that they
ignored that the Kansas and New York cases concern different RMBS
transactions involving separate underwriters, the NCUA's reply
said.

The NCUA added that there are RMBS cases also pending in
California federal court and that the defendants' desire for
centralization "rings hollow" because they didn't seek transfer of
those suits as well.

The JPML referenced the lawsuits in the Central District of
California in its opinion and wrote that appeals in that
jurisdiction to the Ninth Circuit, as well as appeals in the
Kansas actions to the Tenth Circuit, also leaned them against
centralizing the suits.

The judges noted that the lawsuits are each before a single judge
in their respective districts, and suggested that an alternative
to centralization is coordination among the courts and informal
cooperation among the attorneys to minimize duplication in
discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings.

The NCUA is represented by Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel
PLLC and Korein Tillery LLC.

The defendants are represented by Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP.

The case is In re: National Credit Union Administration Board
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, case number 2505, before
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.


BUCKLES & BUCKLES: Violates Debt Collection Acts, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Van Hoven, for herself and class members v. Buckles &
Buckles, P.L.C., Attorneys at Law, Geraldine C. Buckles and
Michael H. R. Buckles, Case No. 1:14-cv-00060-JTN (W.D. Mich.,
January 17, 2014) seeks damages and equitable relief, to redress
the Defendants' alleged systemic violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Michigan Collection Practices
Act.

The Defendants have filed hundreds (and more likely, thousands) of
post-judgment requests for writs of garnishment in Michigan courts
in connection with efforts to collect debts from consumers,
according to the complaint.

Buckles & Buckles, P.L.C., Attorneys at Law, is a Michigan
professional limited liability company, purportedly doing business
in Birmingham, Michigan.  Buckles is owned and managed by
Geraldine C. Buckles and Michael H. R. Buckles.  The Defendants
are debt collectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip C. Rogers, Esq.
          40 Pearl Street, N.W., Suite 336
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503-3026
          Telephone: (616) 776-1176
          Facsimile: (616) 776-0037
          E-mail: RogersPhil@aol.com

               - and -

          Michael O. Nelson, Esq.
          1104 Fuller N.E.
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 559-2665
          E-mail: mike@mnelsonlaw.com


CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf and Transport Vehicles Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Club Car, LLC, of Augusta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,800 Precedent I2 golf and transport vehicles.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The hip restraint on the passenger side can fracture, posing a
fall hazard.

Club Car has received one report of injury involving bruised ribs
when a passenger fell from the vehicle.

The recalled vehicles are various sizes, models and colors of
model year 2012 Precedent I2 golf and transport vehicles used for
short-distance transportation.  The vehicles can be identified by
model and serial number.  The model number is indicated in the
first two letters of the serial number and can be found above and
to the right of the accelerator pedal.  A list of recalled models
and serial numbers includes.

  Model                  Model Number      Serial Number Range
  -----                  ------------      -------------------
Precedent I2 Excel         PH         1227-290944 to 1229-294026
Precedent I2 4 Pass Excel    PJ         1228-291089 to 1229-293651
Precedent I2 Gas             PR         1227-290759 to 1229-294014
Precedent I2 Signature 4
Pass Elec                   PV         1228-291275
Precedent I2 Signature 4
Pass Gas                    PW         1227-290745 to 1228-291918
Precedent I2L Excel          PD         1228-291354 to 1229-293959
Precedent I2 4 Pass Gas      PF         1229-292952 to 1229-293545

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/DkCBTa

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through authorized Club Car dealers nationwide in February 2012
for between $5,000 and $8,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the transport vehicles and
contact Club Car for a free replacement of the passenger side hip
restraint.  Club Car is contacting its customers directly.


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Class Seeks Remedies Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Bates, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., d/b/a NCC, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00061-RTR (E.D. Wis., January 17, 2014) is brought for
damages, and other legal and equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of Commonwealth in contacting the Plaintiff
and Class members on their cellular telephones without their prior
express consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation
with offices located in Dickson City, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  dsyrios@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com


COOPER TIRE: Investors Suffered From Corporate Greed, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
OFI Risk Arbitrages, OFI Risk ARB Absolu and Timber Hill LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Roy Armes and Bradley Hughes, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS (D. Del., January 17, 2014) arises out of
the failed acquisition of Cooper in a deal that was described by
one of the Company's former executives as an example of classic
"corporate greed."

According to the complaint, Cooper and its most senior executives,
enticed by an enormous payout that would make them all multi-
millionaires, went to great lengths to push through a sale of the
Company to India-based Apollo Tyres, Ltd.  In the hopes of closing
that transaction and enriching themselves, the Defendants
concealed from investors the extraordinary risks that ultimately
doomed the transaction and which have caused permanent damage to
Cooper's business, the Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs contend
that investors, including them, who were damaged when their
investment in Cooper stock declined precipitously in value once
the corrective disclosures at the end of the Class Period revealed
the true risks of the deal, have suffered enormous financial
losses as a result of the Defendants' wrongdoing.

Cooper, a Delaware Corporation based in Findlay, Ohio, is the
fourth largest tire manufacturer in North America, and the
eleventh-largest tire manufacturer in the world by revenue.  Roy
Armes was, at all relevant times, Cooper's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer.  Bradley Hughes was, at all relevant times,
Cooper's Chief Financial Officer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Margules, Esq.
          Albert J. Carroll, Esq.
          BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-3500
          E-mail: dmargules@bmf-law.com
                  acarroll@bmf-law.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Anderson Sensing, Esq.
          Stephen C. Norman, Esq.
          POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
          1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
          P.O. Box 951
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
          Telephone: (302) 984-6093
          Facsimile: (302) 778-6093
          E-mail: jsensing@potteranderson.com
                  snorman@potteranderson.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Scott+Scott Named Forex Suit Interim Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S.
federal judge has chosen the law firm Scott+Scott LLP to serve as
interim lead counsel in a consolidated class action against many
of the world's largest banks alleging manipulation of the roughly
$5.3 trillion-a-day foreign exchange market.

At a hearing on Feb. 13, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield of
Manhattan chose Scott+Scott over three other groups of plaintiffs'
law firms seeking the lead spot.

In class actions, the firm serving as lead counsel is often
responsible for making key decisions in prosecuting a case and
stands to make the most money if a case is successful.

Scott+Scott, which is headquartered in Connecticut and has offices
in New York, Ohio and California, has 33 lawyers, according to its
website.

The other groups of firms seeking the lead counsel position have
more lawyers but Judge Schofield suggested she was concerned about
inefficiencies and the availability of senior lawyers at those
firms to spend on the case.

"I think that a having a smaller firm that can draw on other firms
as needed can best serve the class," she said.

Over the last few months, several lawsuits have been filed against
major banks, such as Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Barclays, UBS,
HSBC, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Royal Bank of Scotland.

The lawsuits claim that the banks violated federal antitrust law
when their senior traders allegedly shared sensitive market
information in chat rooms to execute a variety of strategies to
move key benchmark rates.  The lawsuits allege collusion that
allowed the banks to profit at the expense of their customers.

The lawsuits seek class action status on behalf of investors,
institutions and others affected by the alleged manipulation. One
of the lawsuits claims that the class could include thousands of
currency traders who lost value on tens of thousands of
transactions, "resulting in potentially billions of dollars in
damages."

Judge Schofield said she would order the Scott+Scott firm to file
a consolidated complaint near the end of March.  She has set a
March 3 conference to address when the plaintiffs will be able to
receive documents from the defendants.


EQT PRODUCTION: Senate Committee to Consider Royalties Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allie Robinson Gibson, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports
that a bill seeking to speed up the emptying of at least $30
million languishing in escrow accounts -- currently the subject of
federal class-action lawsuits -- has landed in the Senate's
Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee, whose
chairman said on Feb. 13 he doesn't think the legislation is the
way to handle the coalbed methane cases.

Delegate Terry Kilgore's HB 461 recently passed 95-3 in the
Virginia General Assembly's House of Delegates after bouncing
around to a few committees and being tabled by the House
Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee.
Click Here

It crossed over into the Senate, and will next be heard by the
Senate committee, which is chaired by Sen. Phillip Puckett, D-
Lebanon.

At the heart of the matter is a series of class-action lawsuits,
now in federal court, that seek to release the escrow account into
the hands of the landowners.  Hundreds of landowners could be
affected; as coalbed methane gas was siphoned off their lands but
they weren't paid for it.

Money was put into escrow by energy companies when it was not
clear that one person held the deed to the coal and the gas on
their lands.  No one was paid -- and the money has been untouched
for years.

Mr. Kilgore, R-Gate City, said the intent of the bill is to get
the money into the hands of the rightful owners quickly, but not
everyone seems to agree.

"I have some reservations about it," Sen. Puckett said on Feb. 13.
"Two things bother me.  One, it [the bill] doesn't say anything
about whether there should be a forensic audit of the [escrow]
account.  I personally believe there should be more money in it,
based on Daniel Gilbert's [2009 independent audit of accounts for
the Bristol Herald Courier].  There's hundreds of accounts.  . . .
I think they would produce more revenue.  We deserve to have
accurate accounting."

He pointed to a 2012 audit in which reviewers examining accounts
found at a random sampling that five out of six were so badly
accounted for it was pointless to continue.

"That tells me there are some issues there," Sen. Puckett said.
"I'd like to know."

Sen. Puckett said he is also worried that the bill could undermine
the lawsuits filed in 2010 against EQT Production and CNX Gas,
which have been dropping funds into escrow.  U.S. District Court
Judge James P. Jones is expected to make a ruling by next month
about whether to declare a group of Southwest Virginia landowners
the rightful recipients of the gas royalties.

One of those landowners, Jamie Hale, of Haysi, said if the class-
action suits go away -- as they might, if the law is changed --
the landowners could end up paying more money for what should be
theirs.

Sen. Puckett said he feels the courts are close to a decision and
he feels most landowners would say they want to continue waiting
it out.  "If we had it [the bill] earlier, it might have been an
answer to some of our problems," Sen. Puckett said, adding that by
earlier he means five or six years ago, before the suits were
filed.  "This bill puts the burden on the owner of coal . . . this
bill would require the coal owner to prove it, but if I'm the
property owner, I've got to go to court and defend that.  And many
people don't have the resources to do that.  I don't think [the
bill] helps the process."

Sen. Puckett introduced legislation dealing with the escrow
accounts, but pulled it early in the session.

Currently, landowners can get the royalties if they split it with
the coal owners, win a costly court battle or out-of-court
arbitration.  This is because it's not clear whether the gas
royalties belong to the person who has the deed for the coal or
for the gas estate, and so funds are escrowed when linked to
multiple owners.

Mr. Kilgore's bill would declare that the owners of the gas titles
are entitled to the royalties, as long as coal owners don't file a
claim within a certain period of time.  It also would force the
energy companies to get the money to them by 2015.  EQT Production
helped Mr. Kilgore's team draft the legislation.

"What this bill does is it directs the gas companies to notify the
board for actions filed before July 1, 2014, of the ownership and
their intent to pay these owners their royalties, and it gives 120
days for any coal owners out there to file suit," said Mr.
Kilgore.  "Then it sets up a sort of 'rocket docket' type scenario
where the courts will go ahead and move on those cases.   After
Jan. 1, 2014, any claims that come in or any drilling pooling
orders that come in, the gas companies will go in and it will be
on them to go ahead and pay the owners and to give the coal owner
notice if there is a coal owner, so they can come in and make
their claim.  What we're trying to do is set up an easier,
quicker, more economical way to get this money out of the fund
that it's in right now and get it to the rightful owners.  That's
all I want to do, period."


FAIRWAY GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Fairway Group Holdings Corporation and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-0950 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Fairway
between April 16, 2013 and February 6, 2014, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Fairway securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 15, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Fairway Group Holdings Corp. and its subsidiaries operate in the
retail food industry, selling fresh, natural and organic products,
prepared foods and hard to find specialty and gourmet offerings
along with a full assortment of conventional groceries.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fairway's same store sales
were declining; (2) the Company's direct store expenses were
increasing; (3) the Company's financial forecasts were wholly
unrealistic; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Fairway's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 6, 2014, Fairway reported earnings that severely
missed analysts' estimates including disappointing same store
sales, as well as increased direct store expenses.  Moreover, the
Company reported a substantial miss in EBIDTA growth for the third
quarter, as EBIDTA grew 3.2% over the same period in the prior
year compared to growth of 20% - 25% that management had forecast.

On this news, shares of Fairway fell $3.19 per share, more than
27.91%, on intraday trading, to a price of $8.24 on February 7,
2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.


GAP INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Cal. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Ino; individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. The Gap, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00292-CW (N.D. Cal., January 17, 2014) accuses the Defendants of
failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.

The Gap, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business in
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Shenkman, Esq.
          Mary Ruth Hughes, Esq.
          SHENKMAN & HUGHES
          28905 Wight Road
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (310) 457-0970
          E-mail: kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com
                  mrhughes@snenkmanhughes.com


GE CAPITAL: Faces "Travaglio" Class Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Travaglio, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. GE Capital Retail Bank, a national
banking association, and Allied Interstate, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, Case No. 5:14-cv-00047-WTH-PRL (M.D.
Fla., January 17, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          1212 SE 2nd Ave.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


GE CAPITAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Travaglio, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. GE Capital Retail Bank, a national
banking association, and Allied Interstate, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, Case No. 6:14-cv-00083-RBD-GJK (M.D.
Fla., January 17, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          1212 SE 2nd Ave.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


GREEN TREE: Magistrate Judge Denies Motion to Stay "Clark" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty denied a motion to stay the
case captioned SHANNON CLARK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-02646-PAB-MEH, (D. Col.).

The Plaintiff instituted this action on September 27, 2013
alleging essentially that the Defendant has engaged in unfair and
fraudulent loan servicing practices and has failed to honor its
obligations under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program
against her and other similarly situated homeowners.  On November
13, 2013, the Defendant responded to the Complaint by filing a
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing
that none of the Plaintiff's twelve claims for relief states a
claim as a matter of law.  On December 23, 2013, the Defendant
filed a motion to stay, asserting that "if granted, the pending
Motion [to Dismiss] would dispose of the entire case. As the
Motion is fully briefed, this Court should not force Green Tree to
engage in costly class action discovery pending resolution of the
Motion."  Defendant argued that consideration of applicable
factors in this matter demonstrates that the circumstances favor a
temporary stay of discovery pending resolution of its motion to
dismiss.

"Generally, it is the policy in this District not to stay
discovery pending a ruling on motions to dismiss," said Magistrate
Judge Hegarty. "This is particularly true where, as in this case,
the motion to dismiss may just as well be denied as it is granted.
Furthermore, based upon the significant workload of the Article
III judges in this District, it may be many months or more before
the pending motion to dismiss is resolved. Consequently, a
consideration of the "String Cheese" factors, as well as the
general interests of controlling the court's docket and the fair
and speedy administration of justice, require that the present
motion to stay discovery be denied."

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/6lGPVRfrom Leagle.com.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Overtime Suit Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly M. Dermody, chair of the employment law practice group at
the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, disclosed that U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H.
Koh on Feb. 13 granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") overtime
action against their employer Hewlett-Packard Company.

The class action lawsuit charges that HP has a common practice of
misclassifying 9,800 Technical Solutions Consultants I-III, Field
Technical Support Consultants I-III, and Technology Consultants
I-III as exempt from overtime, thereby failing to pay them for all
hours worked in violation of the FLSA and state overtime pay laws.

In granting collective action certification, Judge Koh stated:
"[T]he Court holds that Plaintiffs have shown that the putative
class members were the victims of a single decision, policy, or
plan.  This requirement is met upon a showing that Plaintiffs were
subject to the same uniform classification of exempt status under
FLSA.  Here, HP's Job Architecture policy uniformly categorizes
all putative class members as exempt from the overtime pay
requirements of FLSA."

"We are pleased that the Court has granted conditional
certification and directed that notice be sent to class members
advising them of their rights and how to participate in the
action," stated Ms. Dermody.

The collective action consists of all persons who were, are, or
will be employed by HP from January 10, 2010, to the end of the
opt-in period as Technical Solutions Consultant I, II, or III;
Field Technical Support Consultant I, II, or III; or Technology
Consultant I, II, or III. Notice of the collective action will be
provided to these workers by mail and email.

For further information on action visit: http://is.gd/VXBuYl

The law firm of Outten & Golden also represents Plaintiffs.


J CREW GROUP: Sued for Not Operating Blind-Accessible POS Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J. Crew Group, Inc. d/b/a Madewell, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00079-LPL (W.D. Pa., January 17, 2014) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.

The Plaintiff is a blind individual.  He brings this civil rights
class action against the Company for failing to design, construct,
own or operate Point of Sale Devices that are fully accessible to,
and independently usable by, blind people.  In January 2014, the
Plaintiff visited the Defendant's store located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

J. Crew Group, Inc., doing business as Madewell, is headquartered
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
          Carlos Diaz, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alisa N. Carr, Esq.
          LEECH TISHMAN
          525 William Penn Place, 28th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-1600
          E-mail: acarr@leechtishman.com


JCM BUSINESS: Fails to Pay Required Overtime, Cleaner Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Cerafino DiLone, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JCM Business Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00386-SJ-RML (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 2014) alleges that JCM
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Cleaners
for all hours worked, failing to pay Cleaners overtime on a timely
basis, and failing to pay Cleaners the legally required amount of
overtime compensation in an amount required by law for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

JCM Business Solutions, LLC, is a New York corporate entity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC
          800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 838-3333
          E-mail: abell@lockslaw.com


KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Chicken Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. Huffstutter, writing for Reuters, reports that Kroger Co, the
biggest U.S. supermarket operator, faces a lawsuit claiming it
deceived consumers by marketing a store brand as humanely raised
chicken products when the animals were raised under standard
commercial farming.

The complaint, filed late on Feb. 11 in Superior Court of
California in Los Angeles County, is seeking class-action status
against Kroger for allegedly misleading California consumers with
claims about the grocer's "Simple Truth" premium-priced store
brand of chicken.

Kroger spokesman Keith Dailey told Reuters on Feb. 12 that the
company has not had an opportunity to review the lawsuit.
However, Mr. Dailey said: "What we have on our Simple Truth
chicken label is information for our customers that we believe is
accurate, and we intend to vigorously defend our label."

The "Simple Truth" chicken products were packaged with labeling
that stated the animals were raised "in a humane environment" and
"cage free," according to the lawsuit.

However, standard industry practice for broiler chickens is to
house them inside large buildings, not cages, according to
industry experts.

The "Simple Truth" chicken products are produced by Perdue Farms,
which has followed industry practices such as electrically
stunning birds prior to slaughter, according to the lawsuit.

The case is Anna Ortega v. The Kroger Co, Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, No. BC536034.


LEM PRODUCTS: Recalls 5-Tray Dehydrators With Digital Timers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LEM Products Distribution, LLC of West Chester, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,000 in the U.S and 24 in Canada 5-Tray
Dehydrators with Digital Timers.  This product was previously
recalled in May 2013 for a fire hazard.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Damaged wiring in the food dehydrators can come into contact with
a metal bracket inside the machine, posing a shock hazard.

LEM Products has received nine reports of electrical shorts,
including one report of sparks causing minor damage to the
surrounding countertop and carpet.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves 5-tray food dehydrators with model number 1009
and serial numbers between 20110506 and 20121008.  These food
dehydrators were previously recalled and repaired as part of a May
2013 recall.  The dehydrators are gray and are made of plastic and
metal.  The model and serial numbers are located on a label on the
back panel. LEM is embossed on the top of the unit, which has a
panel with the digital timer, the on/off switch and a temperature
control knob.  The UPC code 734494910094 is on the bottom of the
packaging.  Only dehydrators within the serial number range
between 20110506 and 20121008 and with a sticker on the back panel
stating "Read Manual Before Operating" are included in this
recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/HrW2jg

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Buchheit, Gander Mountain, Rural King, Sportsman's Warehouse and
Theisen Supply stores and other mass merchandisers and retailers
nationwide and online at http://www.lemproducts.comfrom June 2011
through December 2013 for between $125 and $160.

Consumers should immediately stop using the dehydrators and
contact LEM Products Distribution for instructions on free
shipping and repair of the recalled product.


LUCENT ACE: Recalls LED Flashlights Due to Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lucent Ace Manufacturing, of City of Industry, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,000 LED flashlights.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The battery can short and cause the flashlight's canister to
rupture, posing a burn hazard to the consumer.

The firm has received one report of a flashlight canister
rupturing while in a consumer's hand.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves LED flashlights with hand straps.  The 3 1/2-
inch tall flashlights were sold in black, red, green and blue and
have style number FSAACE6022 printed on the packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/IMTAZ6

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Academy Sports + Outdoors stores nationwide from
October 2013 to November 2013 for about $3.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled flashlight
and return it to the place of purchase for a refund.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Minor League Players File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kavitha A. Davidson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
three minor league baseball players have filed a class action
lawsuit against Major League Baseball claiming the current
contract system violates local and federal wage laws.

The suit was filed by Aaron Senne, Michael Liberto and Oliver Odle
in the federal California Northern District Court and names as
defendants MLB, the commissioner's office, Commissioner Bud Selig
and the parent clubs of their former teams -- the Kansas City
Royals, Miami Marlins and San Francisco Giants.

The backbone of the case is that minor leaguers aren't afforded
the benefits of a union, as major leaguers are, and thus work
mandatory, unpaid overtime hours, receiving pay amounting to less
than minimum wage.  While some players get substantial bonuses,
the suit says the average player receives a salary of $3,000 to
$7,500 for a season of work.  It also claims that while minor
leaguers are compensated for the five-month season, they often
have contractual obligations to appear at spring training, winter
training, instructional league and conditioning sessions that
occur outside that period.

The inequities are enabled by MLB's antitrust exemptions and the
Uniform Player Contract, which essentially binds a player to his
team for seven years.  Under the UPC, ratified in the most recent
collective bargaining agreement that runs from 2012 to 2016, an
organization can lend a player's rights to another club and
reserves the right to terminate the contract at any time.  Players
are given little to no comparable mobility within their
agreements, which prevent them from signing with any team in any
league in any country.  Even retirement is conditional, dependent
on the approval of the commissioner.

The plaintiffs hope to be certified as a class on behalf of all
minor league players and seek various damages and labor
regulations.


MERRILL LYNCH: Sued for Failing to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Litty, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; and Bank of America Corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00425-PA-PJW (C.D. Cal., January 17, 2014) is
brought as a collective action for violations of federal unpaid
overtime and unpaid minimum wage compensation laws.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing
business in Los Angeles County, California.  Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, California, and
maintains corporate headquarters in New York.  Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Bank of America Corporation.  Bank
of America Corporation is a bank and financial holding company
doing business in Los Angeles County, California, and maintains
corporate headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          John A. Van Hook, Esq.
          Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
          Truc T. Nguyen, Esq.
          Michael David Mandel, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com
                  mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  tnguyen@mcguirewoods.com
                  mmandel@mcguirewoods.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Collects Debts in Violation of FDCPA, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Zimmerman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC,
and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00359 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 17, 2014) seeks redress for the alleged unlawful,
predatory consumer debt collection practices engaged in by the
Defendants.

The Defendants conduct their debt collection business in flagrant
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Mr. Zimmerman
asserts.

Midland Credit is a Kansas business entity.  Midland Funding is a
Delaware business entity.  Midland Credit and Midland Funding are
headquartered in San Diego, California.  Midland Credit is an
affiliate of Midland Funding.  Midland Funding is one of the
nation's largest buyers of unpaid debt in the form of charged-off
accounts.  Midland Funding is engaged in the business of
collecting or attempting to collect, directly or indirectly,
defaulted debts it purchases in large portfolios.  Midland Credit
is engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect,
directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed
or due Midland Funding as one of its principal areas of business.
At all relevant times, Midland Credit collected debts on behalf of
Midland Funding, the holder of the accounts at issue.

Encore is a Delaware business entity headquartered in San Diego,
California.  Encore is the parent company of Midland Credit and
Midland Funding.  Through Midland Credit, Encore contacts
customers directly in attempts to collect debts on behalf of the
current creditor.  The entity known as Midland Funding owns the
debts, while Midland Credit and Encore collect the debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW L.L.C
          1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Montage Technology Group Limited publicly traded securities during
the period between September 26, 2013 and February 6, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 7, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/montage/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Montage and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Montage is a global fabless provider of analog and mixed-signal
semiconductor solutions addressing the home entertainment and
cloud computing markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations and business and its financial results.  As a
result of defendants' false statements, Montage's securities
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
with its stock price reaching a high of $25.63 per share on
January 17, 2014.  While Montage's stock price was artificially
inflated, the Company was able to complete a follow-on public
offering of 5,350,000 ordinary shares at a price of $21 per share.

On February 6, 2014, Gravity Research Group published a report
contending that Montage had greatly exaggerated its true financial
performance, asserting that one of Montage's largest distributors,
LQW Technology Company Limited, was a shell company used to
fabricate Montage's financial results.  Additionally, the report
stated that the Company's largest "end" customer was an
undisclosed related party.  As a result of this news, Montage's
stock price fell to as low as $14.51 per share before closing at
$17.45 per share on February 6, 2014, a one day decline of nearly
18% and a decline of nearly 32% from its Class Period high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Montage publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


MONTICELLO, MN: Faces Class Action Over Telecoms Project
--------------------------------------------------------
Jake Anderson, writing for TwinCities Business, reports that a
class-action lawsuit was filed against the City of Monticello, and
it may represent a step toward resolving claims by investors who
lost money from the city's troubled telecommunications project.

Two law firms filed the suit, which accuses the municipality of
violating securities laws when it issued more than $26 million in
bonds to finance a broadband communications network.

The lawsuit seeks damages for bondholders -- but the claims will
be resolved if investors approve a previously proposed $7.75
million settlement.  In fact, the terms of the settlement
indicated that the lawsuit would be filed.

                          The Bond Sale

Minneapolis-based Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, LLP, and national
firm Schiff Hardin, LLP, filed the suit on behalf of Bloomington
resident William Dean and "all similarly-situated persons and
entities" who bought certain bonds from the city between 2008 and
2012.  Mr. Dean bought $50,000 in such bonds, according to the
lawsuit.

The city issued the bonds to finance the development of a "fiber
to the premises" broadband network to provide cable TV, Internet,
and telephone services, and the city owns the infrastructure.  The
lawsuit alleges that the city "failed to disclose material facts"
that indicated the project would be unable to generate enough
revenue to make it feasible.

For one thing, the lawsuit states, a telecom company sued the city
less than a month before the bonds were issued, and the city did
not properly convey to potential investors the fact that
litigation might delay the project.

The City of Monticello originally built the network because it was
unable to convince the existing communications provider, TDS, to
upgrade to faster Internet, according to a 2013 story by Minnesota
Public Radio.  TDS reportedly sued the city, delaying and nearly
derailing the city's plan.  And while the city spent more than a
year dealing with that legal issue, TDS installed the upgrades
that residents had requested after all, MPR reported.

The city has since struggled to compete with private providers,
and the class-action suit alleges that the city program has failed
to obtain benchmarks outlined in earlier forecasts.  In all, the
city has allegedly lost more than $4 million on the project.  And
in 2012, the city defaulted on its debt payment.

                    The Proposed Settlement

Last fall, the City of Monticello approved a settlement agreement,
the terms of which would require the city to pay $5.75 million to
bondholders.

The settlement would ensure that bondholders recoup at least a
fraction of their investments, although it would still constitute
a big loss for investors.

The agreement indicated that the class-action suit would be filed,
and it says that all class-action claims will be resolved if
bondholders approve the deal.  The agreement would be nullified,
however, if bondholders that together own more than 10 percent
worth of the bonds opted out of the class action.  That
essentially means that 90 percent of bondholders must approve the
deal.

In the settlement agreement, the city denies all liability and
says the claims "lack merit," but the city believes the deal is in
the interest of all parties, given the cost of litigation.

Monticello City Administrator Jeff O'Neill told Twin Cities
Business by email that the lawsuit "is consistent with the
previously approved proposed settlement agreement."

"The City has not been sued by any other bondholders, and this
class-action proceeding and the settlement agreement have been
structured to minimize that possibility -- as detailed in the
settlement agreement," he added.


MORGAN & CURTIS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Gilliard, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Morgan & Curtis Associates, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-00391-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 2014) accuses the
Company of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NESTLE USA: Accused of Misbranding Eskimo Pie Dark Chocolate Bars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Belli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00283-HRL (N.D.
Cal., January 17, 2014) seeks to recover for the injuries suffered
by the Plaintiff and the class as a direct result of the
Defendant's alleged unlawful sale of misbranded food products.

Ms. Belli alleges that Nestle packaged and labeled its Nestle
Eskimo Pie Dark Chocolate bars in violation of California's
Sherman Law.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a privately held Delaware corporation
headquartered in Glendale, California.  The Company is a leading
producer of retail food products, including Eskimo Pie.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Hwy. 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com


NESTLE USA: Faces "Coffey" Suit for Mislabeling Juicy Juices
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Coffey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00288-JCS (N.D.
Cal., January 17, 2014) alleges that the Company mislabels its
Juicy Juice products by stating that they are "All Natural" and
"No Sugar Added."

Nestle USA, Inc. is a privately held Delaware corporation based in
Glendale, California.  The Company is a leading producer of retail
food products, including Juicy Juice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Hwy. 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com


NESTLE USA: Misbranded Fruit Bars as "All Natural," Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Belli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00286-HRL (N.D.
Cal., January 17, 2014) seeks to recover for the alleged injuries
suffered by the Plaintiff and the class as a direct result of the
Defendant's unlawful sale of misbranded food products -- "All
Natural" Fruit Bars.

Ms. Belli accused Nestle of packaging and labeling its Fruit Bars
in violation of California's Sherman Law.  Fruit Bars are Nestle's
Dreyer's and Edy's brand "All Natural" Fruit Bars in these
flavors: Strawberry, Lemonade, Lime, Coconut, Grape, Tangerine,
Blueberry Acai, Pomegranate.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a privately held Delaware corporation
headquartered in Glendale, California.  The Company sells products
under various brand names including Dreyer's and Edy's brand
products.  The Company is a leading producer of retail food
products, including Fruit Bars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com


NETWORK EQUIPMENT: Obtains Final OK of "Newman" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted final approval of a settlement
in the case captioned SUZANNE NEWMAN, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NETWORK EQUIPMENT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DAVID WAGENSELLER, DIXON R. DOLL, C. NICHOLAS
KEATING, JR., FREDERICK D'ALESSIO, DAVID R. LAUBE, SONUS NETWORKS,
INC., and NAVY ACQUISITION SUBSIDIARY, INC., Defendants, CASE NO.
12-CV-03937-LHK, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Koh found the Settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate
and in the best interests of the Class defined as: all record and
beneficial holders of NET common stock, their respective
successors and predecessors in interest, representatives,
trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or
transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting
for or on behalf of, or claiming under any of them, and each of
them, together with their predecessors and successors and assigns,
who held NET common stock at any time between and including June
18, 2012 and August 24, 2012, but excluding Defendants and their
respective affiliates.

The Plaintiff is certified as the Class representative, and
Plaintiffs' Counsel are certified as Class Counsel, ruled Judge
Koh.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount
of $250,000, inclusive of expenses, which amount the Court found
to be fair and reasonable and which will be paid to Plaintiffs'
Counsel in accordance with the terms of the parties' Stipulation.

The Action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety as to the
Defendants and against Plaintiffs and all other members of the
Class on the merits and, except as provided in the Stipulation,
without costs, ruled the Court.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Order and Final
Judgment is available at http://is.gd/8Wo1zofrom Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Suit v. Tax and Finance Dept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
OWNER OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; BRYAN SPOON, D/B/A
SPOON TRUCKING; STEVE BIXLER; JACK McCOMB; and LEWIE PUGH;
Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE,
THOMAS H. MATTOX, Individually and in his Official Capacity as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and
Finance; THE STATE OF NEW YORK, and ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually
and in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of New York;
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 5551-13, RJI NO. 01-13-111950, 2014 NY Slip
Op 30226(U), seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and
damages, and challenges the constitutionality of "certain highway
taxes in the amount of $15.001 for a certificate of registration
('Registration Tax'), and a $4.002 decal charge ('Decal Tax')."

Prior to answering, the Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to
CPLR 3211(a)(7) and for denial of class certification.  The
Plaintiffs opposed the motion. The Defendants demonstrated only
their entitlement to dismissal of Plaintiffs' second (Due Process)
cause of action.

Judge Joseph C. Teresi of the Supreme Court of Albany County found
that the Plaintiffs have no cognizable Due Process claim and,
therefore, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint's
second cause of action is granted.

Judge Teresi further held that the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' class certification request is premature. CPLR Section
902 requires Plaintiffs to move for class certification, if at
all, "[w]ithin sixty days after the time to serve a responsive
pleading has expired for all persons named as defendants," he
said.

Because the issue has not yet been joined and Plaintiffs' have not
moved for class certification, Defendants' motion is premature and
denied without prejudice, Judge Teresi ruled.

A copy of the Supreme Court's January 28, 2014 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/gaT6YIfrom Leagle.com.

Tabner, Ryan and Keniry, LLP, Thomas R, Fallati, Esq. --
trf@trklaw.com -- 18 Corporate Woods Boulevard, Albany, New York
12211, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq., Attorney General of the State of New
York, Adele Taylor Scott, Esq. AAG, The Capitol, Albany, New York
12224, Attorneys for the Defendants.


NJOY INC: Accused of Misrepresenting E-Cigarettes' Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Z. Halberstam, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
v. NJOY, Inc.; and Sottera, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00428-MMM-RZ
(C.D. Cal., January 17, 2014) alleges NJOY has a uniform and long-
standing pattern of employing unfair and deceptive practices with
respect to the sale of its products through misrepresentations and
omissions concerning their potential health risks.

Sottera, Inc. is a former corporation which was incorporated in
Nevada, and had its corporate headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Sottera was parent to NJOY, Inc., and in July 2012, merged into
NJOY, Inc.

NJOY, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.  During the relevant period, NJOY manufactured and sold,
among others, NJOY, NJOY Kings, and OneJoy e-cigarettes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          Kate M. Mcguire, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: pollack@whafh.com
                  basar@whafh.com
                  mcguire@whafh.com

               - and -

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
          WESTERMAN LAW CORPORATION
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 698-7880
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com
                  jthigpen@jswlegal.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367 -6510
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
          THE WILNER FIRM, P.A.
          444 E. Duval Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 446-9817
          Facsimile: (904) 446-9825
          E-mail: rlantinberg@wilnerfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Perry J. Viscounty, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 2000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 540-1235
          E-mail: perry.viscounty@lw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer L. Barry, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          600 W Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Telephone: (619) 236-1234
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7419
          E-mail: jennifer.barry@lw.com


PAPA JOHN'S: District Court Stays "Perrin" Suit Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM TIMOTHY PERRIN, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, et al., Plaintiff, v. PAPA JOHN'S
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., Defendants, CASE
NO. 4:09CV01335 AGF, (E.D. Mo.) is before the Court on the motion
of Defendants Papa John's International, Inc., and Papa John's
USA, Inc., to stay proceedings pending resolution by the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals of their petition for permission to
appeal, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f),
the Court's Order granting certification of five classes under
Rule 23.

District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted the request, saying the
scale tips in favor of granting the Defendants' motion for a stay.

"Investing extensive judicial resources in managing this difficult
multi-state hybrid FLSA/class action that may prove to be
unnecessary would not serve the public interest," Judge Fleissig
said.  "The Court also does not think it judicious to allow
discovery and litigation to proceed on the FLSA claim while
staying proceedings of the Rule 23 class certification."

The Court ordered the Defendants to notify the Court of the
resolution of the Defendants' Petition for Permission to Appeal
within five days of receipt of the decision.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/2RXhCefrom Leagle.com.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Shurley" Suit in Nevada Over Lipitor Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Shurley, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a Foreign
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00091-APG-GWF (D. Nev., January 17,
2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Pfizer produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes,
supplies, and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for
resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical
practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Wetherall, Esq.
          WETHERALL GROUP, LTD.
          9345 West Sunset Road, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (702) 838-8500
          Facsimile: (702) 837-5081
          E-mail: pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com
                  lcraig@myadvocates.com


RUIZ FOOD: Recalls Taquitos and Tornados
----------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Ruiz Food Products
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Industry is recalling El Monterey brand Taquitos and Tornados from
the marketplace because they are believed to pose a risk.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

The recall was initiated by Ruiz Food Products, Dinuba, CA, USA.
The manufacturer used some of the beef products which were
recalled by Rancho Feeding Corporation, Petalama, California, USA
on February 8, 2014 "because it processed diseased and unsound
animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or
full benefit of federal inspection."  Therefore, these products
are considered unsound, unwholesome or otherwise unfit for human
consumption.

The products have been sold nationally.

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

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

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

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

Affected products:

  Brand name    Common Name       Size     Code(s) on        UPC
  ----------    -----------       ----     product           ---
                                           -----------
El Monterey   Beef & Cheese   20 count   05/19/2014   071007406508
                Taquitos -                 10/14/2014
                Flour Tortillas            10/17/2014
El Monterey   Ranchero Steak   4.5 lb               10071007863902
                Tornados      (24 count)   13 135,
                                           13 281,
                                           13 287


SOURIS MINI: Recalls Children's Clothing with Neck Drawstrings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 18, 2014
Posting date:             February 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38017

Affected products: Children's clothing with neck drawstrings, sold
in Souris Mini shops

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's outerwear can become caught on
playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, the child being
dragged.

Neither Health Canada nor Souris Mini has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 389 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
January 2013 to January 2014 in Souris Mini shops.

Companies:

  Importer     Souris Mini
               Quebec
               Canada

Consumers should immediately cut and remove the drawstrings from
the clothing to eliminate the risk of strangulation.  Anyone who
wishes to do so may request a repair by contacting Souris Mini at
1-800-611-1012, ext. 304.


SPRENGER + LANG: Ruling on Arbitral Award in "Wolf" Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL WOLF and MAIA CAPLAN KATS, Appellants, v. SPRENGER + LANG,
PLLC, et al., Appellees, NOS. 11-CV-1206 AND 11-CV-1208 concerns
an arbitration in the District of Columbia pertaining to the
allocation of attorneys' fees awarded after a settlement in a
class action lawsuit that was filed and litigated in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
class suit pertained to age discrimination among television
writers over the age of 40 years.  The arbitration involved
several attorneys and law firms, most based in the District of
Columbia. After receiving the arbitrator's award, Daniel Wolf and
Maia Caplan Kats unsuccessfully attempted to reopen the attorneys'
fees issue in the California trial court.  When that effort failed
on jurisdictional grounds, Mr. Wolf and Ms. Caplan Kats filed a
motion in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to vacate
the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded
his powers and committed misconduct by denying them due process.

Sprenger+Lang, PLLC (S+L) and Jane Lang Paul Sprenger, LLC (JLPS)
opposed the motion.  Mr. Wolf and Ms. Caplan Kats appealed the
judgment of the trial court which denied their motion to vacate
the arbitral award and confirmed the award.

In an Amended Opinion dated January 30, 2014, available at
http://is.gd/3cqi5bfrom Leagle.com, the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying
the appellants' motion to vacate the arbitral award and confirming
that award.

"Because the parties 'bargained for the arbitrator's construction
of their agreement[s],'" and because the arbitrator's decision
"arguably constru[ed] or appl[ied] the contract[s]," those
decisions "must stand, regardless of a court's view of [their]
(de)merits," ruled the Appeals Court.

William R. Stein -- stein@hugheshubbard.com -- with whom Michael
A. DeBernardis -- deberbar@hugheshubbard.com -- was on the brief,
for appellant Daniel Wolf.

Maia Caplan Kats -- maiakats@gmail.com -- pro se, who adopted the
brief of appellant Wolf by reference.

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Daniel B. Edelman --
edelman@kmblegal.com -- with whom Rebecca S.
Bjork and Stephen R. McAllister were on the brief, for appellees.


STEPS RECOVERY: Bloomington Residents Sue Over Rehab Facility
-------------------------------------------------------------
David DeMille, writing for TheSpectrum.com, reports that arguing
that their property values may have taken a 10 percent hit when a
drug rehab center moved in, a group of neighbors in the
Bloomington area of St. George have filed a $1 million-plus
lawsuit against its owners.

Filed in 5th District Court in St. George, the complaint alleges
that the owners of Steps Recovery Center of St. George, LLC, owe
at least 14 plaintiffs for damages related to a decrease in the
values of their properties.  In addition, it requests additional
compensation for "the intentional and malicious actions of the
plaintiffs in the amount of three times the amount of the
judgment."

The treatment center, with room to serve eight patients, opened in
January on a five-acre property at 3638 Sugar Leo Road.

Owners Michael and Jill Jorgensen were named as defendants, along
with the company and other investors, as well as Bloomington
Ranch, LLC.  St. George city, which was named a defendant in the
original court filing, was eliminated from an amended complaint
filed later.

Michael Jorgensen, who is also the CEO, could not be reached for
comment on Feb. 21.

Barbara Gaume, the staff director, said the facility has been
operating mostly at full capacity and without incident since it
opened.

"It's a non-event," she said, adding that even some residents who
held signs and protested outside the center as it opened weren't
aware that clients were already there.

Invoking nuisance laws designed to protect residents' "use and
enjoyment" of their properties, the suit estimates that property
value losses vary from 2 percent to 10 percent, depending on the
proximity to the center.  It concludes that the total damages in
the case exceed $1 million, although an exact amount would need to
be calculated during the court proceedings.  In addition to the 14
named plaintiffs, it adds that there could be upwards of 100 "John
and Jane Does" to join the suit.

Attorney Bryan Adamson said that while he could not find instances
of similar suits succeeding against treatment centers, there are
precedents in which residents have sued over other business
practices in residential areas.

"The type of business shouldn't matter," Mr. Adamson said.

Mr. Adamson, a Bloomington resident, acknowledged that his wife is
named as one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Neighbors attempted to purchase the home and researched other
potential sites in the city that could house the treatment center,
but their offers were rejected, according to the complaint.

A number of neighbors fought to prevent the home from opening
since they learned about it last summer.  Mr. Jorgensen called a
neighborhood meeting in July to take questions and discuss the
issue, but some of the 60-plus attendees stormed out after some
heated exchanges about the center's location.

Neighborhood signs popped up in opposition to the center, and some
residents picketed outside the property when it opened in January.
At one point, the building was vandalized, causing an estimated
$2,000 in damages.

St. George issued the center a license despite the neighbors'
protests, with officials saying they could not override
superseding higher laws.  Federal fair housing law prohibits
discrimination against "handicapped" people, which can include
individuals recovering from alcohol and substance abuse.


SUB-ZERO INC: Removed "Carrasco" Class Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Truly Carrasco v. Sub-Zero Inc.,
et al., Case No. CIVDS1315219, was removed from the San Bernardino
County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Riverside).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00119-JFW-DTB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tammy H. Boggs, Esq.
          FOLLEY AND LARDNER LLP
          3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130-3302
          Telephone: (858) 847-6700
          Facsimile: (858) 792-6773
          E-mail: tboggs@foley.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Simmons, Esq.
          FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
          150 E Gilman Street
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 258-4267
          Facsimile: (608) 258-4258
          E-mail: jsimmons@foley.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Knox" Suit in North Carolina Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerron Knox, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00022-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C., January 17, 2014) is
brought in connection with the data breach at Target.

The Plaintiff contends that Target failed to secure and safeguard
its customers' personal financial data, including credit and debit
card information and personal identification numbers, and personal
information, including names, mailing addresses, telephone
numbers, and e-mail addresses.

Target is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.  Target is one of the largest retailers in the country
with nearly 1,800 stores located across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
          THE JACKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          225 E. Worthington Ave., Suite 200
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 377-6680
          Facsimile: (704) 377-6690
          E-mail: gjackson@ncadvocates.com

               - and -

          Charles H. Rabon, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Walker, Esq.
          RABON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 100
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 247-3247
          Facsimile: (704) 208-4645
          E-mail: CRabon@usfraudattorneys.com
                  mwalker@usfraudattorneys.com


TARGET CORP: Customer, Bank File Class Action in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
lawsuit, filed on Feb. 13 in U.S. District Court in Madison, is
the first of its kind to be filed in Wisconsin over a breach in
which hackers stole data about customers' debit and credit cards.

A Wausau bank and a Fitchburg man filed a class-action lawsuit on
Feb. 13 against retail giant Target over the security breach late
last year that affected millions of its customers.  The lawsuit,
filed in U.S. District Court in Madison, is the first of its kind
to be filed in Wisconsin among a national wave of lawsuits against
Target over the breach, in which hackers stole data about
customers' debit and credit cards that could be used by thieves to
steal from Target customers.

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks restitution from Target of
revenues it makes as a result of its failure to protect customers'
data and compensation for long-term credit- and identity-theft
monitoring for customers.  For banks, the lawsuit seeks
compensation for the cost of re-issuing cards and monitoring bank
accounts for fraud.

The customer class is represented by Kas Schafer, of Fitchburg,
while the banking class is represented by Integrity First Bank,
headquartered in Wausau.  The lawsuit states that Schafer had to
wait weeks for his bank to send him a replacement debit card,
while Integrity had to cancel and re-issue credit and debit cards
to many of its customers who had made Target purchases between
Nov. 27 and Dec. 15, when the breach is believed to have occurred.

Eric Haag, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said that this is the
first Wisconsin case against Target over the data breach, and one
of about 80 pending nationally.  But this case is among the few
that seek to certify not only a class of customers but a class of
banks.

While plaintiffs in some of the other cases elsewhere are seeking
to combine as multi-district litigation, Mr. Haag said he hopes
this case remains in federal court in Madison.

The lawsuit alleges that Target was negligent because it failed to
properly safeguard customer data and failed to disclose the breach
to customers in a timely manner once the retailer became aware of
it.  It also alleges that Target violated customers' privacy
rights and breached its fiduciary duty to customers.

Hackers managed to get extensive customer data, including credit-
and debit-card numbers.  It was reported last week that the
hackers had breached a data connection between Target and its
heating and ventilation contractor, a connection that was being
used by the contractor to bill Target and exchange other
information with the retailer.

The breach gave hackers access to information on 40 million credit
and debit cards and personal data on about 70 million customers.


TJX COMPANIES: "Valenzuela" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Valenzuela v. The TJX
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-13-533855, was removed from
the San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (Oakland).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00291-KAW to the proceeding.

In her First, Second and Third Causes of Action for Age
Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Ms. Valenzuela seeks
to recover for loss of earnings and other employment benefits,
emotional suffering and punitive damages.  She also alleges that
as a result of the Defendants' alleged retaliation, she "suffered
emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of the minimum
jurisdiction of this court."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Leonard Emma, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS LLC
          580 California Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415)362-1111
          Facsimile: (415)362-1112
          E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com
                  lemma@employment-lawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua J. Cliffe, Esq.
          Emily E. O'Connor, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: icliffe@littler.com
                  eoconnor@littler.com

               - and -

          Julie Dunne, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: jdunne@littler.com


UNITED SERVICES: Faces "Tucker" Suit Alleging Insurance Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brent D. Tucker, Vanessa J. Hollis, Shawn Hayden and Pondez D.
Marignay, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. United Services Automobile Association, USAA Casualty
Insurance Company and USAA General Indemnity Company, Case No.
1:14-cv-00162-WBH (N.D. Ga., January 17, 2014) asserts insurance-
related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Coomes, Esq.
          MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC
          990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 220-9994
          Facsimile: (404) 665-3476
          E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          Building C-101
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Blvd.
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com

               - and -

          David S. Eichholz, Esq.
          THE EICHHOLZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          530 Stephenson Avenue, Suite 200
          Savannah, GA 31405
          Telephone: (912) 232-2791
          E-mail: david@thejusticelawyer.com


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Wants Insurer to Cover Privacy Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, Linda Chiem and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360,
report that OneBeacon America Insurance Co. must indemnify Urban
Outfitters Inc. for a slew of class actions over the use of credit
card ZIP codes, the retailer told a Pennsylvania court on Feb. 7,
arguing that the underlying allegations involve customers' right
to privacy.

Urging the judge to deny OneBeacon's bid for summary judgment,
Urban Outfitters and its subsidiary Anthropologie Inc. said the
insurer is improperly arguing that the underlying suits do not
include allegations that the information was published, even
though state law does not require such allegations for a suit to
fall under the personal and advertising provision of its
commercial general liability policy.

"Pennsylvania law does not require 'widespread dissemination' to
constitute publication under the advertising provision of a CGL
policy," the retailers said in their brief in response to
OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment.  "Indeed, Pennsylvania
law does not even require publication to be to a third party."

The Minnetonka, Minn.-based insurer filed suit against the
retailers in September seeking a declaration that it has no duty
to defend or indemnify them in underlying putative class actions
filed in California, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia
over their policy of asking customers for ZIP codes during credit
card transactions.

The insurer argued that the retailers use the ZIP codes to target
customers in direct marketing campaigns without their permission
by identifying their home or work addresses through commercial
databases.

Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie urged the judge to nix
OneBeacon's motion and instead grant their opposing motion for
summary judgment, arguing that the suits fall under their 2009-
2010 commercial general liability policy.

"Despite acknowledging that its duty to defend is determined by
looking solely at the allegations in the underlying complaint,
OneBeacon ignores the numerous allegations that Urban Outfitters
violated the underlying plaintiffs' right to secrecy, the type of
invasion of privacy that triggers an insurer's duty to defend
under Pennsylvania law," the retailers argued.

They also slammed OneBeacon's assertion that invasion of privacy
requires the publication of secret information, calling it a
"patent misstatement" of law and also saying that each of the
complaints allege publication of personal information.

The retailers also argued that Pennsylvania courts have
consistently found coverage in cases seeking the same types of
damages as those sought in the underlying suits.

In October, Urban filed a third-party complaint against Hanover
Insurance Group Inc. seeking coverage of its defense costs after
OneBeacon refused to indemnify the retailer.

OneBeacon is represented by Michael O. Kassak --
kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com -- and Joshua A. Mooney --
mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com -- of White and Williams LLP.

Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie are represented by Paul L.
Langer -- sgilford@proskauer.com -- Steven R. Gilford --
sgilford@proskauer.com -- Bradley J. Lorden --
blorden@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP and Samuel W.
Cortes -- scortes@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild LLP.

The case is OneBeacon America Insurance Co. v. Urban Outfitters
Inc. et al., case number 2:13-cv-05269, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


VETERANS AFFAIRS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Suits Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Annamma Samji, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, 21 Holmes Street, West Orange, NJ 07052 v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 151 Knollcroft Road, Lyons, NJ 07939; and John
Does 1-10, c/o Department of Veterans Affairs, 151 Knollcroft
Road, Lyons, NJ 07939, Case No. 3:14-cv-00462-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.,
January 17, 2014) alleges that the Defendants intentionally failed
to pay the Plaintiff and Collective Action Plaintiffs proper
overtime compensation earned while in the employ of Defendants.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is a Federal Agency that
operates numerous hospitals throughout the United States.  The
identities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Manali Arora, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  marora@swartz-legal.com


WELLPOINT INC: "Graehl" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Beth Graehl v. Wellpoint Inc.,
et al., Case No. BC 526710, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
00421-BRO-FFM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack M. Schuler, Esq.
          SCHULER AND BROWN
          Airport Center Building
          7100 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Suite 310
          Van Nuys, CA 91406
          Telephone: (818) 756-0999
          Facsimile: (818) 756-0998
          E-mail: schulerbrownlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Prescott Littlefield, Esq.
          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
          E-mail: pwl@kearneylittlefield.com
                  tak@kearneylittlefield.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Wortman, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: jwortman@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Kun, Esq.
          S. Shane Sagheb, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
          1925 Century Park East Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
          E-mail: cemail@ebglaw.com
                  ssagheb@ebglaw.com


WELLS FARGO: "Gangi" FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Gangi v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case
No. 13-10653-CI-15, was removed from the 6th Judicial Circuit
Court, Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00126-MSS-EAJ to the proceeding.

The case is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: greg@florinroebig.com
                  fgo@florinroebig.com

               - and -

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          MIGUEL BOUZAS, PA
          2203 N Louis Ave., Suite 800
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 302-7253
          Facsimile: (813) 302-7256
          E-mail: Miguel@bouzaslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frederick T. Smith, Esq.
          Louisa J. Johnson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          1075 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: fsmith@seyfarth.com
                  lojohnson@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          John M. Hament, Esq.
          Nikhil N. Joshi, Esq.
          KUNKEL, MILLER & HAMENT
          235 N Orange Ave., Suite 200
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 365-6006
          Facsimile: (941) 365-6209
          E-mail: john@kmhlaborlaw.com
                  nikhil@kmhlaborlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: 2nd "Gangi" FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gangi v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.,
Case No. 13-10663-CI-7, was removed from 6th Judicial Circuit
Court Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00127-MSS-MAP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and liquidated damages
owed to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current and
former employees of Wells Fargo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: greg@florinroebig.com
                  fgo@florinroebig.com

               - and -

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          MIGUEL BOUZAS, PA
          2203 N Louis Ave., Suite 800
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 302-7253
          Facsimile: (813) 302-7256
          E-mail: Miguel@bouzaslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frederick T. Smith, Esq.
          Louisa J. Johnson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          1075 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: fsmith@seyfarth.com
                  lojohnson@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          John M. Hament, Esq.
          Nikhil N. Joshi, Esq.
          KUNKEL, MILLER & HAMENT
          235 N Orange Ave., Suite 200
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 365-6006
          Facsimile: (941) 365-6209
          E-mail: john@kmhlaborlaw.com
                  nikhil@kmhlaborlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: "Hunt" FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hunt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 13-01727-CI-15, was removed from the Sixth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00129-VMC-AEP to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and liquidated damages
owed to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current and
former employees of Wells Fargo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: greg@florinroebig.com
                  fgo@florinroebig.com

               - and -

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          MIGUEL BOUZAS, PA
          2203 N Louis Ave., Suite 800
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 302-7253
          Facsimile: (813) 302-7256
          E-mail: Miguel@bouzaslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frederick T. Smith, Esq.
          Louisa J. Johnson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          1075 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: fsmith@seyfarth.com
                  lojohnson@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          John M. Hament, Esq.
          Nikhil N. Joshi, Esq.
          KUNKEL, MILLER & HAMENT
          235 N Orange Ave., Suite 200
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 365-6006
          Facsimile: (941) 365-6209
          E-mail: john@kmhlaborlaw.com
                  nikhil@kmhlaborlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: 2nd "Hunt" FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hunt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 13-010756-CI-7, was removed from the 6th Judicial
Circuit, Pinellas County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00128-EAK-TGW to the proceeding.

The case asserts violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: greg@florinroebig.com

               - and -

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          MIGUEL BOUZAS, PA
          2203 N Louis Ave., Suite 800
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 302-7253
          Facsimile: (813) 302-7256
          E-mail: Miguel@bouzaslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John M. Hament, Esq.
          Nikhil N. Joshi, Esq.
          KUNKEL, MILLER & HAMENT
          235 N Orange Ave., Suite 200
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 365-6006
          Facsimile: (941) 365-6209
          E-mail: john@kmhlaborlaw.com
                  nikhil@kmhlaborlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Calif. Appeals Court Flips Ruling in Goodman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In COBY GOODMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendant and Respondent, NO. B243614, Mr. Goodman appealed
from a judgment in favor of Wells Fargo following a trial court's
sustaining of defendant's demurrer to a second amended complaint
(SAC).  The Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because
he stated facts sufficient to constitute the causes of action
pleaded in the SAC: breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and
violations of unfair competition law (UCL), Business & Professions
Code sections 17200 et seq.

In his second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the
defendant failed to provide him with a permanent loan
modification, and as a proximate cause thereof, he lost title to
his property, lost equity in his property, incurred costs and
expenses in connection with preparing and presenting documents and
information to defendant, did not seek alternatives to
modification such as refinancing or selling the property, given a
lowered credit score, and suffered emotional distress.  Mr.
Goodman filed the second amended complaint as a class action on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Five, reversed the trial court ruling on the case and held that
Mr. Goodman stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action for breach of contract. Systematic breaches of consumer
contracts can constitute an unfair business practice under the
UCL, said the Court. The Plaintiff's allegations that defendant
systematically breached the trial period plan contract by refusing
to provide him and the putative class members with a permanent
loan modification agreement are sufficient to state a class action
claim under the UCL, the Court added.

The Calif. Appeals Court awarded Mr. Goodman his costs on appeal.

A copy of the Appeals Court's January 30, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/kSkBfTfrom Leagle.com.

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com --
Thomas J. O'Reardon -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- Kaplan Lee,
Jonathon Kaplan -- kaplan@kaplanweiss.com -- Yitz E. Weiss --
yweiss@kaplanweiss.com -- and Paul Y. Lee for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

K&L Gates, Kevin S. Asfour -- kevin.asfour@klgates.com -- Irene C.
Freidel -- irene.freidel@klgates.com -- pro hac vice, for
Defendant and Respondent.


WINCO HOLDINGS: Removed "McCormack" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Natalie McCormack v. Winco
Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. RIC1200516, was removed from the
Riverside County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Riverside).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00118-RGK-DTB to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that during all relevant periods, the
Defendant failed to provide cashiers, including her, with seating,
despite the fact that the nature of cashier work at the
Defendant's retail stores reasonably permits the use of seats.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel H. Qualls, Esq.
          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Aviva N. Roller, Esq.
          QUALLS & WORKMAN
          177 Post Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415)782-3660
          Facsimile: (415)788-1028
          E-mail: dan@qualls-workman.com
                  robin@qualls-workman.com
                  aviva@qualls-workman.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (888) 474-7242
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dennis M. Brown, Esq.
          Marlene S. Muraco, Esq.
          Karin M. Cogbill, Esq.
          LITTLER MBNDBLSON, P,C,
          50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113-2303
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
          E-mail: dmbrown@littler.com
                  mmuraco@littler.com
                  kcogbill@littler.com


WING KEUNG ENTERPRISES: Class Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chaohui Tang, Jianlin Li, and Qing Ze Liu, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc.,
and John Does #1-10, Jane Does #1-10, Company ABC #1-10, Case No.
1:14-cv-00390-JBW-LB (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees of
the Defendants are entitled to, among other things: (i) unpaid
wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not
receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and (ii) unpaid
minimum wages for hours for which they were paid less than the
minimum wages.

Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc., is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Flushing, New York.  The identities
of the Doe Defendants and Company ABC are unknown at this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Heng Wang, Esq.
          HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          7 Mott Street, Suite 600A
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (646) 543-5848
          Facsimile: (646) 572-8998
          E-mail: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com


WISCONSIN: Leonard's Suit vs. Dept. of Corrections Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
In JARRELL LEONARD, Plaintiff, v. GARY H. HAMBLIN, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 12-CV-755-WMC, (W.D. Wisc.), state inmate Jarrell
Leonard filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
concerning the conditions of his confinement in different
facilities within the Wisconsin Department of Corrections
("WDOC"). He has been found indigent and he requests leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for purposes of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. Section l
915(b)(l). Because he is incarcerated, the PLRA also requires the
court to screen the complaint and dismiss any portion that is
legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted or asks for money damages from a defendant
who by law cannot be sued for money damages. In addressing any pro
se litigant's complaint, the court must read the allegations
generously, reviewing them under "less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

In a January 29, 2014 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/8yjN05from Leagle.com, District Judge William M.
Conley ruled that:

1. Mr. Leonard's request for leave to proceed is denied and his
   complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
   claim.

2. Mr. Leonard's motion for appointment of counsel and his
   implicit motion for class certification are denied as moot.

3. To proceed, the plaintiff must file an amended complaint within
   thirty days of the date of the order. That proposed amended
   complaint must set forth a "short and plain statement" of the
   facts in support of his claims, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and
   must include only those claims and defendants that relate to a
   single transaction or common question of law and fact for
   purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a).

4. If the plaintiff submits an amended complaint in compliance
   with the order, the court will take that complaint under
   consideration for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section l
   915A. If the plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint as
   directed, then the case will be closed without further notice
   pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b).


ZALE CORP: Fails to Own Blind-Accessible POS Devices, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zale Corporation d/b/a Piercing Pagoda, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00078-LPL (W.D. Pa., January 17, 2014) alleges that the Company
fails to design, construct, own or operate Point of Sale Devices
that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind
people, including the Plaintiff.

Zale Corporation, doing business as Piercing Pagoda, is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
          Carlos Diaz, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com


* Maryland Officials Continue Probe on Cheese-Linked Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Maryland health official says
people sickened in recent months by a Listeria outbreak have
recovered, and there have been no new confirmed cases.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported seven
illnesses in Maryland linked to Hispanic-style cheese that were
diagnosed between August and November of last year.

Dr. Clifford Mitchell of the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene said on Feb. 22 the sickened patients live in the
"national capital region."  He says state officials have not yet
linked the illnesses to a particular product but are continuing to
investigate a possible connection.

In the meantime, he says health officials are distributing
advisories in English and Spanish telling customers to avoid the
cheese.

Listeria is a serious illness that includes fever and muscle
aches, often with other gastrointestinal symptoms.


* Northland Farmers in New Zealand Mull Class Suit v. Major Banks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Gray, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reports that
aggressive lending practices by the major banks have forced 30
Northland farmers off their land in the past 18 months through
mortgagee sales, according to a Dargaville-based lobby group.

Farmers of New Zealand, an alternative to Federated Farmers, said
a meeting planned for March would raise the possibility of
aggrieved farmers taking a class action against the banks.

John Waugh, a barrister and former banking executive, will advise
farmers on their rights, said Farmers of NZ's operations director,
Bill Guest.  He expected the meeting to take place soon after the
Northland Agricultural Field Days at Dargaville from February 27
to March 1.

Guest said 25 to 30 farmers had walked off their land over the
past 18 months and he expected the number to reach 40.  Drought in
parts of Northland and Kaipara had made matters worse for many
farmers, he said.

In many cases farmer debt loads had been unrealistically high and
the banks' risk analysis procedures had been "seriously lacking".

"Farmers of NZ believes that they were set up to fail, and some
people have lost their shirts."

He said the norm for farm lending was for debt servicing to be
about 25 per cent of gross income.  In some cases, debt servicing
was as high as 100 per cent, and in one case 114 per cent -- "a
lot of it on the back-of-cigarette-packet lending".

The meeting was also likely to cover the controversy surrounding
interest rate swaps.


                             *********

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.  Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *