CAR_Public/140303.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 43

                             Headlines


A HARVEST COMPANY: Recalls Cork Stacker Block Sets
ALFA GENERAL: Faces "Curry" Class Suit Asserting Insurance Claims
ANNA'S LINENS: Violates California Consumers' Privacy, Suit Says
ANZ BANK: 15 WA Farmers Mull Class Action
AZIZ AND COMPANIES: Class Seeks Payment of Wages and Damages

BJ'S WHOLESALE: Mid-Managers Seek to Recover Wages for OT Hours
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Lambda Legal Files Class Action in Louisiana
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Judge Tosses Suit Over Transmission Defects
BORGATA HOTEL: Faces Suit Over Poker Event "Chipgate" Scandal
BRENTWOOD BWI: DISCEPOLO LLP Files Class Action in Maryland

BUY LOW: Recalls Signature Cafe, Fresh 'n Delicious & Nester's Own
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Investors' Class Actions Can Proceed
CHILDREN INT'L: Removed "Espinosa" Suit to S.D. California
DONALD TRUMP: Fails to Dismiss "Cohen" Class Action
DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Class in "Makaeff" Suit

FAIRBRIDGE FARM: Abused Child Migrants' Class Action Can Proceed
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Removed "Hustead" Suit to W.D. Washington
FLS LANGUAGE: "Huston" Case Remanded to Superior Court
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 842,000 Vehicles Over Ignition Issues
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 21 Cars Over Auto Transmission Problems

GENIE COMPANY: Recalls Genie PowerMax 1500 Garage Door Openers
HERSHEY CO: Judge Dismisses Chocolate Price-Fixing Complaints
IMPAX LABORATORIES: March 13 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss
INDIANA: Second Class Action v. BMV Seeks Refund of Overcharges
INFANTINO: Monkey-Shaped Teethers Recalled for Choking Hazard

INTERCEPT PHARMA: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New York
LAST IN CONCEPTS: Inmate Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages & Damages
MALKIN HOLDINGS: Shareholders Lose Suit Over Public Offering
MAYBELLINE LLC: Bid to File Docs. Under Seal Gets Court Approval
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ordered to Produce Docs in "Gold" Class Action

MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT: Recalls Onya Outback Child Carrier
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Silverman Firm Files Amended Class Action in D.C.
NU SKIN: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Utah
ROWE FINE: Recalls About 220 Ottomans Due to Suffocation Risk
SEMINOLE, FL: Court Denies Bid for Leave to Proceed on Appeal

PFIZER INC: Bid for Relief From Discovery Order Denied
SEVEN OAKS: Settles Legionnaires' Disease Class Action for $1.2MM
STANDARD INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in "Nelson" Class Action
STX LLC: Recalls Shield Throat Protector Due to Laceration Hazard
TARGET CORP: Data Breach Expenses Reach $61 Million

TECHNICA GROUP: Recalls Rollerblade Tempest Inline Skates
TRIANGLE BUILDING: Violates FLSA, Insulation Installer Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Warranties
WAL-MART STORES: Plaintiff's Class Action Evidence "Incompetent"
WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Consolidated Complaint Dismissed as Moot

ZYNGA INC: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit Over IPO

* Missouri House Backs Bill on Medical Malpractice Damages Cap


                             *********


A HARVEST COMPANY: Recalls Cork Stacker Block Sets
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with A
Harvest Company, of Huntley, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of
about 720 sets Cork Stacker block sets.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Small pieces of cork can break off the blocks, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

The firm has received seven reports of cork pieces breaking off of
the blocks, including two reports of children mouthing the cork
pieces.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves a three-piece cork block stacking toy.  Each
of the square cork blocks are a different size: 2 7/8 inch by 2
7/8 inch, 2 3/8 inch by 2 3/8 inch and 2 inch by 2 inch.  All of
the blocks are 1 1/2 inches tall.  The blocks have black dots on
the top. The packaging is labeled "6mo+" for use by children six
months and older.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/qFES6s

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
exclusively online by StorkStack.com during January 2014 as part
of the January Stork Stack subscription for about $30 for a total
of five products.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cork block
toys and contact A Harvest Company for instructions to return the
block sets for a merchandise credit.


ALFA GENERAL: Faces "Curry" Class Suit Asserting Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cayce Curry, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alfa General Insurance Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-
00030-CAR (M.D. Ga., January 22, 2014) asserts insurance-related
claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam P. Princenthal, Esq.
          C. Cooper Knowles, Esq.
          ANDREWS, KNOWLES & PRINCENTHAL, LLC
          260 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 502
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 524-4000
          E-mail: aprincenthal@akpfirm.com
                  cknowles@akpfirm.com

               - and -

          Clinton W. Sitton, Esq.
          KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC
          4840 Roswell Rd., Suite E200
          Atlanta, GA 30342
          Telephone: (404) 257-0777
          E-mail: clint@kopelmansitton.com

               - and -

          Richard Kopelman, Esq.
          KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC
          1801 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 351-5900
          E-mail: richard@kopelmansitton.com


ANNA'S LINENS: Violates California Consumers' Privacy, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shielah R. Creus, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anna's Linens, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-00500-ABC-JEM (C.D.
Cal., January 22, 2014) seeks relief for claims arising from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act through its unwanted cellular telephone contact of California
consumers.

Specifically, Ms. Creus contends, the Defendant has violated the
TCPA by sending unsolidted text messages advertising its products
to unwilling California consumers, consequently violating their
privacy.

Anna's Linens, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Costa Mesa, California.  The Company is a retailer of home
textiles and home decor items.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Harris, Esq.
          NORTH BAY LAW GROUP
          116 E. Blithedale Avenue, Suite 2
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 388-8788
          Facsimile: (415) 388-8770
          E-mail: dsh@northbaylawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Greg L. Johnson, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          2850 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 450
          Sacramento, CA 95833
          Telephone: (916) 564-5400
          Facsimile: (916) 564-5444
          E-mail: gjohnson@lbbslaw.com


ANZ BANK: 15 WA Farmers Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Jessica Hayes, writing for Farm Weekly, reports that about 15 WA
farmers have expressed interest in joining a potential class
action against the ANZ Bank.  The class action will be facilitated
by farm lobby group Rural Action Movement (RAM).  Those farmers
involved in the action have already sought legal advice and met
with lawyers in Perth.

RAM president Greg Kenney said although the class action was
initially slow to gain momentum, there had been a reasonable
response.

"Certainly we have plenty of people who are keen to pursue this,"
Mr. Kenney said.

"They are from everywhere, places where you wouldn't believe,
mainly the inner sanctum of the central Wheatbelt.

"They have bought land and exposed themselves to a bit of debt,
suddenly their equity has dropped and they have fallen into this
sub-prime category."

Interestingly, Mr. Kenney said there had only been interest from
three producers from the eastern Wheatbelt region.

Despite a good 2013/14 harvest, Mr. Kenney said the financial
situation in rural WA was still desperate.

"There is still a lot of pain in the bush," he said.

Mr. Kenney said one of RAM's core objectives was for both the
Federal and State Governments to reinstate a sovereign primary
industries bank to cater for the unique financial requirements of
rural Australia.


AZIZ AND COMPANIES: Class Seeks Payment of Wages and Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sangita Patel, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Aziz and Companies, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00158-MSS-AEP (M.D.
Fla., January 22, 2014) is brought for unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorney fees/costs and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiff worked as an hourly worker for the
Defendant.

Aziz and Companies LLC is a for profit corporation that operates
and conducts business in, among others, Pinellas County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William John Gadd, Esq.
          W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          Facsimile: (727) 524-6330
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Mid-Managers Seek to Recover Wages for OT Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annabelle Powell and Galan Newton, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00081-AVC (D. Conn., January 22, 2014) is brought
on behalf similarly situated current and former "mid-managers" of
BJ's, including Membership Acquisition and Retention Managers,
Bakery Managers, Perishable Managers and other mid-manager
positions.

The Plaintiffs contend that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, they are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendant for all
overtime hours worked by them, as required by law, and are
entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.

BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation.  The
Company owns and operates over 180 retail consumer superstores
nationwide, and 13 within the state of Connecticut.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          Erick Ignacio Diaz-Vazquez, Esq.
          Margaret B. Ferron, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                  ediaz@hayberlawfirm.com
                  mferron@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq.
          QUINN LAW FIRM, LLC
          204 S. Broad St.
          Milford, CT 06460
          Telephone: (203) 877-5400
          Facsimile: (203) 877-5416
          E-mail: apantuso@quinn-lawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lori B. Alexander, Esq.
          Paul A. Testa, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Century Tower, Suite 300
          265 Church Street
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 974-8701
          Facsimile: (203) 907-1861
          E-mail: lalexander@littler.com
                  ptesta@littler.com


BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Lambda Legal Files Class Action in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Gazette reports that Lambda Legal has filed a federal
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Louisiana against
BlueCross BlueShield of Louisiana, which will no longer accept the
federally-funded premium subsidies that enable low-income
Louisianans living with HIV to purchase health insurance.

Two other insurers were included as defendants -- Louisiana Health
Cooperative and Vantage Health Plan.

In a request for an emergency injunction, Lambda is asking the
court to force the insurers to accept premium payments from the
customers and to provide health insurance until the lawsuit is
heard.

Lambda Legal filed the suit after already filing complaints about
the situation in Louisiana with the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Office of Civil Rights.  The national legal defense
group is working with the New Orleans AIDS Task Force on the
issue.

The Louisiana Ryan White Health Insurance Program is federally-
funded and functions as the payer of last resort in the state,
helping low-income individuals living with HIV purchase health
insurance they could not otherwise afford, according to Lambda.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Judge Tosses Suit Over Transmission Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360,
report that BMW of North America LLC dodged a proposed class
action accusing it of defrauding consumers by producing cars that
rolled away after improperly shifting from park to neutral after a
New Jersey federal judge ruled on Feb. 19 that the plaintiff
hadn't shown the company knew about the defect.

In dismissing the suit for the second time, U.S. District Judge
Stanley R. Chesler ruled that plaintiff Monica McQueen had failed
to factually support her claim that BMW hid transmission defects
in 7-Series vehicles made between 2001 and 2008, in violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

"Plaintiff has still not presented sufficient factual allegations
to support the plausible inference that BMW . . . concealed,
suppressed or omitted a material fact," the judge held, dismissing
the claim with prejudice.

Ms. McQueen filed the suit in 2012, claiming that her 2004 BMW
745i had shifted into reverse when she had it in park, which
caused potentially $4,000 worth of damages.  Judge Chesler
dismissed the suit with leave to amend in August, finding that the
complaint had not asserted specific enough claims to meet the
heightened pleading standards of the NJCFA.

In the Feb. 20 decision, Judge Chesler conceded that Ms. McQueen
had provided significantly more detail about her car's alleged
defects in the amended complaint, including a new theory that the
rollaways were stemmed from a combination of design and software
problems, which caused the vehicles to shift into neutral when
faced with random system failures.

However, the judge remained unconvinced that BMW knew about these
alleged defects, and pointed out that the amended pleading stated
that BMW received a paltry "less than 10" complaints about
failures in 7-Series vehicles made from 2001 to 2008.

Judge Chesler also eviscerated the plaintiff's claim that BMW knew
of the rollaway defect because the company had designed the car,
calling the argument circular and saying that this line of
reasoning could be used to inappropriately attribute knowledge to
any manufacturer that designs a product that is later alleged to
be defective.

"Plaintiff cannot equate design choices with fraudulent conduct
simply by saying so and without pleading facts supporting a
plausible inference of knowledge on BMW's part," the judge said.

Judge Chesler also said that Ms. McQueen hadn't helped her
argument by mentioning in her complaint BMW's 2012 recall of 7-
Series cars equipped with a "Comfort Access System," which were
recalled for potential rollaway issues.

Ms. McQueen had argued that although BMW only recalled 7-series
cars equipped with CAS capabilities for possible defects, all of
the company's 7-series vehicles made between 2002 and 2008 had
faulty electronic transmission systems.

Judge Chesler did not view the recall as evidence of defect claims
in non-CAS equipped cars, and said that the amended complaint was
"an attempt to piggyback a consumer fraud lawsuit" onto the 2012
recall.

In addition to dismissing the consumer fraud claim with prejudice,
Judge Chesler tossed McQueen's warranty claims, saying that her
car's alleged defect did not occur within the time and distance
restrictions of the warranty.

He also rejected Ms. McQueen's argument that the warranty was
unconscionable because BMW had hid the defect, as nothing in the
complaint indicated that the car company was aware of the problem.

BMW is represented by Rosemary Joan Bruno --
rosemary.bruno@bipc.com -- and Christopher J. Dalton --
christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

Ms. McQueen is represented by Scott Alan George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- and Jonathan Shub --
jshub@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss LLP, Richard J. Burke and
Jamie E. Weiss of Complex Litigation Group LLC and Adam J. Levitt
-- alevitt@gelaw.com -- and Edmund S. Aronowitz --
earonowitz@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer PA.

The case is McQueen v. BMW of North America LLC et al., case
number 2:12-cv-06674, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


BORGATA HOTEL: Faces Suit Over Poker Event "Chipgate" Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Burton, writing for PokerNewsDaily reports that after more
than a month without a decision on the event, a class action
lawsuit has been filed by poker players from Event #1 of the 2014
Borgata Winter Poker Open against the casino alleging fraud,
negligence and improper supervision of the tournament.

According to Jennifer Bogdan of the Press of Atlantic City, Egg
Harbor, NJ, resident Jacob Musterel filed the class action suit on
behalf of the more than 4000 players who participated in the
tournament back in mid-January.  Mr. Musterel, one of 27 players
that were remaining in the tournament when it was suspended, is
looking to have all players' money refunded to them and
reimbursement for any incidental damages (travel expenses,
potentially hotel bills, etc.) that they may have incurred.

Mr. Musterel's attorney, Bruce LiCausi, seems to have put together
a decent class action case for the New Jersey courts to look at.
Mr. LiCausi alleges that the Borgata had inadequate staff and
security for the conduct of the tournament and, perhaps more
damning, that the Borgata tournament officials ignored player
comments about the counterfeit chips as the tournament was in
progress.  Finally, the document alleges that Borgata officials
didn't conduct a chip count on a regular basis, stating that they
"acted negligently in permitting an utterly rigged gaming event to
occur at their casino."

The target of the litigation is keeping silent on the issue of the
tournament and the resulting lawsuit.  Ms. Bogdan could elicit no
comment from Borgata spokesman Brian Brennan (he referred her to
the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement) and DGE spokeswoman
Kerry Langan stated that the investigation is still ongoing.  As
this occurs, an order is still in place for the remaining prize
pool from the tournament to be held in escrow and the 27 players
remaining in the tournament left in limbo.

The tournament was expected to be a huge kickoff for what is one
of the biggest poker events held at the Borgata.  The $500 (plus
$60 juice) buy in tournament guaranteed a prize pool of $2 million
and the players flocked to the event.  More than 4000 people put
up their entry fee but, following the completion of the multiple
Day Ones on the schedule, circumstances prevented the tournament
from reaching its conclusion.

Acting on a tip from another Atlantic City casino, Borgata
officials discovered that 800,000 in counterfeit chips had been
introduced into the tournament.  After consultation with the DGE
and other state gaming officials, the Borgata decided to cancel
the remainder of the tournament, leaving the remaining prize pool
(approximately 400 players had already received their reward for
cashing in the tournament) and the 27 players left in the
tournament to wonder when -- or if -- they would ever finish the
tournament.

Casino officials and law enforcement continued to investigate the
case and allege that a North Carolina man, Christian Lusardi,
introduced those chips into the tournament and may have had plans
to use more.

According to Ms. Bogdan, the investigation continues to examine
other angles, such as whether Mr. Lusardi had any accomplices in
the scheme.  The class action lawsuit, however, may speed up that
investigation so that there is some closure for the players in the
tournament.


BRENTWOOD BWI: DISCEPOLO LLP Files Class Action in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of DISCEPOLO LLP on Feb. 21 disclosed that it has
filed a Class Action Lawsuit alleging negligence against the
Westin Baltimore Washington Airport - BWI Hotel on behalf of the
injured guests who suffered carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning during
the Valentine's Weekend (2/15/14-2/16/14).  The Class Action is
McKisset, et al. v. Brentwood BWI One LLC, filed in the Circuit
Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County, case number
02C14185492.

The complaint alleges that, during evacuation, firefighters
recorded extremely dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, over 700
parts per million -- a level of a mere 35 parts per million is
considered by many fire departments to be a dangerous level of
carbon monoxide.  The complaint further alleges that as many as
400 people may have been injured because of a carbon monoxide leak
stemming from water heater in the laundry room that was not
properly venting to the outside.  "Once it started in the laundry
room, it went throughout the whole hotel," said attorney Don
Discepolo.

The allegations in the complaint include that dangerously high
levels of carbon monoxide were detected on every floor of the
hotel, including the third floor where class plaintiff
Merlitha McKisset spent the weekend.  She says she started feeling
ill Saturday morning after sleeping soundly Friday night.
Ms. McKisset checked out of the hotel Sunday before firefighters
arrived and took herself to a hospital.  Brain damage and bodily
injury from carbon monoxide poisoning, even with treatment, are
serious and can be permanent.

The Class Action filed by DISCEPOLO LLP, on behalf of Ms. McKisset
and other Westin guests that weekend faults the hotel for
negligence. "When they offer a room to rent, they have a duty to
make sure that the hotel is safe.  In this situation, we believe
they breached that duty because they weren't taking care of the
venting system in the laundry," Mr. Discepolo said.  For now,
58-year-old McKisset is glad to be alive but is asking questions.
"We all could have been dead.  Nothing but the grace of God,"
Ms. McKisset said.

Westin previously issued statements apologizing to the affected
guests and saying they would look into how to ensure that it does
not happen again.

Attorney Don Discepolo has considerable experience in the area
carbon monoxide litigation and helped to obtain the State of
Maryland's highest verdict of $34.3 Million dollars for carbon
monoxide injured workers at the Ruth Chris Restaurant in
Baltimore, Maryland.  The case was Wynn, et al. v. MJ Harbor Hotel
LLC, et al., case number N 24-C-08-001376, in the Circuit Court of
Maryland for Baltimore City.  Attorneys of Discepolo LLP have also
been specially admitted throughout the United States to represent
injured clients in carbon monoxide poisonings.

If you or someone you know was at the BWI Westin from 2/15/14
through 2/16/14, and has experienced flu-like symptoms including
headaches or nausea, please call DISCEPOLO LLP today at (410) 296-
0780.


BUY LOW: Recalls Signature Cafe, Fresh 'n Delicious & Nester's Own
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Buy Low Foods Ltd., Safeway
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:     8663

Safeway and Buy-Low Foods are recalling Caesar salad products from
the marketplace due to possible Listeria contamination.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold in Alberta and British
Columbia (Buy-Low Foods and Nesters Market) and in Alberta,
British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan (Safeway and
St. Martin's Family Foods).

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Investors' Class Actions Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
private investors burned in Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi
scheme can move ahead with their state-law class actions against
two prominent law firms and insurance brokers, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled on Feb. 26.

The federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
(SLUSA) does not bar the investors' claims against Chadbourne &
Parke, Proskauer Rose and insurance broker Willis of Colorado for
allegedly aiding and abetting Stanford's fraud, Justice Stephen
Breyer wrote for a 7-2 majority.

The federal law forbids large securities class actions based on
state law in which plaintiffs allege "a misrepresentation or
omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or
sale of a covered security."  In the three consolidated cases
before the court -- Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice, Willis of
Colorado v. Troice and Proskauer Rose v. Troice -- the question
for the justices was how far that language reached: Did it extend
beyond misrepresentations that are material to the purchase or
sale of a covered security?

"In our view, the scope of this language does not extend further,"
Justice Breyer wrote.  "A fraudulent misrepresentation or omission
is not made 'in connection with' such a 'purchase or sale of a
covered security' unless it is material to a decision by one or
more individuals (other than the fraudster) to buy or to sell a
'covered security.'"

The securities involved in the state-law class actions were not
"covered securities" under SLUSA because they were not traded
nationally or listed on a regulated national exchange.

In their state suits, the investor-plaintiffs claimed they were
induced to purchase CDs, which are uncovered securities, based on
false representations that the money paid for the CDs would be
used to purchase highly lucrative assets.  They alleged the
defendants helped the bank and Stanford perpetrate the fraud or
conceal it from regulators.

Justice Breyer wrote that the federal law did not bar those class
actions for several reasons:

First, the law focuses on transactions in covered securities, not
in uncovered securities. There must be a material connection with
a transaction in a covered security.

Second, a natural reading of the act's language supports that
interpretation.  "The phrase 'material fact in connection with the
purchase or sale' suggests a connection that matters,"
Justice Breyer wrote.  "And for present purposes, a connection
matters where the misrepresentation makes a significant difference
to someone's decision to purchase or to sell a covered security,
not to purchase or to sell an uncovered security, something about
which the Act expresses no concern."

Additionally, case law supports the majority's interpretation, he
said.  "As far as we are aware, every securities case in which
this Court has found a fraud to be 'in connection with' a purchase
or sale of a security has involved victims who took, who tried to
take, who divested themselves of, who tried to divest themselves
of, or who maintained an ownership interest in financial
instruments that fall within the relevant statutory definition.
We have found no Court case involving a fraud 'in connection with'
the purchase or sale of a statutorily defined security in which
the victims did not fit one of these descriptions."


CHILDREN INT'L: Removed "Espinosa" Suit to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Espinosa v. Children
International, et al., Case No. ECU08012, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Imperial, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00152-
LAB-BLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa Gilford, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
          E-mail: Lisa.Gilford@skadden.com


DONALD TRUMP: Fails to Dismiss "Cohen" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied a motion to dismiss the
case entitled ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant, CASE
NO. 13-CV-2519-GPC-WVG, RELATED CASE NO. 10-CV-0940-GPC-WVG, (S.D.
Cal.).

Defendant Donald J. Trump ("Defendant") moves to dismiss Plaintiff
Art Cohen's ("Plaintiff") putative class action Complaint on
multiple grounds pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, to strike portions of the
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The
Parties have fully briefed both motions.  Pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds the matter suitable for
adjudication without oral argument.

Mr. Cohen alleged that, but for misrepresentations made by Trump
University, he would not have paid for Trump University programs.
Specifically, he alleged the following misrepresentations: that
the programs would give access to Donald Trump's real estate
investing secrets; that Donald Trump had a meaningful role in
selecting the instructors for Trump University programs; and that
Trump University was a "university."  Mr. Cohen filed his
complaint on October 18, 2013, alleging a single cause of action
for mail and wire fraud in violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The Defendant moved the Court for
dismissal of the Complaint, or in the alternative, for the Court
to strike portions of Plaintiff's Complaint.

According to Judge Curiel, "the allegations at issue in this case
are not time barred; have not been extensively litigated; and
relate to a party in this case rather than a third-party
predecessor-in-interest not before the court."  Therefore, the
Court denied the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's
allegations related to governmental investigations into Trump
University and Trump University's Better Business Bureau rating.
The Court also denied the Defendant's motion to strike the
paragraphs of the Complaint containing statements considered by
Defendant to constitute "mere puffery."

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/Ktuf18from Leagle.com.


DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Class in "Makaeff" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted in part and denied in
part a motion to certify the class in the case captioned TARLA
MAKAEFF, et al., on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM, CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0940-GPC-
WVG, (S.D. Cal.).

The gravamen of the action is that Defendants made false
representations in advertisements, mailings and programs regarding
Donald Trump's involvement in TU and the contents of the programs
that students would receive. On September 24, 2012, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification, appointment of class
representatives, and appointment of class counsel.  In addition,
the parties have filed and fully briefed several related motions
to strike and objections to evidence.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for
the following class and subclasses:

All persons who purchased a Trump University three-day live
"Fulfillment" workshop and/or a "Elite" program ("Live Events") in
California, New York and Florida, and have not received a full
refund, divided into the following five subclasses:

(1) a California UCL/CLRA/Misleading Advertisement subclass of
    purchasers of the Trump University Fulfillment and Elite
    Seminars who purchased the program in California within the
    applicable statute of limitations;

(2) a California Financial Elder Abuse subclass of purchasers of
    the Trump University Fulfillment and Elite Seminars who are
    over the age of 65 years of age and purchased the program in
    California within the applicable statute of limitations;

(3) a New York General Business Law Sec. 349 subclass of
    purchasers of the Trump University Fulfillment and Elite
    Seminars who purchased the program in New York within the
    applicable statute of limitations;

(4) a Florida Misleading Advertising Law subclass of purchasers of
    the Trump University Fulfillment and Elite Seminars who
    purchased the program in Florida within the applicable statute
    of limitations; and

(5) a Florida Financial Elder Abuse subclass of purchasers of the
    Trump University Fulfillment and Elite Seminars who are over
    the age of 60 years of age and purchased the program in
    Florida within the applicable statute of limitations.

Excluded from the class are Defendants, their officers and
directors, families and legal representatives, heirs, successors,
or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have a controlling
interest, any Judge assigned to this case and their immediate
families.

Additionally, the Court appointed Tarla Makaeff, Sonny Low, J.R.
Everett and John Brown as class representatives. Since Ed Oberkrom
is not a resident of California, New York, or Florida, the Court
declined to appoint him as a class representative. The Court
appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zeldes Haeggquist &
Eck, as class counsel.

The Court denied the motions to strike and overruled evidentiary
objections.

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/hhE3T8from Leagle.com.


FAIRBRIDGE FARM: Abused Child Migrants' Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Hall, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
former child migrants who were subject to alleged physical and
sexual abuse at the Fairbridge Farm School have been given the
green light to sue the state and federal government.

The class action has been filed on behalf of more than 60 people
who lived at the Molong farm, in the state's Central West, between
1938 and 1974.

Fairbridge Farm School was home to around 1000 children, some as
young as four, who had been sent from their homes in England.

Law firm Slater and Gordon is running the class action against the
Commonwealth, the State of New South Wales and the Fairbridge
Foundation.

In the NSW Supreme Court on Feb. 21, Justice Peter Garling ruled
the class action, which commenced in December 2009, can proceed.

Slater and Gordon said the former residents are claiming the
Foundation and the two governments allowed a system of
institutional abuse to develop and persist over many decades.

It is alleged in the class action that both governments had a duty
of care to the children and that insufficient action was taken to
ensure their safety.

"They claim that the defendants are legally liable in damages to
them for the harm, physical and psychological, which they suffered
from such abuse," Justice Garling said.

Guardianship for the children was given to the Federal Minister
for Immigration who in turn transferred custodial responsibilities
to the State of NSW Child Welfare Department.

Justice Garling said both levels of government and the Foundation
"dispute liability, dispute that they owe duties of the kind
pleaded, dispute as a matter of fact that there was any breach of
their obligations and advance various positive defenses to the
claims of the plaintiffs."

Each of the defendants argued the class action should not be
allowed to go ahead, including on the grounds that it "would not
provide an efficient and effective means of dealing with the
claims of the group members."

The named plaintiffs, Geraldine Giles and Vivian Drady, were
resident at the Fairbridge Farm -- Ms. Giles between 1954 and
1964, and Ms. Drady between 1959 and 1971.  They are representing
a further 65 other former residents.

In a statement, Slater and Gordon said several attempts have been
made over the past six years to create a compensation scheme.

Slater and Gordon lawyer Roop Sandhu called on the state and
federal governments to discuss a resolution with his clients and
work towards a settlement.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Removed "Hustead" Suit to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Hustead v. Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Case No. 14-2-01734-1, was
removed from the King County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00100-MJP to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Audrey L. Udashen, Esq.
          NORTHWEST CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          520 East Denny Way
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Telephone: (206) 805-0989
          E-mail: audrey@nwclc.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erica L. Calderas, Esq.
          HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 2800
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 621-0150
          E-mail: elcalderas@hahnlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Larkin, II, Esq.
          FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP
          1200 6th Avenue, Suite 620
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-4525
          E-mail: tom.larkin@fnf.com


FLS LANGUAGE: "Huston" Case Remanded to Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, remanded the case captioned
PETER HUSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FLS LANGUAGE CENTRES d/b/a FLS
International, DAL SWAIN, and RICARDO SILVA, Defendants, CIVIL NO.
13-13158-FDS, (D. Mass.) to the Massachusetts Superior Court for
Suffolk County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Mr. Huston brought this suit against defendants FLS Language
Centres d/b/a/FLS International, Dal Swain, and Ricardo Silva for
failure to pay wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149,
Section 18, and violations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage
Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, Section 1.

The Plaintiff originally brought this action in Suffolk Superior
Court. On December 13, 2013, defendants removed the case to
Massachusetts Court. The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case to state court on December 18, 2013, contending that the case
does not satisfy the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. On
January 3, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

"[P]laintiff's motion to remand will be granted, and plaintiff's
request for attorneys' fees will be denied. Defendants' motion to
dismiss will remain pending after remand to the Superior Court,"
ruled Judge Saylor. "[T]he amount in controversy here is no
greater than the alleged wages, trebled (no more than $13,728)
plus the cost of an audit (likely approximately $1,750), plus
reasonable attorney's fees and expenses (likely in the
neighborhood of $15,000 to $25,000, and no greater than $50,000).
Accordingly, the case will be remanded to the Superior Court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

"[T]he civil cover sheet claimed damages of more than $250,000;
the complaint did not allege how many hours plaintiff worked, how
much he was paid, or his hourly wage; and at least some case law
supported defendants' removal. Accordingly, remand was not a
foregone conclusion, and defendants had an objectively reasonable
basis for removal. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees will
therefore be denied," Judge Saylor added.

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/UgwniLfrom Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 842,000 Vehicles Over Ignition Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
General Motors on Feb. 25 doubled to 1.6 million the number of
small cars it is recalling to fix faulty ignition switches linked
to multiple fatal crashes.

GM earlier announced the recall of more than 780,000 Chevrolet
Cobalts and Pontiac G5s.  It's now adding 842,000 Saturn Ion
compacts, Chevrolet HHR SUVs and Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky
sports cars.

The company was immediately lambasted by a well-known safety
advocate who says GM knew of the problem for years and waited too
long to recall the cars even though people were killed because of
the problem.

GM says a heavy key ring or jarring from rough roads can cause the
ignition switch to move out of the run position and shut off the
engine and electrical power.  That can knock out power-assisted
brakes and steering and disable the front air bags.  The problem
has been linked to 31 crashes and 13 front-seat deaths.  In the
fatalities, the air bags did not inflate, but the engines did not
shut off in all cases, GM said.

It was unclear whether the ignition switches caused the crashes,
or whether people died because the air bags didn't inflate.

The vehicles being recalled include: Chevrolet Cobalts and Pontiac
G5s from the 2005 through 2007 model years; Saturn Ion compacts
from 2003 through 2007; and Chevrolet HHR SUVs and Pontiac
Solstice and Saturn Sky sports cars from 2006 and 2007.  Most of
the cars were sold in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

According to a chronology of events that GM filed with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the company knew
of the problem as early as 2004, and was told of at least one
fatal crash in March of 2007.  GM issued service bulletins in 2005
and 2006 telling dealers how to fix the problem with a key insert,
and advising them to tell customers not to dangle too many items
from their key chains.  But the company's records showed that only
474 vehicle owners got the key inserts.

GM thought the service bulletin was sufficient because the car's
steering and brakes were operable even after the engines lost
power, according to the chronology.

By the end of 2007, GM knew of 10 cases in which Cobalts were in
front-end crashes where the air bags didn't inflate, the
chronology said.

In 2005, GM initially approved an engineer's plan to redesign the
ignition switch, but the change was "later canceled," according to
the chronology.

"They knew by 2007 they had 10 incidents where the air bag didn't
deploy in this type of crash," said Clarence Ditlow, executive
director of the consumer advocacy group Center for Auto Safety.
"This is a case where both GM and NHTSA should be held accountable
for doing a recall no later than the spring of 2007."

GM North American President Alan Batey said in a statement that
the process to examine the problem "was not as robust" as it
should have been and said the GM of today would behave
differently.  "We will take an unflinching look at what happened
and apply lessons learned here to improve going forward," he said.

GM spokesman Alan Adler said that initially the rate of problems
per 1,000 vehicles was low, so the company did not recall the
cars.

NHTSA issued a statement that didn't address why the recall wasn't
done sooner.  The statement said the agency is communicating with
GM about how long it took to identify the safety problem, but
didn't specify if any action would be taken.

Dealers will replace the ignition switch for free, but Mr. Adler
said it will take some time for the parts to be manufactured and
sent to dealers.  No time frame was given for making the repairs.

"We are deeply sorry and we are working to address this issue as
quickly as we can," Mr. Batey said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 21 Cars Over Auto Transmission Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           21
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014054
TC ID number:             2014054
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14048

Certain vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions may fail to
conform to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 102 -
Transmission Control Functions and CMVSS 114 - Theft Protection
and Rollaway Prevention.  The shift cable adjuster may have been
damaged at time of assembly and could disengage, causing the
transmission to remain in a gear position different from the one
indicated in the instrument panel.  If the shift cable were to
disengage while driving, upon stopping the vehicle, a driver could
move the transmission range selector lever to the PARK position
and remove the key, without the transmission being in PARK.  If
the parking brake is not set, the vehicle could roll, potentially
resulting in a crash increasing the risk of injury and/or property
damage.

Dealers will inspect and install a revised adjuster and clip if
necessary.

Affected products:

  Maker           Model          Model year(s) affected
  -----           -----          ----------------------
  BUICK           REGAL                 2014
  CHEVROLET       IMPALA                2014
  CHEVROLET       MALIBU                2014
  CHEVROLET       CRUZE                 2014
  BUICK           VERANO                2014


GENIE COMPANY: Recalls Genie PowerMax 1500 Garage Door Openers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Posting date:             February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38091

Affected products: Genie PowerMax 1500 residential garage door
openers

The recall includes the Genie PowerMax 1500 residential garage
door openers identified by model 4062 and UPC number 05004901854.

The serial number label is located on the front side (opposite of
the lights) of each garage door opener.  Only the first 5 digits
are relevant to this recall.

The serial numbers of the units sold into Canada includes:

Genie Retail Serial Numbers:

  11214      11311      11336      12018      12036
  11215      11312      11347      12019      12037
  11235      11326      11348      12026      12038
  11256      11327      12006      12027      12058
  11298      11332      12009      12034

The relays on the light control circuit of the control board could
overheat and pose a fire hazard.

Genie has received four reports of relay failure in the United
States and none in Canada.  There have been no reports of any
injuries or of any fire spreading from the openers to any other
property.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these garage door openers.

Approximately 8,024 units with affected relays were sold in Canada
and approximately 9,641 units sold in the United States.

The affected products were manufactured in the United States and
sold from August 2011 to February 2012 in Canada at Canadian Tire
stores and from August 2011 to October 2012 in the United States.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     GMI Holdings, Inc. dba The Genie Company
                   ("Genie") which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
                   Overhead Door Corporation
                   Lewisville
                   Texas
                   United States

  Distributor      Canadian Tire Corporation of Canada
                   Toronto
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should stop using the garage door opener until they call
the Genie Company and receive the free replacement control board
to install in it.


HERSHEY CO: Judge Dismisses Chocolate Price-Fixing Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Pennsylvania
has dismissed complaints of an alleged price-fixing scheme by the
country's top three candy makers.

PennLive said U.S. Middle District Chief Judge Christopher Conner
in the Feb. 26 ruling concluded that the plaintiffs showed no
definitive proof of illegal collusion by Hershey Co., Mars Inc.
and Nestle.

The ruling affects 91 lawsuits by retail stores and other direct
business buyers of chocolate products.  They claimed Hershey, Mars
and Nestle violated federal antitrust laws by coordinating price
hikes.  The allegations focused on identical or nearly identical
price increases in 2002, 2004 and 2007.

The companies said they made pricing decisions independently and
based on factors including increases in the cost of raw materials.

Judge Conner noted that cocoa prices did rise 53 percent from 2002
to 2007.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: March 13 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed a stipulated request and
order on February 20, 2014, in DENIS MULLIGAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX
LABORATORIES, INC., LARRY HSU and ARTHUR A. KOCH Defendants.
HAVERHILL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.,
LARRY HSU, and ARTHUR A. KOCH Defendants, CASE NOS. 13-CV-01037-
EMC, 13-CV-01566-EMC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/ouutrGfrom Leagle.com.

The stipulation provides that in order to avoid the unnecessary
expenditure of the Court's and parties' resources prior to the
ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the parties agree to
continue the Initial Case Management Conference until after
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss has been adjudicated.

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree, with the Court's
approval, that:

1. The Motion Hearing set for March 6, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. will be
   continued to March 13, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.; and

2. The Initial Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for
   March 6, 2014, is continued to a date and time to be determined
   after the Court rules on Defendants' motion to dismiss.

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Peter A. Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Marcy
C. Priedeman -- marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- San Francisco,
California, Patrick E. Gibbs -- patrick.gibbs@lw.com -- Menlo
Park, California, Attorneys for Defendants, IMPAX LABORATORIES,
INC., LARRY HSU and ARTHUR A. KOCH.

Counsel for the Boilermaker Blacksmith National Pension Trust and
Lead Counsel for the Class:

   Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
   GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
   595 Market Street - Suite 2300
   San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
   Telephone: 415-777-2230
   Toll Free: 800-486-9021
   Facsimile: 415-777-5189

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Steven J. Toll --
stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Daniel S. Sommers --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Joshua M. Kolsky --
jkolsky@cohenmilstein.com -- Washington, D.C., Christopher Lometti
-- clometti@cohenmilstein.com -- New York, New York,


INDIANA: Second Class Action v. BMV Seeks Refund of Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Indystar reports that millions of Hoosiers could be in for another
refund from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles in connection with a
second class-action lawsuit alleging the agency overcharged for
vehicle registrations and dozens of other services.

In a settlement last August in another class-action lawsuit, the
BMV agreed to refund $30 million to drivers it overcharged for
operator's licenses.

A second lawsuit was filed in October by Indianapolis-based Cohen
& Malad LLP, which had filed the prior lawsuit against the BMV.
Cohen & Malad managing partner Irwin Levin is representing the
Hoosiers.

The second lawsuit asks the BMV to refund millions more for
overcharges on other fees and services.  It also asks for a full
accounting of all overcharges, and access to public records that
could reveal how long BMV had known about the overcharges.

A Marion Superior Court judge denied a BMV motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  Now, the agency must respond to the claims and produce
related evidence.

Don Snemis, BMV commissioner, said he "respectfully disagrees"
with the judge's ruling and the agency plans to appeal the
decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.


INFANTINO: Monkey-Shaped Teethers Recalled for Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Tata, writing for NBC Southern California, reports that a
squeaking teething toy sold at a popular big-box retail store is
being recalled because the monkey-shaped teether may pose a
choking hazard to young children, the company announced.

Made of soft orange rubber, the Squeeze & Teethe Monkey was sold
at Target stores nationwide from December 2012 to January 2014,
the manufacturer, Infantino, said in a recall alert.  It cost
about $12.99 and was marketed for ages newborn and up.

There have been at least seven reports of infants choking or
gagging on the toy's tail, according to the Associated Press.  No
injuries have been reported.

"Infantino" is marked on the back of the toy toward the rear and
model number 206-647 is marked on the inside of the rear left leg.

About 191,000 Squeeze & Teethe Monkey teethers are included in the
recall, the AP reported.  A similar toy with the model number
206-949 is not affected, the company said.

Customers who have the recalled toy should stop using it
immediately and call Infantino for a free replacement product.
The company can be reached weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. PT by calling 888-808-3111, or customers can request a
new item by visiting http://www.infantino.com/customer-
care/recall/squeezeteethemonkey/unitedstates/step2.cfm


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 21 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. publicly traded securities during
the period between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014,
inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 21, 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,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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/intercept/
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 Intercept and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Intercept is a pharmaceutical company that has been developing and
trying to bring to market new clinical drugs.  The Company's
primary drug compound, known as obeticholic acid ("OCA"), is in
various phases of clinical development, primarily for the purpose
of treating chronic liver diseases, including non-alcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH").

The complaint alleges on January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014,
Intercept announced that its Phase 2 trial of OCA for the
treatment of NASH had been stopped early for efficacy based on an
interim analysis that showed that the efficacy endpoint of the
trial had been met.  As a result of the Company's announcements,
the Company's stock price skyrocketed from a January 8, 2014 close
of $72.39 per share to a January 10, 2014 close of $445.83 per
share.

Then, on Friday, January 10, 2014, after the markets closed, the
National Institutes of Health's ("NIH") National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases issued a press release
stating that while the efficacy primary endpoint for OCA in the
Phase 2 study had already been met, participants in the study who
received the drug suffered disproportionate levels of lipid
abnormalities.  The complaint alleges that, as a result of the
NIH's January 10, 2014 disclosure of OCA's safety risks,
Intercept's stock price dropped over $81 per share -- a decline of
18.2% -- from $445.83 to $364.36 per share on Monday, January 13,
2014, and continued to fall on January 14, 2014 to a close of
$255.12 per share, as investors continued to digest and react to
this negative news.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Intercept 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.


LAST IN CONCEPTS: Inmate Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Broyard v. Last In Concepts, LLC and Walkon's Bistreaux &
Bar, LLC, d/b/a Walk-On's Bistreaux & Bar, Case No. 3:14-cv-00049-
BAJ-RLB (M.D. La., January 22, 2014) is a collective action
brought on behalf of individuals who, since August 2009,
previously worked or currently work for the Defendants through the
West Baton Rouge Parish Work Release.

WBR Work Release is a program monitored by the Sheriff of West
Baton Rouge Parish that allows inmates to work outside the prison
part-time.

The Plaintiff brings this case as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and
costs, and damages owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly
situated employees of Walk-On's.

Last In Concepts, LLC and Walk-On's Bistreaux & Bar, LLC are
Louisiana companies doing business in the Parish of East Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.  The Defendants own and operate the Walk-On's
Bistreaux & Bar located on Burbank Drive in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


MALKIN HOLDINGS: Shareholders Lose Suit Over Public Offering
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Geiger, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports that
a group of shareholders in the Empire State Building, who accused
the landmark 102-story building's operator Malkin Holdings of
strong-arming them into taking the building public late last year,
has lost its case in State Appellate Court.

The decision, which came in an appeal after the plaintiffs failed
to block the public offering as it was happening last October, was
one of the last challenges facing the $5 billion real estate
investment trust, which includes the Empire State Building and 18
other office properties in Manhattan.

The shareholders in the suit, represented by attorney Stephen
Meister, had alleged that a provision in the Empire State
Building's 50-year-old ownership structure forced them to vote in
favor of the REIT plan or risk being bought out for virtually
nothing.

In order to gain support among the building's roughly 3,000
shareholders to approve the public offering plan, Malkin Holdings
said it would exercise a clause in which it could buy out
dissenting voters for $100 a share, a fraction of the $300,000-
plus that the company estimated the shares were worth.

Mr. Meister had claimed that Malkin Holdings used the buyout
provision to muscle opponents to cooperate with the plan in
violation of laws that govern limited liability companies.

However, the appellate court found that the Empire State Building
shareholders were not part of a limited liability company and
hence were not unfairly pressured.

"The motion court properly denied appellants' application for a
declaration that the buyout provisions violate the Limited
Liability Company Law since appellants are not 'members' in the
limited liability company who are entitled to the fair value
appraisal protections," the judgment stated.


MAYBELLINE LLC: Bid to File Docs. Under Seal Gets Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia granted a joint motion to file
select documents under seal in the case, YANIRA ALGARIN and PATSY
MURDOCK, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MAYBELLINE, LLC, A New York Limited
Liability Company, dba MAYBELLINE NEW YORK, Defendants, CIVIL NO.
12CV3000 AJB (DHB), (S.D. Cal.).

Documents in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, particularly the Motion's Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, as well as certain Exhibits attached, contain certain
information designated by Defendant as "CONFIDENTIAL" and under a
Protective Order entered on July 19, 2013.  The Parties are
authorized to seal those portions pursuant to Local Rule 79.2 and
the July 19, 2013 Protective Order.

The Court directed the Parties to prepare a redacted version of
their Motion for Class Certification.

A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/EaqZwifrom Leagle.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Ordered to Produce Docs in "Gold" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN ANNETE GOLD, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-02019-WHO (MEJ) (N.D. Cal.) is
a class action brought by an individual consumer, Plaintiff Ellen
Annete Gold, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code Sections
1788-1788.33 by Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland
Funding LLC.  The Complaint arises out of the Defendants' mailing
of a collection letter and "educational brochure" to Plaintiff and
other California consumers in an attempt to collect a debt
previously owed to HSBC Bank.

The Plaintiff seeks an order compelling production of responses
to:

     1) interrogatories regarding the number of letters sent
        by Defendants to California consumers in the one year
        prior to the filing of this action;

     2) Requests for Production (RFPs) seeking the agreement
        through which Midland Funding obtained Plaintiff's HSBC
        account, including any exhibits, appendices, or
        attachments referenced therein;

     3) interrogatories regarding Defendants' net worth and the
        calculation thereof, and

     4) RFPs seeking the production of all documents which
        substantiate Defendants' net worth calculations.

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James held that there should be no
further delay in providing information to Plaintiff. Accordingly,
the Defendants are ordered to provide the exact number of Letters;
and the Agreement.

As the documents Defendants will rely upon to calculate their net
worth will not be affected by changes to the form of the
stipulation, the Court also ordered the Defendants to produce
these documents.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Discovery Order
is available at http://is.gd/2jP4iK from Leagle.com.


MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT: Recalls Onya Outback Child Carrier
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Posting date:             February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38087

Affected products: Onya Outback Child Carrier

The recall involves carriers with these model numbers:

   -- OBMR20130625-3087 (black),
   -- OMBR20130625-3032 (orange/grey).

The model number is located on the reverse side of the "Made in
Vietnam" label found inside the hood pocket.

The stops at the bottom and top of the sternum slider may fail and
cause the sternum strap to disconnect.

Neither Health Canada nor Mountain Equipment Coop have received
any reports of incidents.

Approximately 470 units were sold at Mountain Equipment Coop
locations across Canada.

The recalled carriers were manufactured in Vietnam and sold from
October 2012 to January 2014.

Companies:

  Distributor     Onya Baby
                  Felton
                  California
                  United States

Consumers should stop using the carrier immediately and return it
to Mountain Equipment Coop for a replacement or full refund.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Silverman Firm Files Amended Class Action in D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White (STSW) in
conjunction with Namanny, Byrne & Owens (NBO Law) have filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint in the matter of Leeman, et al. v.
National Hockey League, et al. (Civil Case No. 13-CV-1856-KBJ) in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Four former National Hockey League players publicly joined the
class-action lawsuit alleging the NHL failed to adequately respond
to the serious health risks posed by concussions and other head
injuries incurred while playing in league games.  The new
plaintiffs -- three-time All-Star center Bernie Nicholls, former
Sports Illustrated "Sportsman of the Year" Bob Bourne, famed
"enforcer" Scott Parker, and former All-Rookie defenseman
Bruce Bell -- join numerous other former NHL players in the
lawsuit, originally filed on November 25, 2013.

Mr. Nicholls played a total of 1,245 games between 1981 and 1999
for the Los Angeles Kings, New York Rangers, Edmonton Oilers, New
Jersey Devils, Chicago Blackhawks, and San Jose Sharks.  An
All-Star in 1984, 1989, and 1990, he is one of only five players
to ever score at least 150 points in a season (along with Wayne
Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, and Phil Esposito).  He is
also one of only eight players in the NHL to ever score at least
70 goals in a season -- a feat that remains a team record for the
Los Angeles Kings, for which Nicholls is the fifth all-time
leading scorer.

Bob Bourne played the bulk of his 1,103 total games with the
New York Islanders, where he won the Stanley Cup four consecutive
times between 1980 and 1983 and is a member of the team Hall of
Fame.  In 1987, Mr. Bourne was named a "Sportsman of the Year" by
Sports Illustrated, and, at the conclusion of the 1987-1988
season, he won the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy, awarded to him
by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association for his dedication
to the game and perseverance during an NHL career that began in
1974.

Also publicly joining the suit are Scott Parker, who won the
Stanley Cup in 2001 with the Colorado Avalanche and was nicknamed
"The Sheriff" for his reputation as a ruthless fighter, and
Bruce Bell, an All-Rookie defenseman whose career was sadly cut
short after a devastating body-check by Wendel Clark -- perhaps
Mr. Clark's most infamous hit ever.

The four join nine other former players that have volunteered to
be public representatives of a class led by former All-Star winger
Gary Leeman in the case, Leeman v. Nat'l Hockey League, et al.,
which seeks treatment and compensation from the NHL for allegedly
promoting violent gameplay while actively concealing the health
hazards associated with concussions and other head injuries.  Many
other former players have joined and continue to join the lawsuit
but prefer to remain private.

Mel Owens, a former 10-year NFL player and attorney from NBO Law
based in Laguna Hills, California, who also represents many NHL
players with their workers' compensation claims, added, "These
additional four publicly named plaintiffs have shown the courage
to stand up for their former teammates who continue to join the
lawsuit but choose to remain anonymous."

For more information, contact Mel Owens at http://www.melowens.com
http://www.nbolaw.com or 949-452-0700 or Steve Silverman at
ssilverman@mdattorney.com or 1-800-385-2243.


NU SKIN: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Utah
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Utah, and docketed under 14-cv-00049-DBP, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Nu Skin securities between October
25, 2011 and January 15, 2014 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 Nu Skin securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 21, 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.

Nu Skin is a global direct selling company.  The Company
distributes premium quality personal skin care products and
nutritional supplements.  Nu Skin markets its products in the
Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region.  The Company
provides marketing and distribution of technology-based products
through Big Planets, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's operations in
the People's Republic of China engaged in pyramid selling schemes
in violation of PRC law; and (ii) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 7, 2012, Citron Research published an analyst report
alleging that Nu Skin's operations in the People's Republic of
China were nothing more than a pyramid scheme based on multi-level
marketing and that such schemes are strictly prohibited in China.
On this news, Nu Skin stock declined $6.90 per share or over 14%,
within two trading sessions, to close at $41.96 per share on
August 8, 2012.

On February 14, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission published over
200 pages of documents pursuant to a request under the Freedom of
Information Act of consumer complaints regarding Nu Skin from the
past five years.  On this news, Nu Skin's stock declined $0.99 per
share or 2.3%, to close at $42.93 per share on February 14, 2013.

On January 15, 2014, a leading Chinese newspaper reported that the
Company operates an illegal pyramid scheme in China, and employs
unlawful business practices in violation of PRC law.  In response
to that news, the Company's stock declined $20.78 per share to
$115.23, or more than 15.2%, on January 15, 2014.

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


ROWE FINE: Recalls About 220 Ottomans Due to Suffocation Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Rowe Fine Furniture Inc. is
recalling about 220 ottomans because young children could become
trapped inside its storage compartment and suffocate.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission says a 3 year old was
stuck inside the ottoman's storage compartment after an older
sibling closed the lid.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall announced on Feb. 27 is for Rowe's Dalton-style wooden
ottomans with the model number F135-064 printed on a tag
underneath it.  The storage compartment has a cushioned top lid.
Consumers who own the ottoman should stop using it and call Rowe,
at 800-458-1818, for a replacement lid which has a handle and vent
for ventilation.


SEMINOLE, FL: Court Denies Bid for Leave to Proceed on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SEMINOLE, FLORIDA,
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, CECIL SMITH and JOHN AND JANE DOE, Defendants,
CASE NO. 6:13-CV-1736-ORL-28TBS, (M.D. Fla.), pending before the
Court is the Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis.

Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith recommends that the motion be
denied saying, "the Court has already found that the Plaintiff's
claims are frivolous and dismissed the case two months ago. The
Court is therefore, unable to certify that those same frivolous
arguments form an adequate basis for appeal. Accordingly, I find
that the appeal is not taken in good faith and respectfully
recommend that the motion be denied."

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's February 4, 2014 Report and
Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/LZrwmN from
Leagle.com.


PFIZER INC: Bid for Relief From Discovery Order Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In LAURA A. PLUMLEE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., a
New York Corporation, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00414-LHK, (N.D.
Cal.), the plaintiff moved for relief from Magistrate Judge
Grewal's December 20, 2013 Order regarding discovery disputes.

The District Court denied that request in a February 21, 2014
Order available at http://is.gd/61rkDUfrom Leagle.com.

"Because Plaintiff's medical history is directly relevant both to
her theory of delayed discovery and to issues of class
certification, the Court finds Plaintiff has waived her privilege
in the requested medical records, and such medical records are
relevant. Accordingly, although the Discovery Order did not
explicitly address the question of privilege, it nevertheless
reached the right result by holding that Plaintiff must produce
the requested records and respond to Defendant's interrogatories
concerning her medical history . . . the Court finds that the
Discovery Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and
denies Plaintiff's motion for relief," ruled Judge District Judge
Lucy H. Koh.


SEVEN OAKS: Settles Legionnaires' Disease Class Action for $1.2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonia Zerbisias, writing for Toronto Star, reports that the
survivors as well as families of victims of a deadly outbreak of
legionnaires' disease at a Scarborough nursing home will be
sharing a $1.2 million settlement.

Madame Justice Barbara Conway approved the deal between the
plaintiffs in the class action suit against the province of
Ontario and the city of Toronto which owns and operates the Seven
Oaks Nursing Home for the Aged.

In September and October 2005, as many as 135 people, including
residents, visitors, staffers and even neighbors were reportedly
affected.

There were 23 deaths attributed to the outbreak of legionella
pneumophilia, which causes legionnaires' disease (a bacterial
pneumonia) and Pontiac fever, a milder, non-pneumonia infection.

Legionnaires' disease is not contagious but is picked up by the
inhalation of contaminated water particles.  At Seven Oaks, they
were traced to the air conditioning system.  It took public health
officials 10 days to identify the cause of the deaths, which they
managed to do from autopsy results.  By then, it was too late for
many of the aged and frail residents.

The class action alleged that the City of Toronto was negligent in
the design and maintenance of the cooling system and that the
province was negligent in testing for the disease.

Because the settlement took eight years to reach, Justice Conway
wrote that she considered approval "to be fair, reasonable and in
the best interests of the class."

"Many of the plaintiffs are ill and elderly and it serves nobody's
purpose to push this to trial which could take many more years,"
co-counsel Sharon Strosberg said in a telephone interview from her
office in Windsor, On.  "The court has decided this settlement is
fair and reasonable under the circumstances."

Under the settlement terms, eligible class members will receive up
to $30,000 in base payments, depending on the extent of their
illness.  Surviving family members will receive up to $20,000.

Those stricken with the less severe Pontiac fever will be awarded
$500.  In addition to the $1.2 million settlement, the defendants
will cover the class legal fees of $356,500 and provide $250,000
to settle any associated claims by the Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care and OHIP relating to past and future medical
expenses for class members.

Ms. Strosberg could not specify exactly how many people are
eligible for payment.

"People have until June 12 to file their claim for compensation so
we won't really know until that time," she explained, adding class
members should check in at http://www.sevenoaksclassaction.com
"Some people may not file a claim but the money is there."


STANDARD INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in "Nelson" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the defendants' request to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint in the case captioned, MARIANA NELSON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STANDARD
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon company; COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
CORP., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13CV188-WQH-
MDD (S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff, who used to work as a loan officer for Countrywide,
brought the action on behalf of herself and a putative class
consisting of all California residents who are participants in a
group plan administered by Standard which contains the same
"Disabilities Subject to Limited Pay Periods" provision as the one
in the Group Policy.

Each of the Plaintiff's four claims in the original Complaint
arose from her contention that the Group Policy's provision
entitled, "Disabilities Subject to Limited Pay Periods," is
unenforceable because Standard has not complied with California
Insurance Code section 10144.

The First Amended Complaint was filed by the Plaintiff on Oct. 31,
2013, and re-alleges Claims 1-4 in the original Complaint.  Those
claims were already dismissed by the Court in a July 2013 ruling.

The original complaint asserts these causes of action: (1) Claim
for Benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B); (2)
Claim for Equitable Relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(3); (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1104(a)(1), 1132(a)(3); and (4) Declaratory Relief.

The First Amended Complaint adds Claim 5, which alleges an
individual claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B),
"without regard to the potential applicability of the provisions
of California Insurance Code Section 10144."  Claim 5 alleges that
the "proximate cause of her inability to work, is in fact, some
form of Physical Disease or Injury and not any form of Mental
Illness or depression, as defined by the Group Policy."

In a February 20, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/o6fzwwfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Hayes granted the Motion to Dismiss Claims 1-4
of the First Amended Complaint, which are materially the same as
the claims alleged in the original Complaint.  To the extent the
First Amended Complaint contains new allegations that Defendants
charged a "higher effective premium rate", the Court said the
First Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege that Defendants'
charged "a discriminatory premium that . . . would run afoul of
section 10144."

Judge Hayes, however, denied the Motion to Dismiss Claim 5 of the
First Amended Complaint, which expressly alleges a claim "without
regard to the potential applicability of the provisions of
California Insurance Code Section 10144."  Judge Hayes said the
Defendants have failed to assert any appropriate basis for
dismissing Claim 5.

The Court also declined to award attorney's fees to Defendants.


STX LLC: Recalls Shield Throat Protector Due to Laceration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
STX, LLC of Baltimore, Md., announced a voluntary recall of about
4,000 STX Shield throat protector.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The Shield Throat Protector can crack or break when struck by a
lacrosse ball, posing a laceration hazard to the user.

STX has received one report of the Shield throat protector
breaking, resulting in reported bruising and lacerations to the
user's neck.

The recall involves the STX Shield throat protector.  The throat
protector is black and has the letters "STX" engraved on the outer
surface of the protector.  It has straps attached by silver screws
on each side and bottom of the protector to attach it to a
lacrosse goalie's helmet below the helmet's chin guard.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/eJT71v

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
specialty sporting goods stores such as Athlete's Connection,
Commonwealth Lacrosse, Lacrosse Unlimited, Play It Again Sports,
Sport Stop USA and Universal Lacrosse and online at www.LAX.com
from September 2013 through February 2014 for about $20 to $25.

Consumers should stop using the Shield throat protector and return
the product to STX for a full refund.


TARGET CORP: Data Breach Expenses Reach $61 Million
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that the recent
massive data breach at Target Corp. so far has saddled the retail
giant with a $61 million tab -- one that could rise in the future,
the company said on Feb. 26.

An insurance payment left Target with only $17 million of net
expenses from legal assistance, identity-theft protection and
other services the company procured after the personal information
of as many as 110 million customers was exposed to hackers during
the holiday shopping season last year.  But in its fourth-quarter
earnings report, the Minneapolis-based retailer braced investors
for the potential of more costs to come from the cyberattack.

Target didn't estimate future breach expenses.  The company,
however, said the breach could have a "material adverse effect" on
its results of operations in the following months and years.  Its
future costs could include expenses from litigation, government
investigations and card reissuance, the retailer said.


TECHNICA GROUP: Recalls Rollerblade Tempest Inline Skates
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 25, 2014
Posting date:             February 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38073

Affected products: Rollerblade Tempest inline skates

The recall involves Rollerblade brand, Tempest series inline
skates for men and women.  The inline skates include models 110,
100 and 90 and come in various colours.  The name "Rollerblade" is
printed across the cuff buckle and on the tongue of the skate
boot.  The recalled inline skates can also be identified by a
production date code (stamped under the foot bed) of December 31,
2013 and before.

These products are included in the recall:

  Year    Series     Model   Colour          SKU          Wheels
  ----    ------     -----   ------          ---          ------
  2011    TEMPEST    110     Orange       070100009F2     110 mm
  2011    TEMPEST    100     Black        07010200741     100 mm
  2011    TEMPEST    90      Silver       07010400835     90 mm
  2012    TEMPEST    110     Orange       072010009F2     110 mm
  2012    TEMPEST    100     Anthracite   0720100138      100 mm
  2012    TEMPEST    90      Anthracite   07201400481     90 mm
  2013    TEMPEST    110     Black        07301600T83     110 mm
  2013    TEMPEST    100     Black        07301800816     100 mm
  2013    TEMPEST    90      Black        07302200741     90 mm
  2011    TEMPESTW   100     Silver       07010300863     100 mm
  2011    TEMPESTW   90      Silver       07010500653     90 mm
  2013    TEMPESTW   100     White        07201300748     100 mm
  2012    TEMPESTW   90      White        072015009E2     90 mm
  2013    TEMPESTW   100     Black        07301900N41     100 mm
  2013    TEMPESTW   90      Silver       073023007C1      90 mm

Inline skates that are not subject to the recall will have a black
frame mounting bolt instead of chrome.

The mounting holes in the boot and frame can be misaligned,
causing the boot to separate from the frame and posing a fall
hazard.

Neither Tecnica Group Canada nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these inline skates.

Approximately 2,940 of the recalled inline skates were sold
throughout Canada by various retailers.

The recalled inline skates were manufactured in Thailand and sold
between January 2011 and December 2013.

Companies:

  Distributor     Technica Group Canada
                  St-Laurent
                  Quebec
                  Canada

Consumers should stop using the affected Tempest inline skates
immediately and return them to Tecnica Group Canada free of charge
for a free inspection and replacement.


TRIANGLE BUILDING: Violates FLSA, Insulation Installer Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley M. Bostwick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Triangle Building Products, Inc. and Richard B.
Townsend, Case No. 3:14-cv-00029-HSM-CCS (E.D. Tenn., January 22,
2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Triangle's
violation of the Tennessee common law regarding conversion, breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel
and retaliatory discharge.

Triangle employed Mr. Bostwick from May 2013 until September 2013,
installing insulation in houses.  Mr. Townsend is a resident of
Blount County, Tennessee, and is the owner and operator of
Triangle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine A. Young, Esq.
          YOUNG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          6700 Baum Drive, Suite 7
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Telephone: (865) 474-1284
          Facsimile: (615) 296-0379
          E-mail: Katherine@younglawknoxville.com


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Warranties
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Ben James, Daniel Wilson and Abigail
Rubenstein, writing for Law360, report that a New Jersey federal
judge on Feb. 20 tossed a proposed class action accusing Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. of selling worthless extended warranties for
ineligible "as-is" merchandise, finding the plaintiff couldn't
prove the power washer he bought wasn't covered under the service
plan.

Plaintiff William Hayes alleged in his 2010 complaint that he paid
Wal-Mart-owned Sam's Club for service plans on as-is clearance
products including the power washer, but that the retailer never
told him the plans do not cover such products unless they come
with a manufacturer's warranty.  U.S. District Judge Jerome B.
Simandle granted class certification in 2012, but the Third
Circuit in 2013 told him to reconsider the decision, and raised
the question of Mr. Hayes' standing to bring the suit in the first
place.

The parties were headed toward discovery on the class
certification issue again when the judge granted Wal-Mart's motion
for summary judgment on Feb. 20.

Judge Simandle agreed with Wal-Mart's argument, articulated in an
October motion, that Hayes produced no evidence that his as-is
power washer did not come with a manufacturer's warranty and thus
would not be covered under the terms of the service plan.

The judge also adopted the retail giant's point of view that even
if Mr. Hayes' power washer did not come with a manufacturer's
warranty, he still lacks standing because he has suffered no
actual harm and any claim of future harm is speculative.

While Wal-Mart had argued that Mr. Hayes failed to provide any
evidence to support a finding that the as-is power washer was not
covered by a manufacturer's warranty, Mr. Hayes responded that
that argument required him to prove a negative and the only
evidence in the record establishes that the as-is power washer was
not covered by a full manufacturer's warranty.

But the judge said the evidence in the record doesn't back up
Mr. Hayes' assertions.  He said Mr. Hayes failed to provide any
evidence that the as-is power washer was "explicitly excluded from
service plan coverage."

And in rejecting Mr. Hayes' argument that he was harmed at the
time of sale when he purchased a service plan on an as-is product
that was explicitly excluded from the service plan coverage, the
judge said Mr. Hayes again assumed that the power washer was
explicitly excluded from coverage because it did not have a
manufacturer's warranty, which he could not prove.

"We're pleased the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit confirmed the district court's ruling regarding Mr. Hayes'
lack of standing to bring this suit," Wal-Mart spokesman Randy
Hargrove said on Feb. 21.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel R. Lapinski --
dlapinski@wilentz.com -- of Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA and James
C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- of Shepherd Finkelman Miller &
Shah LLP.

Wal-Mart is represented by Charles B. Casper and John G. Papianou
-- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads
LLP.

The case is Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al., case number
1:10-cv-00460, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


WAL-MART STORES: Plaintiff's Class Action Evidence "Incompetent"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, Michael Lipkin and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for
Law360, report that a California federal judge on Feb. 21
admonished the plaintiff in a would-be class action against
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for submitting "incompetent" evidence for his
claim that workers were cheated of overtime pay, granting the
class one last chance to submit a motion for certification.

U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin struck down plaintiff
Aladdin Zackaria's plea to certify a group of workers who worked
in the stores' loss prevention departments for the wage-and-hour
action, finding that the evidence presented to support the
workers' claims wasn't properly organized and cited and calling it
"incompetent," according to the decision.

Mr. Zackaria submitted "reams" of evidence to support his claims
that he and other workers in his position were forced to perform
certain tasks without pay, but that evidence at time
mischaracterized the facts or was submitted irresponsibly, the
judge found.

"Plaintiff has utterly failed in this obligation, and the court
therefore declines to embark on an expedition through 1,448 pages
of documents in order to ascertain the facts he submits," Judge
Olguin wrote in the Feb. 21 decision.

Judge Olguin admonished Mr. Zackaria in the order, citing
precedent to support his disapproval of the miscited and
disorganized evidenciary support to the worker's claims.  The
large, labor-intensive pile of evidence was taking time away from
other cases, the judge noted.

On Feb. 20, Wal-Mart beat a class action accusing the retailer of
selling worthless extended warranties for ineligible "as-is"
merchandise, finding the plaintiff couldn't prove the power washer
he bought wasn't covered under the service plan.

Plaintiff William Hayes alleged in his 2010 complaint that he paid
Wal-Mart-owned Sam's Club for service plans on as-is clearance
products including the power washer, but the retailer never told
him that the plans do not cover such products unless they come
with a manufacturer's warranty.

The parties were headed toward discovery on the class
certification issue again when the judge granted Wal-Mart's motion
for summary judgment on Thursday.

The National Labor Relations Board's associate counsel said
charges against Wal-Mart over the firing of some Florida
protesters should be dismissed because the workers would have been
disciplined anyway.

Associate general counsel Barry J. Kearney said, in a memo written
Feb. 7, that even though the timings of firings after the protests
could demonstrate discrimination by Wal-Mart, the company provided
enough evidence to show that its stated disciplinary reasons for
the terminations were not a pretext.

Wal-Mart argued the workers were already under disciplinary
investigations or proceedings unrelated to their participation in
the strikes.  A "time theft" investigator decided one worker
should be fired because she took 19 overly long breaks in a month,
according to the memo.  The other worker had gotten three warnings
before she was fired, including for cutting her finger on a deli
slicer after failing to properly shut it off before cleaning it.

Mr. Zackaria, meanwhile, has leave to resubmit his motion for
class certification of the loss prevention employees by Feb. 28,
according to the Feb. 21 decision.  Judge Olguin prompted the
plaintiff to follow a series of rules about how the evidence
should be formatted in a list in the order.

Mr. Zackaria is represented by R. Rex Parris Law Firm and
Edwin Aiwazian and Jill Jessica Parker of Lawyers For Justice PC.

Wal-Mart is represented by Mona Stone -- stonem@gtlaw.com --
Alana Christina Srour -- sroura@gtlaw.com -- Robert J. Herrington
-- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- and Robert M. Goldich --
goldichr@gtlaw.com   -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Aladdin Zackaria v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al., case
number 5:12-cv-01520, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Consolidated Complaint Dismissed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Wells Fargo
Capital Finance's appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit was recently dismissed as moot after three circuit
judges had to decide between a consolidated complaint and a
"significantly amended" complaint.

Wells Fargo's appeal sought review of the district court's
interpretation of the facial allegations in the consolidated
complaint.  However, the class action plaintiffs argued that
because the consolidated complaint has been superseded in
California state court by a "significantly amended" complaint, and
because the third amended complaint is not before the court, the
present appeal should be dismissed as moot, according to an appeal
document filed Feb. 5 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.

Wells Fargo argued the third amended complaint "does not abandon
the claims at issue in this appeal" and has concrete interest in
the outcome and because the consolidated complaint and the third
amended complaint allege the same theories of harm in connection
with the exchange offering, the document states.

Circuit Judges Thomas Morrow Reavley, Edward C. Prado and
Priscilla Owen disagreed with Wells Fargo.

The crux of the appeal, and of the underlying adversary
proceeding, challenges whether a specific cause of action belongs
to a bankruptcy estate, according to the document.

The consolidated complaint, however, is no longer the operative
complaint and has no legal effect because the third amended
complaint has superseded it and does not incorporate the
consolidated complaint, according to the decision.

Gordon Noble, Arlene Dea Deeley, Fredric C. Mendes, Nancy Rapp,
Phillip Cantor, John Emanuele, Irene Lee and David Nolan filed a
putative class action complaint in California state court against
Wells Fargo.  The present appeal stems from Wells Fargo's "attempt
to attack the consolidated complaint through an action in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Texas."

The class action plaintiffs are former investors in R.E. Loans,
which suffered from a liquidity shortage and entered into a senior
secured credit facility with Wells Fargo, according to court
documents.

The class action plaintiffs claimed they were induced into
participating in the exchange offering through misrepresentations
REL managers made to them and that Wells Fargo provided assistance
in the misrepresentations.

"Wells Fargo, in turn, commenced an adversary proceeding in the
bankruptcy court, and moved therein to enjoin prosecution of the
consolidated complaint on the ground that the asserted causes of
action were property of the REL estate and that the REL estate had
released all claims against Wells Fargo, the document states.

The bankruptcy court denied the motion and dismissed the adversary
proceeding.  On appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas affirmed in part and reversed in part.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case number: 13-10468


ZYNGA INC: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Matt Krantz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that U.S. district
judge in San Francisco on Feb. 25 dismissed a lawsuit against
video game company Zynga alleging fraudulent and misleading
handling of its initial public offering.

Shareholders failed to show facts proving their claims against the
company and its IPO procedures, the judge ruled.  The suit also
named company officials including founder Mark Pincus and the lead
underwriters of the IPO, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

Investors are still suffering mightily from the deal.  Zynga sold
shares to the public in December 2011 at $10 a share when the
public was infatuated with the company's Farmville games, which
were played when users logged into Facebook.

The lawsuit claims Zynga masked a falloff in the level of activity
of users playing its games and changes in the way Facebook would
link with its product that hurt the company's profitability.  The
company could not be reached for comment.


* Missouri House Backs Bill on Medical Malpractice Damages Cap
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Lieb, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
seeking to sidestep a court ruling, the Missouri House endorsed
legislation on Feb. 26 that attempts to reinstate limits on the
amount of money people can receive from medical malpractice
lawsuits.

The bill given initial approval seeks to re-impose a $350,000 cap
on noneconomic damages in medical practice cases that was struck
down by Missouri Supreme Court in 2012.

The court ruled that a 2005 Missouri law imposing the financial
limit violated a right to a jury trial that it said had been
embedded in the Missouri Constitution since in 1820.  The
legislation attempts to get around that by declaring that medical
practice claims are not covered through common law that existed
when the constitution was adopted and instead are governed by
state laws.

A similar measure passed the Republican-led House last year but
stalled in the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.  A
second House vote is needed to send this year's measure to the
Senate.

Supporters of the lawsuit limits note that they only affect
noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, and do not
restrict the amount of money people can be awarded for medical
costs or lost wages because they can no longer work.  They contend
the caps are necessary to hold down the cost of malpractice
insurance for physicians and, ultimately, to discourage doctors
from moving to other states.

"If you create an environment that is punitive and onerous and
threatening, if I were a young doctor now and not having a lot of
ties to the state, I'd be looking for an alternative," said
Rep. Keith Frederick, a Republican from Rolla who is an orthopedic
surgeon.

Republican Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones has made reinstatement
of the limits a priority for the 2014 session.

Yet several Republicans joined Democrats in voicing opposition to
the legislation during House debate.

Rep. Jeff Grisamore, R-Lee's Summit, called it "flat out immoral"
to limit medical malpractice victims to $350,000 of noneconomic
damages.

Rep. Sheila Solon, R-Blue Springs, said the lawsuit limits ran
contrary to her belief in "the sanctity of human life."

"I believe you cannot place a price tag on anyone," she said.  "If
we put back caps in place, we're saying that a life is not worth
more than $350,000 or $500,000 or whatever we decide."

Missouri previously had an inflation-adjusted cap of $579,000 for
noneconomic damages.  The 2005 law lowered that to a flat $350,000
and applied the cap to the total amount owed by all defendants,
rather than against each defendant for each act of negligence as
had been permitted under the old law.

The lower medical malpractice caps had been the centerpiece of a
highly touted Republican effort to curb liability lawsuits that
was signed by then-Gov. Matt Blunt.

The Supreme Court struck down the limits in a 4-3 decision that
reversed its own precedent set two decades earlier.  The court's
majority pointed to the Bill of Rights of the Missouri
Constitution, which states "that the right of a trial by jury as
heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate."  The court said that
when the state's first constitution was enacted in 1820,
Missourians had a common law right to seek damages for medical
malpractice claims.  Therefore, it said, "any limit on damages
that restricts the jury's fact-finding role violates the
constitutional right to trial by jury."


                             *********

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  * * *