CAR_Public/140305.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 45

                             Headlines


74 FIFTH AVE: Accused of Notice-and-Recordkeeping Violations
APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over Deactivated Gift Cards
APPLIED CONSTRUCTION: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages for OT Work
BANK OF AMERICA: Removed "Federman" Suit to N.J. District Court
BANK OF THE WEST: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action

BETHESDA HOSPITAL: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
CABLE NEWS: CNN App Gives Away Personal Information, Class Claims
CASUAL MALE: Removed "Green" Class Suit to C.D. California
CBRE GROUP: Monthly Benefit Share Deducted Upon Return, Suit Says
COMMERCIAL METALS: Arguments in Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending

COMMERCIAL METALS: No Discovery Yet in Indirect Buyers' Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expedited Discovery Ruled Out in Merger Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Suit Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissal Motion in Suit v. HMA Awaits Ruling
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expedited Discovery Ruled Out in Fla. Suit

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Junk Suit by HMA Stockholders Filed
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face Suits Over HMA Acquisition
CONAGRA FOODS: Has to Disclose Sodium Content in Sunflower Seeds
CRANE CO: Representative in Asbestos Trial Says Products Safe
DAVID COPPERFIELD: Intimidates Those Who Challenge Him, Suit Says

EXECUTIVE 2000: Refused to Pay OT Wages, "Fernandez" Suit Claims
FIRST AMERICAN: Denial of Class Cert. in "Hataishi" Suit Affirmed
FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Lexapro Suit Obtains Class Action Status
FREESCORE LLC: 9th Cir. Flips Lower Court Ruling in "Stout" Suit
GENERAL RETIREMENT: Settles Class Action for $7.9 Million

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Student Abuse Class Action Can Proceed
H&R BLOCK: Removed "Number" Suit to Western District of Missouri
HAMMER NUTRITION: Misleads NY Consumers, "Harabedian" Suit Claims
HERTZ CORP: Sued in N.J. Over Hidden Currency Conversion Fees

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New Jersey
INCYTE CORP: Court Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Suit
JEAN MADELINE: Sued Over High Student Cosmetology Service Charges
JRH RESTAURANT: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Class Action Over Misdiagnosis Can Proceed

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Homeowners Dispute Loan Servicing Practices
NEVADA PROPERTY: Fraud Suit Over Cosmopolitan Condominium Moved
NONGSHIM CO: Faces Antitrust Suit in Cal. Over Korean Noodles
OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Autodialing
OZ MINERALS: To Vigorously Defend Zinifex Shareholder Class Action

PAINT & BODY: Fails to Pay Federally Mandated OT Rate, Suit Says
PAK BUSINESS: Never Paid Extra Halftime Overtime Rate, Suit Says
POLY-COR MANAGEMENT: Did Not Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Says
PAR ELECTRICAL: "Arnold" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
RAZOR CAPITAL: Illegally Attempts to Collect Debt, Suit Claims

REPSOL YPF: Court Dismisses Monroe County Employees' Suit
RODALE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Baxter" Class Action
SLR HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay All Overtime Hours Worked, Suit Claims
STANFORD INT'L: Ponzi Scheme Class Actions Can Proceed
STATE FARM: Faces "Thompson" Class Suit Over Insurance Issues

SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Wis. Suit Over RICO Act Violation
SUPERVALU INC: Minn. Court Stays Lawsuit Over C&S Transaction
SUPERVALU INC: May Seek Initial OK of Labor Suit Accord in 2014
TRANQUILITY SALON: Loses Bid to Strike "Cava" Class Action
UNILIFE CORP: Writes to Shareholders About Suit at ASX's Request

UPMC: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
UTAH: Attorney General Faces Suit Over Adoption Practices
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Class Atty. Deserves $7.5MM, Court Ruled
WEST SIDE COMMUNITY: Sued by Medical Assistants Over Labor Issues
WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Falsely Labeling "All Natural" Products

ZALE CORP: Receives $1.9MM From De Beers Suit Settlement
ZALE CORP: Still Faces 3 Wage & Hour Suits in California

* Investors Lose $39-Bil. Yearly From Securities Class Actions
* New Rule May Spur Product Liability Suits v. Generic Drug Cos.
* Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door to More Securities Class Actions


                             *********


74 FIFTH AVE: Accused of Notice-and-Recordkeeping Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Rufino Baltierra, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 74 Fifth Ave Market Corp., d/b/a New Valentino Market,
Byung Nak Lim, and John Does #1-10, jointly and severally, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00393-RA (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2014) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours premiums and
statutory penalties for notice-and-recordkeeping violations for
the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is an hourly employee, who worked for the Defendants
at their deli in New York.

New Valentino is a busy and popular deli and grocery store located
in Greenwich Village, and is opened 24 hours per day, seven days
per week.  New Valentino regularly conducts foreign credit card
transactions and many of its suppliers are out-of-state vendors
making regular shipments to the restaurant.  Byung Nak Lim and the
Doe Defendants have been "shareholders" of 74 Fifth Ave Market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Nathan Dictor, Esq.
          EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          113 University Place
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 473-8700
          Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
          E-mail: ben@eisnermirer.com


APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over Deactivated Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that Apple Inc. and
Best Buy Co. Inc. on Feb. 25 agreed to settle a proposed class
action alleging Best Buy deactivates unredeemed Apple iTunes gift
cards it sells without informing customers about the cards'
expiration dates.

In a complaint in California federal court, plaintiff
Barbara Fafard had claimed the gift cards didn't bear an
expiration date and that neither Best Buy nor Apple informed
customers of when they might expire.  In a motion to preliminarily
approve the settlement, Ms. Fafard said that under the agreement,
the companies would provide relief to class members in one of four
ways.

First, some gift card holders have already received replacement
iTunes gift cards.  Second, qualified gift card holders will have
their iTunes accounts credited with the full face value of the
card.  Third, all remaining deactivated cards have been
reactivated, and deactivated card holders may now redeem the
deactivated cards by transferring their full face value to iTunes
accounts.

Lastly, any class member who has a qualified, valid receipt for
the purchase of a deactivated card from a Best Buy retail store
from Sept. 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2009, but who cannot locate the
personal identification number of the deactivated iTunes gift
card, will be provided a replacement PIN after the receipt has
been subjected to a verification and fraud review process.

No estimate was given for the total value of the settlement, but
the motion said the cost of administration was expected to be in
excess of $300,000 and that class counsel fees won't go over
$750,000.

Based on the informal discovery completed in the case so far, the
motion said the total number of deactivated iTunes gift cards was
about 290,000.

Prepaid card company InComm Holdings Inc., also named as a
defendant, provides services to Best Buy for the activation and
deactivation of the iTunes gift cards, according to the complaint.
The suit says Apple and Best Buy responded to a prelawsuit notice
by claiming InComm was responsible for system-related issues with
redeeming the gift cards.

Ms. Fafard claims she received two $25 iTunes gift cards from her
daughter in 2009 that her daughter had purchased from a Best Buy
store in California.  But when Ms. Fafard tried redeeming the
cards in January 2012, she says, she received a notification from
Apple that the card had been canceled.

An Apple customer service representative allegedly told Ms. Fafard
that the card had been canceled by Best Buy and that the amount
was refunded, although the plaintiff claims no such refund
happened.  Best Buy declined to look into the matter without a
receipt from Ms. Fafard's daughter, who no longer had it,
Ms. Fafard claims.

The suit accuses Apple and Best Buy of breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
accuses all three defendants of unjust enrichment.

Ms. Fafard is represented by Jonathan Auerbach of Marcus &
Auerbach LLP.

Apple is represented by David M. Walsh -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- of
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Best Buy and InComm are represented by Abraham J. Colman --
acolman@reedsmith.com -- Felicia Y. Yu --
fyu@reedsmith.com -- and Mathew M. Wrenshall --
mwrenshall@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.

Ms. Fafard is represented by Jonathan Auerbach, Jerome M. Marcus
and Steven G. Tyson of Marcus & Auerbach LLC and William A.
Kershaw and Stuart C. Talley of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP.

The case is Barbara Fafard v. Apple Inc. et al., case number 3:12-
cv-05125, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


APPLIED CONSTRUCTION: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages for OT Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zbigniew Lakomiec v. Applied Construction Inc., Mohammad T. Riaz
and Mohammad Arshad, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00401-CM
(S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff is
entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for
which he did not receive overtime premium pay, and liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mr. Lakomiec, a resident of Kings County, New York, was employed
by the Defendants from October 15, 2011, to May 2012 as a fulltime
employee in the position of construction worker and foreman.

Applied Construction Inc. is a domestic business corporation based
in New York.  Mohamad T. Riaz is the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company.  Mohammad Arshad, a resident of Bronx, New York, is a
manager or agent of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darius A. Marzec, Esq.
          MARZEC LAW FIRM, PC
          225 Broadway, Suite 3000
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212)267-0200
          Facsimile: (718) 841-7508
          E-mail: dmarzec@marzeclaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Removed "Federman" Suit to N.J. District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Federman v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No.
MER-L-2704-13, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Trenton).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:14-cv-00441-MAS-TJB to the proceeding.

The action is brought on behalf of a class of hourly contract
employees, who are or were workers at the information technology
facilities of Bank of America, N.A.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey Alan Shooman, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
                  jshooman@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10105-0106
          Telephone: (212) 548-2167
          E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com


BANK OF THE WEST: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On February 24, 2014, the San Diego Employment Lawyers at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of current and former Operations and Systems Analysts,
against Bank of the West for failing to pay these employees
overtime wages and provide the legally required meal periods.
Morales, et al. v. Bank of the West, Case No. 34-2014-00004267-CU-
OE-CTL is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior
Court.

The class action lawsuit claims that Bank of the West is required
to pay its Operations and Systems Analysts overtime wages when
these employees work more than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or
more than forty (40) hours in a workweek.  The lawsuit alleges
that the Operations and Systems Analysts working for Bank of the
West spend the vast majority of their time engaging in non-exempt
tasks such as reporting, planning, executing, monitoring and
troubleshooting hardware and software systems.  As a result, the
lawsuit alleges that the Operations and Systems Analysts should be
paid overtime wages.  The lawsuit does not specify the amount of
back wages and penalties sought on behalf of the proposed class
members.

The San Diego labor lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
represent employees in the State of California in class action
lawsuits for unpaid overtime, unpaid business expenses, unpaid
commissions and missed meal and rest breaks.  If you would like
free California labor law advice, call one of their experienced
attorneys today at (415) 935-3957.


BETHESDA HOSPITAL: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayman Roy, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Bethesda Hospital, Inc., a Florida Corporation f/k/a Bethesda
Memorial Hospital, Inc., and XYZ Entities 1-10, Case No. 9:14-cv-
80089-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of
similarly situated current and former employees of Bethesda to
recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Bethesda Hospital, Inc., a Florida Corporation f/k/a Bethesda
Memorial Hospital, Inc., is based in Palm Beach County, Florida,
and owns and operates one or more hospitals and medical
facilities, including "Bethesda Hospital East," "Bethesda Hospital
West" and "Bethesda Heart Hospital."  The XYZ Entities are
divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates of Bethesda.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barbara Weiss Sonneborn, Esq.
          Michael Sheldon Smith, Esq.
          SONNEBORN RUTTER COONEY & SMITH, P.A.
          1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 400
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 684-2000
          Facsimile: (561) 684-2312
          E-mail: BWS@SRCKE.Com
                  mss@srcke.com


CABLE NEWS: CNN App Gives Away Personal Information, Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that with each
news story or video clip viewed, CNN's mobile app sends a record
of the user's activity to a data analytics company, which resells
the personally identifiable information to advertisers, a class
action claims in Illinois Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Ryan Perry accuses Cable News Network and CNN
Interactive Group of "a brazen disregard for its users' privacy
rights," in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

CNN, one of the largest television news channels in the world,
offers mobile content through its app for smartphones.  But
"unbeknownst to its users, each time users read news stories or
view video clips using the CNN App on their iPhones, CNN discloses
their personally identifiable information -- including a record of
every news story, video clip, and headline viewed by each user
(collectively, 'Personally Identifiable Information' or 'PII') --
to unrelated third parties.  In addition to demonstrating a brazen
disregard for its users' privacy rights, CNN's actions also
violate the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which prohibits
companies from disclosing their customers' video viewing records
to third parties without express written consent," the lawsuit
states.

"CNN's violation of the VPPA is particularly flagrant here, as it
programmed the CNN App to submit users' PII to a third party web
data analytics company.  The business models of such 'big data'
companies center on the collection of disparate pieces of uniquely
identifying information and online behavioral data about
individual consumers, which they then compile to form
comprehensive profiles about a person's entire digital life.
These profiles can then be used for targeted advertising, sold as
a commodity to other data brokers, or both."

On installation, the app prompts the user to allow CNN to use the
phone's location and to send notifications, but never asks for the
user's consent to share information with third parties, Perry
claims.

Each time a user closes the app, it sends a complete record of the
activity to a U.K. data analytics company called Bango, according
to the complaint.

Bango and similar companies maintain massive digital databases on
consumers, and collect a "frightening array of information that
feeds into a consumer's digital dossier," which is sold as a
commodity to advertisers, Perry says.

"In an era when the collection and monetization of consumer data
proliferates on an unprecedented scale, it's important that
companies are held accountable for the exploitation of their
users' sensitive information.  CNN chose to disregard plaintiff's
and thousands of other users' statutorily protected privacy rights
by releasing their sensitive data into the marketplace," Perry
claims.

Perry seeks punitive damages for violation of the VPPA, plus
$2,500 in statutory damages per violation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle, 13th floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com


CASUAL MALE: Removed "Green" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kevin Green v. Casual Male
Store LLC, et al., Case No. BC530620, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-00527-SJO-PLA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY AND SMITH LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          Michael S. Orr, Esq.
          CALL AND JENSEN APC
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717-3100
          E-mail: morr@calljensen.com
                  msorr@calljensen.com


CBRE GROUP: Monthly Benefit Share Deducted Upon Return, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBRE workers who do not make monthly benefit contributions while
on a leave of absence see that amount deducted from their wages
upon their return, according to Courthouse News Service, citing a
class action filed in California Superior Court.

The case is Melissa Woods v. CBRE Group Inc.; Does, in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Arguments in Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments related to class certification of a suit filed by
direct purchasers of steel products against Commercial Metals
Company are pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's Jan. 9,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
against nine steel manufacturing companies, including CMC. The
lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which
steel products were sold in the United States by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products. The lawsuit, which
purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
purchasers of steel products directly from the defendants between
January 1, 2005 and September 2008, seeks treble damages and
costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and post-
judgment interest. Motions for and against class certification
have been filed. Oral arguments related to class certification are
pending. Discovery on the case merits remains pending. The Company
believes the case is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.


COMMERCIAL METALS: No Discovery Yet in Indirect Buyers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to remand a suit against Commercial Metals Company by
indirect purchasers of steel products has not yet been decided,
and no motion practice or discovery has taken place, according to
the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2013.

Since the filing of the direct purchaser lawsuit, a case has been
filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of a class of indirect purchasers in approximately 28
states naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially identical to those of the Standard Iron Works
complaint. That case has in effect been stayed. Another indirect
purchaser action was filed in Tennessee state court, again naming
the same defendants but contending that the conspiracy continued
through 2010. The case has been removed to federal court, and
plaintiffs have moved to remand. The motion to remand has not yet
been decided, and no motion practice or discovery has taken place.
The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and plans
to defend them vigorously. Due to the uncertainty and the
information available at this time, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss relating to these cases.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expedited Discovery Ruled Out in Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court entered an order denying plaintiffs' motion for
expedited discovery in In re Health Management Associates, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 1302288CA, according to
Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the Circuit
Court of Collier County, Florida: namely, Aliaga vs. Health
Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed August 1, 2013; Lopriore
vs. Health Management Associates, et al., filed August 5, 2013;
and Copeland vs. Health Management Associates, et al., filed
August 8, 2013. All allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the board
members of HMA arising out of the approval of the proposed
acquisition by the company. Community Health Systems, Inc. and
FWCT-2 Acquisition Corporation are named as aiding and abetting
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. A fourth case, Smilow vs.
Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed August 13, 2013,
does not name the company or FWCT-2 Acquisition Corporation as a
defendant. The company is vigorously defending these actions. An
additional case with similar allegations styled Margolis & Horwitz
vs. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., filed on August 5,
2013 in Delaware Chancery Court was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on November 25, 2013.

On December 11, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Florida actions filed
a consolidated amended complaint. On December 12, 2013, the court
entered an order consolidating the Florida actions into a single
case (In re Health Management Associates, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Lead Case No. 1302288CA) and appointing a leadership
structure for plaintiffs' counsel. On December 16, 2013, the
plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery in connection with an
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction prior to the
closing of the proposed Merger. Defendants filed a brief in
opposition to this motion on December 19, 2013, and on December
20, 2013, the Court entered an order denying the motion.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Community Health Systems, Inc. to dismiss a
shareholder suit against it in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee has been fully briefed and is
pending before the court, according to Community Health Systems,
Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the company's common
stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. The company's motion to
dismiss this case has been fully briefed and is pending before the
court. The company will vigorously defend this case.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissal Motion in Suit v. HMA Awaits Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in In
Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-
00046-JES-DNF) was fully submitted and awaiting decision of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, according
to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against HMA and certain of its then executive officers, one of
whom was at that time also a director, were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the
caption In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 2:12-cv-00046-JES-DNF) and three pension fund plaintiffs were
appointed as lead plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint purportedly on
behalf of stockholders who purchased HMA's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2009, through January 9, 2012. The amended
consolidated complaint (i) alleges that HMA made false and
misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding its
business and financial results and (ii) asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiffs claim
that HMA inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare
billing practices that entailed admitting patients to observation
status when they should not have been admitted at all and to
inpatient status when they should have been admitted to
observation status. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages. On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint. On December 15,
2012, the court entered an order approving the stipulation and
providing a schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed
amended pleadings. On February 11, 2013, the defendants were
served with the second amended consolidated complaint, which
asserts the same claims as the amended consolidated complaint. As
of August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead facts
required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was fully
submitted and awaiting the Court's decision. HMA intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. HMA is
unable to predict the outcome or determine the potential impact,
if any, that could result from its final resolution.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expedited Discovery Ruled Out in Fla. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A judge entered an order denying the plaintiff's request for
expedited discovery and granting leave for the plaintiff to file a
separate motion for a preliminary injunction hearing in The City
of Haverhill Retirement System v. Dauten, et al. (Case No. 8:13-
cv-00213), according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On January 22, 2013, a putative shareholder derivative action
entitled The City of Haverhill Retirement System v. Dauten, et al.
(Case No. 8:13-cv-00213) was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, purportedly on
behalf of HMA against its then directors. HMA was also named as a
nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that, among other things,
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to HMA and its
stockholders by supposedly causing HMA to undertake a scheme to
defraud Medicare by improperly admitting certain emergency room
patients as "inpatients" in violation of the False Claims Act and
then issuing false and misleading public statements about HMA's
financial outlook and compliance with laws and regulations.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by exposing HMA to potentially significant civil
and criminal penalties as a result of the aforementioned
investigations by United States Department of Health and Human
Services, OIG and the DOJ as well as the stockholder class action
and other ongoing litigation. The complaint seeks monetary damages
from the defendants, other than HMA. On February 8, 2013, the case
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Fort Myers Division (Case No. 2:13-cv-00092). On April
10, 2013 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserts
the same claims as its prior complaint, but also names two of the
Company's then executives as defendants. On May 15, 2013, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for threshold
lack of derivative standing, for failure to make a demand on the
Board, and for failure to state a claim. On June 26, 2013, the
plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on August
16, 2013, the plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add class
action claims related to the Merger Agreement. On October 31,
2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiff's
complaint as a "shotgun pleading" and granting the plaintiff leave
to file an amended complaint that cured the pleading deficiencies
of its previous complaint and that asserted claims related to the
proposed Merger. Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on
November 14, 2013, which asserts the same claims as the prior
complaint, but adds purported class action claims related to the
proposed Merger, and names as additional defendants HMA's current
directors. On December 16, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss
the second amended complaint. On December 20, 2013, the plaintiff
moved for expedited discovery and for oral argument to be
scheduled for an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction
prior to the closing of the proposed Merger. The defendants filed
a brief in opposition to this motion on December 24, 2013. On
December 26, 2013, the magistrate judge entered an order denying
the plaintiff's request for expedited discovery and granting leave
for the plaintiff to file a separate motion for a preliminary
injunction hearing.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Junk Suit by HMA Stockholders Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in Town of Davie Police Officers' Pension Plan v.
Dauten, et al. (C.A. No. 8742) moved to dismiss this action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to Community Health
Systems, Inc.'s Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 23, 2013, an action entitled Town of Davie Police
Officers' Pension Plan v. Dauten, et al. (C.A. No. 8742) was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. This action
purportedly was brought as a class action on behalf of all of
HMA's stockholders, as well as derivatively on behalf of HMA
against HMA's then directors and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC ("Wells Fargo"), and
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Deutsche Bank").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that those directors
breached their fiduciary duties (i) by approving a credit
agreement in 2011 that contains a change of control covenant which
plaintiff contends will coerce shareholders into supporting the
re-election of HMA's incumbent board of directors and (ii) by not
approving Glenview Nominees for election to HMA's Board of
Directors for purposes of seeking a waiver of the change of
control covenant. The complaint further alleges that the Wells
Fargo and Deutsche Bank defendants aided and abetted such
breaches. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
including (i) a declaration that those directors breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the credit agreement and (ii) an
order permanently enjoining the board of directors from invoking
or enforcing the change of control covenant in the credit
agreement. Plaintiff also seeks unspecified damages from those
directors and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On September
20, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the plaintiff's failure to
make a demand on the Board of Directors and failure to state a
claim. HMA intends to defend this action.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face Suits Over HMA Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. continues to face lawsuits over its
acquisition of Health Management Associates, according to
Community Health's Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have
been filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of HMA's
stockholders. Four were filed in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida: (1)
Aliaga v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., et al., Civ. No. 13-2288-CA
("Aliaga"), filed on August 1, 2013; (2) Copeland v. Health Mgmt.
Assocs., Inc., et al., Case No. 13-2356-CA ("Copeland"), filed on
August 8, 2013; (3) Lopriore v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., et
al., Case No. 13-2307-CA ("Lopriore"), filed on August 5, 2013;
and (4) Smilow v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., et al., Case No. 13-
2371-CA ("Smilow"), filed on August 13, 2013 (collectively, the
"Florida Actions"). The fifth case, Margolis, et al. v. Schoen, et
al., C.A. No. 8774-CS, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware on August 5, 2013.

With limited exceptions, these actions name HMA, former members of
its board of directors, CHS, and Merger Sub as defendants.
Generally, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that those
directors breached their fiduciary duties to HMA stockholders by,
among other things, approving the Merger Agreement for allegedly
inadequate consideration, following an allegedly unfair sale
process that favored the interests of CHS and those directors over
HMA stockholders, and that CHS and Merger Sub aided and abetted
such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs further
allege that those directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to terms in the Merger Agreement that favor CHS and deter
alternative bids. The actions seek, among other things, an
injunction against the completion of the Merger (or rescission of
the Merger Agreement to the extent it has been implemented) and
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses. The company intends
to defend these actions.


CONAGRA FOODS: Has to Disclose Sodium Content in Sunflower Seeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that though the shells
of David-brand sunflower seeds are inedible, ConAgra Foods may
still have to disclose how much sodium their flavorful coating
contains, the 9th Circuit ruled February 20, 2014.

California resident Aleta Lilly hopes to represent a class against
the packaged food giant under various state consumer laws. She
claims that ConAgra must disclose on its packaging the sodium
content of the seed coating, which comes in a variety of flavors,
since it is meant to be ingested.

She pointed out that the instructions on the popular David brand
sunflower seeds tell consumers to crack the shell with their teeth
and spit out the shell.  Following these directions, the consumer
cannot help but to ingest the outer coating, she claimed.

ConAgra moved to dismiss the complaint based on federal pre-
emption, arguing that Lilly's state-law claims sought to impose
labeling requirements other than those mandated by the Food and
Drug Administration.

U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner agreed and dismissed the
putative class action in Los Angeles, but an appellate panel
revived Lilly's claims, 2-1, on February 20, 2014.

ConAgra had argued that the shell and its coating are "inedible"
and therefore need not be represented on labels, as the FDA does
not require companies to list the sodium levels of such "inedible
components."

The appeals court rejected this argument, countering that it
failed to make a distinction between the shell and the coating.

"ConAgra's argument simply ignores the fact that while the shells
themselves are inedible, the coatings put on top of the shells
most certainly are not inedible," Judge Barry Silverman wrote for
the majority.  "To the contrary, the coatings impart flavor and
are indisputably intended to be ingested as part of the sunflower
seed eating experience.  Indeed, these coatings come in flavors
such as 'Ranch' and 'Nacho Cheese' precisely because they are to
be consumed before the shell is discarded.  The shell is not
edible, but the coating is and is intended to be.  Federal law
requires that the sodium listings include the 'edible portion' of
a food.  For that reason, the portion of the edible coating on the
shell must be accounted for in the calculation of the sodium
content.  The asserted state law requirements that Lilly seeks to
impose here are thus no different from federal law and not
preempted."

U.S. District Judge C. Roger Vinson, who sat on the panel by
designation from the Northern District of Florida, wrote in
dissent that it was not the panel's job to determine the edibility
of the coating.

"Although we might prefer a regulation that includes the shell's
absorbed salt and to draw a distinction between an edible
'coating' and an inedible shell, we are nonetheless bound to apply
this unambiguous regulation objectively as it has been written,"
he wrote.  "In my view, it is not currently written to allow such
a nuanced distinction.  The FDA could, of course, have drafted the
regulation in any detail that it wanted (and it could still do so
now), making distinctions such as the one favored by the majority
today."

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Danielle A. Stoumbos, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON, LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  dstoumbos@finkelsteinthompson.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
          Lauren R. Goodman, Esq.
          Noah Priluck, Esq.
          MCGRATH NORTH MULLIN & KRATZ, PC LLO,
          First National Tower, Suite 3700
          1601 Dodge Street
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 341-3070
          E-mail: pbrookhouser@mcgrathnorth.com
                  lgoodman@mcgrathnorth.com
                  npriluck@mcgrathnorth.com

The appellate case is Aleta Lilly v. Conagra Foods, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 12-55921, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is
Aleta Lilly v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-00225-RGK-SH,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.


CRANE CO: Representative in Asbestos Trial Says Products Safe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that nearing the end of a rare Madison County, Ill. asbestos
trial, the jury was given the chance to hear directly from a Crane
Co. representative who stands firm in his belief that Crane Co.
gaskets and packing were not hazardous.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Tom King was a machinist mate
for the U.S. Navy from 1959-1962 and again from 1965-1969.  He
later died from mesothelioma on May 23 at age 71.

As a machinist mate, Mr. King's job was to change gaskets, repair
pumps and repair valves.  Part of his job required him to scrape
out dry, baked chrysotile asbestos form gaskets in order to
replace them with new ones.  He was also exposed to asbestos
packing, which was used in valves and pumps as a sealant to
prevent leaks.

Crane Co.'s Vice President of Environment Health and Safety
Anthony Pantaleoni's testimony was first heard on Feb. 28 when the
plaintiffs showed his video deposition.

Mr. Pantaleoni joined Crane Co. in 1989 and became a designated
representative in 2003.

In his video deposition, Mr. Pantaleoni agrees that Crane Co.'s
primary product line is dedicated to valves and valve component
parts, which sometimes included asbestos.  He said the company
first started selling the products in the early 1900s and didn't
stop selling asbestos-containing valves until the mid-1980s.

Mr. Pantaleoni later stated in his deposition that Crane Co.
continued producing one product line of asbestos-containing valves
into the 1990s.

Crane Co. became aware of asbestos health hazards and illnesses in
the early 70s, he said.

However, in his defense testimony heard by the court on Feb. 26,
Mr. Pantaleoni said Crane Co. still to this day does not believe
the gaskets and packing it sold was hazardous.

Questioned by Crane Co. attorney Jim Lowery, Mr. Pantaleoni said
all asbestos-containing gaskets and packing were provided to them
by third-party companies to be sold by Crane Co.

"We never manufactured asbestos, never mined it, never milled it
in any of our operations," Mr. Pantaleoni said.

He admitted that while Crane Co. didn't make the asbestos-
containing gaskets and packing, it did put them into its products.

Mr. Pantaleoni said the valves they made were simple to use, but
were intricate to construct.  It is important that they are made
in a clean environment to prevent malfunctions and leaking.

"While the valve itself is a simple mechanism, the way you make it
is a critical aspect," he said.

It was also important that the metals used are correct, the
formulations are correct and the way those metals are used are
correct.

He went on to explain that valves do not require asbestos in order
to function, saying using asbestos or not makes no determination
of whether it functions correctly.  He added that the material
running through the valve would determine whether or not asbestos
is needed.

"That valve doesn't care," he said.

He proceeded to demonstrate the components of a valve and how it
is used or manipulated on a 1.5 inch brass valve from Crane Co.

"If you had a flanged end and you're bolting that into a piping
system, then you have to have a gasket in order to make a proper
fit," he explained.

He showed the jury how a gasket would seal the surface of the
valve to prevent a metal-to-metal contact, which would leak.

"All they are is sealing devices," Mr. Pantaleoni said.  "They're
just put in there to prevent leakage."

Therefore, the gasket is not actually part of the valve.

Mr. Pantaleoni made it clear that while asbestos was not necessary
in a gasket, gaskets were necessary in certain types of valves.
Without a proper sealant, the valve or a line could explode.

Answering a juror's question, he explained that packing isn't
necessary in all valves. But for those that do require packing,
the material would go in the stem of the valve.  Packing is not
friable, but if it is dry it could still be dusty, he said.

Regardless of whether or not asbestos was required, Mr. Pantaleoni
said Crane Co. was following Navy specifications, which dictated
exactly what was needed.  Drawings identified every part or
component part and the materials associated with it.

"Well, the Navy was the most stringent customer that Crane had,"
he said.

"If that specification said that had to be asbestos, that's what
it had to be," he added.

The Navy even provided inspectors located in Crane Co.'s
operations to make sure the products met those specifications and
often performed random testing on those products.

Because the Navy specifically asked for flange valves, gaskets
were required, he said.  And those gaskets had to be asbestos to
meet military specifications, he said.

Answering a juror's question, Mr. Pantaleoni said Crane Co.
provided technical manuals if the Navy requested them, but in most
cases, the Navy would take those and produce their own manuals.
However, he added that he has never seen a technical manual for a
pump or a valve.

During redirect by the defense, Mr. Pantaleoni said it was his
understanding that the Navy did not provide respirators for use
aboard their ships when working with asbestos-containing
materials.

When asked about the safety efforts Crane Co. took, he explained
that Crane Co. didn't believe its products were dangerous and he
never came across any issues relating to gaskets and packing
health hazards.

During cross examination by plaintiff attorney Frank Wathen, he
said Crane Co. never performed any testing or research on those
products because it didn't manufacture them and didn't believe
they were problematic.

"We didn't see a reason to because of the nature of what we did,"
Mr. Pantaleoni said.

Mr. Pantaleoni agreed that Crane Co. knew the gaskets would
eventually have to be removed, but didn't test for those
situations because the forceful removal of dry gaskets was not
performed in Crane Co.'s operations.

The efforts Crane Co. did make towards health and safety in the
factories began in the early 1900s with Dr. Andrew Harvey, who was
a leader of occupational health and safety.

Mr. Pantaleoni said Harvey set up medical programs and
rehabilitation for Crane Co. employees before a Workers'
Compensation program existed.  His efforts provided injured
employees an opportunity to continue earning a wage while
regaining health, he said.  It benefited families who depended on
the wages and Crane Co. which depended on having healthy workers,
he said.

Fast-forwarding to Mr. Pantaleoni's time, he said Crane Co.
ensures the factories meet safety regulations and laws while
remaining very clean for proper valve construction and controlling
dusty areas to prevent any asbestos exposure.

"When we were looking at our plant operations, we wanted to make
sure they were safe for all of our employees," he said.


DAVID COPPERFIELD: Intimidates Those Who Challenge Him, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magician David Copperfield stiffs his employees for overtime and
uses his "might and influence" to intimidate those who challenge
him, seven workers claim in a federal class action, reports Megan
Gallegos at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Jaroslav Jastrzebski sued David Copperfield, his
companies David Copperfield's Disappearing Inc., Backstage
Employment and Referral, and Imagine Nation Company, and Backstage
CEO Christopher Kenner.

The seven named plaintiffs, all male, say they worked as
stagehands and in other production jobs "The Magic of David
Copperfield" show at the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino.  They claim
that Copperfield and his companies put together a system to make
their overtime wages disappear.

"This system consisted of, inter alia, creating job titles for
each and every employee that did not conform to reality," the
complaint states.  "For instance, the majority of the employees
engaged at the show had a job title of 'Illusion
Specialist/Creative Associate' even though they performed mundane
functions of a stagehand, spotlight operator, light-board
operator, electrician, show assistant, technician, etc.  As
another example, many employees responsible for running
Copperfield's errands, doing laundry, shopping, moving, driving,
etc. were given a job title of 'Executive Assistant' and were
denied overtime pay.

"Every week such employees would receive a paycheck that did not
specify the hours or days worked during each week, or even a
classification of such employees.

"Yet, despite the fact that the paycheck did not specify the
amount of time worked by each employee, it was the defendants'
company-wide policy that the employees made a day-rate and that
any absence of a given day would result in denial of pay.

"Indeed, for any workweek that the lead plaintiffs worked fewer
days than their required quota, even if such an absence was
necessitated by the defendants' operating requirements, the
defendants deducted pay from the lead plaintiffs' paychecks
accordingly."

The workers claim Copperfield did not maintain timekeeping
records, forced them to work six to seven days a week for 10-14
hours a day without overtime pay, and deducted housing costs for
some of them.

When they confronted Copperfield about the labor violations, "the
defendants reminded the employees of their unique chance to work
for Copperfield and demanded sacrifice," the complaint states.
"In addition, the employees were constantly reminded about their
economic dependence on Copperfield and threatened by Copperfield's
might and influence."

When the plaintiffs sought legal help in December 2013,
Copperfield threatened to sue three of them for violating their
"secrecy agreements," and "to discourage remaining employees for
pursuing their overtime claims, according to the complaint: "on
January 3, 2014 the defendants commenced a frivolous lawsuit in
the Eight Judicial District Court of Nevada (Case # A-14-693932C)
with a retaliatory intent to punish the most vocal Plaintiffs
Jastrzebski, England, and Smith, and to deter those employees who
were still considering an action against the Defendants for
overtime violations," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek money owed, an injunction, class damages and
punitive damages for labor law violations, retaliation, failure to
pay wages, civil conspiracy and abuse of process.

Forbes magazine last year estimated Copperfield's net worth at
$800 million -- $300 million more than Madonna's -- and said he
rakes in about $50 million a year in ticket sales, plus
merchandising, which he owns.

Copperfield's publicists offered a statement on behalf of an
unnamed attorney for Copperfield.  In past lawsuits, Copperfield
has been represented by Philip Varricchio.

"Don't be fooled by these claims," the statement reads. "They have
it all backwards.  David and his company are the ones that have
been wronged here.  Evidence shows that David's trade secrets and
intellectual property have been systematically revealed, and this
lawsuit is smoke and mirrors to cover up a much bigger issue."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jakub P. Medrala, Esq.
          DONATH & MEDRALA, PROF. LLC
          7866 West Sahara Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Telephone: (702) 475-8884
          Facsimile: (702) 938-8625
          E-mail: info@medralaw.com


EXECUTIVE 2000: Refused to Pay OT Wages, "Fernandez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Fernandez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Executive 2000 Courier Systems, Inc. and Dennis
Nieves, Case No. 1:14-cv-20266-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2014)
accuses the Defendants of willfully and intentionally refusing to
pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Executive 2000 Courier Systems, Inc. is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida.  Dennis
Nieves is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                  DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Denial of Class Cert. in "Hataishi" Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In DINA HATAISHI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIRST AMERICAN HOME
BUYERS PROTECTION CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, NO.
B244769, Ms. Hataishi appealed from a trial court order denying
her motion for certification of a California class of Defendant
First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation's customers
whose telephone conversations were recorded without warning. The
Plaintiff contends that First American's conduct violates Penal
Code1 section 632, which prohibits the intentional recording of a
"confidential communication" without the consent of all parties to
the communication. The trial court denied Plaintiff's motion for
class certification for lack of ascertainability, community of
interest and superiority.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, affirms on
the ground that the proposed class lacks the requisite community
of interest.  The trial court also applied the correct legal
standard, and its ruling is supported by substantial evidence, the
Appeals Court concludes.

"Because the trial court did not commit legal error in concluding
common questions of fact do not predominate, we need not consider
the other grounds the court identified for denying class
certification," notes the Appeals Court ruling.

A copy of the Appeals Court's February 21, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/hAwFPkfrom Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Lisa L. Maki and Lisa L. Maki -- lmaki58@ymail.com
; Kiesel + Larson and Paul R. Kiesel -- mailto:kiesel@kbla.com --
for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dentons US, Joel D. Siegel -- joel.siegel@snrdenton.com -- and
Paul M. Kakuske -- paul.kakuske@snrdenton.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.


FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Lexapro Suit Obtains Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a Lexapro lawsuit arguing Forest Pharmaceuticals misled patients
about the risk of Lexapro side effects and Celexa side effects has
been granted class-action status.  The lawsuit alleges that Forest
Pharmaceuticals Inc., maker of Lexapro and Celexa, covered up
findings suggesting the antidepressants were not effective in
children.  Meanwhile, a lawsuit has been filed against Forest
Pharmaceuticals alleging Lexapro caused fatal birth defects in a
baby who died two weeks after her birth.

According to Law360, the class-action decision was handed down by
a Massachusetts federal judge in the lawsuit filed by Missouri
parents (case number 1:09-md-02067, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts) even though similar allegations
made in lawsuits in New York and Illinois were rejected.  The
judge determined, however, the plaintiffs' allegations -- that
they were misled into giving their children Lexapro and Celexa
even though the drugs were not approved for use in children --
could go ahead under Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.

All three sets of lawsuits -- from Missouri, New York and
Illinois -- have been consolidated for multidistrict litigation in
Massachusetts federal court.  The lawsuits all allege Forest
Pharmaceuticals marketed the drugs as safe for children even
though they were not approved for pediatric use.

Although it is not illegal for drugs to be prescribed off-label --
for uses they are not approved for -- it is illegal for drug
companies to market medications for off-label uses.  Plaintiffs in
the lawsuit argue that by not giving parents full information
about Lexapro and Celexa -- specifically that a clinical trial
found the drugs to be no more effective than a placebo in
children -- Forest Pharmaceuticals denied parents the opportunity
to make an informed decision.

While that lawsuit works its way through the system, a lawsuit
alleging a baby died of birth defects caused by Lexapro has been
filed against Forest Pharmaceuticals.  The lawsuit (case number
14-cv-00114 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey) was filed by Chandra Shuck and claims her daughter,
M.M.S., died two weeks after she was born due to birth defects
caused by Lexapro, which the baby's mother took while pregnant.

According to the lawsuit, baby M.M.S. was diagnosed at birth with
life-threatening heart defects, including "an atrial septal
defect, a ventricular septal defect, a patent ductus arteriosus, a
patent foramen ovale, a coarctation of the aorta, a right
ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects, a left ventricular
outflow tract obstruction defects and pulmonary hypertension."

In all, baby M.M.S. had four open-heart surgeries to treat her
conditions in her two weeks of life.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants knew about the risk of
cardiac and other birth defects in infants who were exposed to the
medications prior to birth, but still marketed the drug for use in
pregnant women.  Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that because the
defendants continued to misrepresent the risks associated with
Lexapro, it took the plaintiff longer to discover that Lexapro may
have caused her daughter's serious heart condition.

Among the claims against Forest Pharmaceuticals are wrongful
death, defective design and failure to warn.


FREESCORE LLC: 9th Cir. Flips Lower Court Ruling in "Stout" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In KEVIN STOUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FREESCORE, LLC, DBA
FreeScore.com, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 10-56887, Mr. Stout appeals
the dismissal of his putative class action against FreeScore under
the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1679, et
seq. (CROA). In dismissing Mr. Stout's claim, the district court
concluded that FreeScore is not a "credit repair organization" as
defined in the CROA.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds
that FreeScore is a "credit repair organization" for purposes of
the CROA, because Freescore, through the representations it made
on its website and in its television advertising, offered a
service, in return for the payment of money, for the implied
purpose of providing advice or assistance to consumers with regard
to improving the consumer's credit record, credit history, or
credit rating.  The Ninth Circuit, therefore, reverses the
judgment of the district court and remands the case for further
proceedings.

A copy of the Circuit Court's February 21, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/vmBErwfrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff-Appellant, Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C., Beverly Hills, California, and:

   Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. (argued)
   Weisberg & Meyers LLC
   10400 Griffin Road, Suite 302
   Cooper City, FL 33328
   Telephone: (888) 595-9111

Darrel J. Hieber -- darrel.hieber@skadden.com -- (argued), Jason
D. Russell -- jason.russell@skadden.com -- and Jennifer E.
LaGrange, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Los Angeles,
California, for Defendant-Appellee.


GENERAL RETIREMENT: Settles Class Action for $7.9 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Christine Ferretti, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
a $7.9 million settlement was reached on Feb. 26 in a years-long
legal battle against trustees of the city's two pension funds.

The class-action suit filed in Wayne County Circuit Court on
behalf of all pensioners alleges negligence in 10 investments
trustees made in 2008-09 involving real estate, newspapers,
airplanes and start-up equity funds, attorneys for the plaintiffs
say.

The 2009 legal action has led to procedural reforms within the
General Retirement System and Police and Fire Retirement System
and now calls for the Hudson Insurance Company, which insured the
trustees, to equally distribute a payout of $5.4 million between
the funds.  The remaining $2.7 million will go to attorney fees
and court costs.

The plaintiffs in the suit claimed more than a dozen former
trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approving high-risk
investments of fund money without due diligence and were granted a
restraining order from the court to prevent documents from being
destroyed.  None of the defendants, nor the insurer, admitted
liability in the deal.

Gerard Mantese, a Troy-based attorney for the plaintiffs, said the
main goal was to "change the way the boards do business."

"The real purpose and benefit of the litigation is to force a new
era in the decision-making and approval process for investments by
the trustees," Mr. Mantese said, adding the settlement funds will
now go back into the retirement systems and be available for
payments to pensioners.

Bruce Babiarz with the Police and Fire Retirement System
emphasized on Feb. 26 the lawsuit did not involve the retirement
systems or pension boards, just individual trustees.

The case involves figures who factor into a bribery and kickback
case pending in federal court against Kwame Kilpatrick's
fraternity brother and three others.

A federal indictment alleges former Detroit Treasurer and
Kilpatrick fraternity brother Jeffrey Beasley pressured those who
dealt with the retirement systems to contribute money to the
Kilpatrick Civic Fund in return for his support.

The indictment includes allegations that one former trustee
received a Christmas gift basket stuffed with cash, free trips and
other items from people seeking investments from the Police and
Fire pension fund.

Mr. Beasley and three others are scheduled to stand trial in June.

Among the former trustees named in the circuit court class-action
suit are Mr. Beasley, ex-City Council President Monica Conyers and
Marty Bandemer, a former Detroit Police union president and former
trustees DeDan Milton and Paul Stewart.

S. Allen Early, an attorney for Mr. Milton, said on Feb. 26 that
the case was "contentious" but called its resolution fair, noting
there was no admission of liability and that Detroit's pension
funds are getting "a significant amount of money."


GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Goodwill Industries of
Southern California stiffs workers for overtime, a class action
claims in California Superior Court.


GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Student Abuse Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Gardiner, writing for Recorder and Times, reports that a
$225-million class-action lawsuit alleging abuse against students
attending Grenville Christian College from 1973 to 1997 has been
given the go-ahead to proceed.

A nine-page decision released on Feb. 24 by an appeal tribunal of
the Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court overturned a
May 23, 2012 ruling by Judge Paul Perell.

The decision, signed by Judges Francis Kiteley, Helen Rady and
Kevin Whitaker, concluded that Judge Perell was mistaken in
refusing to certify the class-action suit.

The now-closed school and the individual respondents cited in the
claim must pay $35,000 to the appellants for the cost of the
appeal.  Similarly, the respondents are ordered to pay the
appellants' cost of the certification motion of $150,000.

The $225-million lawsuit filed in 2007 alleges physical and sexual
abuse, including bizarre rituals to punish students' sins which
they claim left them traumatized.  The claim led by five
plaintiffs names the school, the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese
of Ontario, Rev. Charles Farnsworth, Betty Farnsworth and Judy
Hay, executrix for the estate of Alastair Haig and Mary Haig.

Judge Perell's 2012 decision ruled a class-action lawsuit could
not proceed as a "preferable procedure" because the common issues
are overwhelmed by individual issues.

But the tribunal judges rejected the argument, noting Judge Perell
"made a palpable and overriding error in the analysis and decision
as to the preferable procedure."

While Judge Perell correctly listed the criteria to be considered,
he failed to "undertake a critical analysis that would dictate a
different result," states the decision of the appeal tribunal.

There is a powerful economic argument to proceed as a class-action
suit, according to the latest decision.  It is clear "most
individuals cannot afford to pursue litigation on this scale," an
argument for class actions made in a precedent case during 2012.

Judge Perell also erred in suggesting common issues litigated in a
class action suit would be re-litigated in the trials of
individual claims, the tribunal said.  The tribunal found instead
"a determination of the common issues would necessarily involve a
consideration of matters affecting all class members irrespective
of their individual circumstances."

Those matters include a history of the school, duties owed by the
college and the affiliated respondents to class members especially
relating to discipline, practices and policies that affected those
duties and whether a school's disciplinary practices were systemic
and a breach of the school's responsibilities to the students.


H&R BLOCK: Removed "Number" Suit to Western District of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Number Queen, Ltd., et
al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 1316-CV28523, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas
City).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00064-
HFS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John E. Toma, Esq.
          362 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Suite 223
          Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
          Telephone: (314) 361-1600

               - and -

          Lyle W. Cook, Esq.
          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          William A. Kershaw, Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
          E-mail: lcook@kcrlegal.com
                  stalley@kcrlegal.com
                  wkershaw@kcrlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Biggers, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          3600 One Metropolitan Square
          211 N Broadway
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
          E-mail: mgbiggers@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Thompson, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE, LLP
          1200 Main Street, Suite 3500
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 374-3249
          Facsimile: (816) 855-3249
          E-mail: rmthompson@bryancave.com


HAMMER NUTRITION: Misleads NY Consumers, "Harabedian" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Harabedian, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Hammer Nutrition, Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00459-LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all consumers in New York, who purchased any
of these Hammer products at any time during the applicable statute
of limitations period: Appestat capsules and Perpetuem powder.

Hammer's claim that its products are made with natural ingredients
are false and misleading, Mr. Harabedian contends.  He argues that
testing of the Hammer products revealed, inter alia, that they do
not fit within the United States Department of Agriculture's
"natural" classification, and the products contain ingredients
that would prompt objection by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration when used in connection with the term "natural."

Hammer is a Montana corporation headquartered in Whitefish,
Montana.  Hammer distributes various dietary supplements through
retailers and online throughout the country, including New York
State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 705-9460
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com


HERTZ CORP: Sued in N.J. Over Hidden Currency Conversion Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
The Hertz Corp. is being sued in federal court in Newark by U.S.
customers who say they were hit with undisclosed currency
conversion charges when renting vehicles abroad using credit
cards.

The putative class action, Margulis v. The Hertz Corp., alleges
that the 4-year-old practice violates New Jersey's Consumer Fraud
Act, which carries the potential of treble damages and attorney
fee shifting if the plaintiffs prevail.

The suit also includes claims of breach of contract with
customers, common law fraud and unjust enrichment. It seeks
compensatory and statutory damages as well as attorney fees and
costs.  According to the complaint, Hertz quotes customers
vehicle-rental rates that do not include the extra fee, which
comes later in the form of an exchange rate higher than that
charged by most credit-card companies.

Hertz unilaterally imposes a 4.5 percent fee for the currency
conversion service, whereas credit card companies typically charge
from 3 percent down to nothing, the complaint says.  What's more,
Hertz allegedly states falsely that the customer has chosen to
have the service performed and that the company's method is
cheaper than conversion by a credit-card issuer.

Named plaintiff Daniel Margulis says he was hit with the 4.5
percent conversion rate twice in 2013 while renting cars in Italy
and in Wales, whereas his own credit card company does not charge
for currency conversion.  When he protested, Hertz told him he
opted for the service and authorized the billing.

Plaintiff lawyer Jason Solotaroff -- jsolotaroff@gslawny.com -- of
Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart in New York, says he believes
the nationwide putative class to number in the tens of thousands.
He says that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applies because
Hertz's headquarters is in this state and the company's policies
are formed here.

Paul DePetris of Medford, a consumer law authority, says federal
banking laws commonly are held to preempt state law claims.  In
addition, a judge might be reluctant to apply the Consumer Fraud
Act to such a wide class of potential claimants, since the
allegedly fraudulent conduct could have occurred out of state or
out of country, he says.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of
Immunomedics, Inc. common stock during the period between May 9,
2013 and October 9, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 27, 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/immunomedics/

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 Immunomedics and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Immunomedics is a biopharmaceutical company primarily focused on
the development of monoclonal antibody-based products for the
targeted treatment of cancer and autoimmune and other serious
diseases.

In July 2008, Immunomedics entered into a License and
Collaboration Agreement with Nycomed GmbH, whereby the Company
issued Nycomed a worldwide license to develop, manufacture and
commercialize one of its most advanced therapeutic compounds,
Veltuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody for the treatment of
all non-cancer indications.  Immunomedics retained the rights to
develop, manufacture and commercialize Veltuzumab in the field of
oncology.  In September 2011, Nycomed was acquired by Takeda
Pharmaceutical Company (hereinafter referred to as "Takeda-
Nycomed").  As a result of entering into the Agreement, Takeda-
Nycomed was solely responsible for completing the clinical
development of and obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals
for Veltuzumab, as well as commercializing and manufacturing
Veltuzumab for sale in non-cancer indications.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made numerous positive statements about Veltuzumab and its related
development by Takeda-Nycomed.  Unbeknownst to investors however,
prior to and during the Class Period, the Company and Takeda-
Nycomed were embroiled in an on-going dispute regarding what
Immunomedics considered to be an unacceptable delay in the
development of Veltuzumab.  In fact, on May 14, 2013, just three
days after the beginning of the Class Period, Immunomedics
provided Takeda-Nycomed with a formal notification that, as a
result of the delays in the development in Veltuzumab, it
considered Takeda-Nycomed to be in "material breach" of the
Agreement and that the Agreement would terminate if the breach
remained uncured.  Thereafter, defendants continued to make
positive statements about Veltuzumab and its related development
by Takeda-Nycomed.

Then, on October 9, 2013, Immunomedics issued a press release
announcing that the Agreement with Takeda-Nycomed had been
terminated.  On this news, Immunomedics common stock dropped 5.9%,
on very heavy trading volume.  Moreover, the previous day, October
8, 2013, Immunomedics common stock dropped nearly 12%, on very
heavy trading volume, as news about the termination of the
Agreement leaked into the market.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Immunomedics common stock 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.


INCYTE CORP: Court Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Juan R. Sanchez dismissed the claims filed by
plaintiffs in IN RE INCYTE SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-365, (D. Del.).

Plaintiff City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan brought this
consolidated securities fraud class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Incyte Corporation
between April 26, 2012, and August 1, 2012.  The Plaintiff asserts
claims against Incyte and three of its officers -- Chief Executive
Officer Paul A. Friedman, Chief Commercial Officer Patricia S.
Andrews, and Executive Vice President and Chief Drug Development
and Medical Officer Richard S. Levy -- for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)
and 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (PSLRA).

Judge Sanchez granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for failure to
adequately state a claim for a violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act. Since Plaintiff failed to state a
valid claim under Section 10(b), the Section 20(a) claims must
also be dismissed.

The Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of the Order to amend its
Complaint to address the failure to plead fraud with sufficient
particularity.

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


JEAN MADELINE: Sued Over High Student Cosmetology Service Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a cosmetology school
run by salon chain Jean Madeline Inc. in conjunction with Aveda
Corp. was hit with a class action in Pennsylvania state court on
Feb. 25 alleging that customers who received services from
students were charged above the state maximum for student-provided
services.

Plaintiff Sophia Krivy said in the lawsuit that under Pennsylvania
law, customers who get cosmetology services from students can only
be charged for the cost of materials.

"Defendants employ a uniform policy of charging fees to members of
the public for cosmetology services which are much higher than the
costs of materials consumed in providing those services," she
said.

Ms. Krivy said that when she was charged $12 for a haircut at the
Jean Madeline Aveda Institute's University City salon in
Philadelphia, she paid more than the cost of materials that were
used.  She said that the cost structure at the school, which has
three student salons in the city, violates the state's Beauty
Culture Act, a law enacted in 1996.

Under the law, it is illegal in the state to collect fees for
cosmetology services unless an individual holds a cosmetology
license, according to Ms. Krivy.  She added that the only
exception is for schools of cosmetology, which are allowed to
charge solely for the cost of materials involved in the services.

She noted that the cost of materials for her $12 haircut could not
have gone past $1.

Ms. Krivy seeks to certify a class of all customers who received
services from any of the three Philadelphia branches of the school
since February 2008.  She also seeks to establish a subclass of
customers who paid more than $8 for a haircut at the University
City location.

Ms. Krivy said that the excessive charges qualify as a deceptive
business practice under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law, which allows for a $100 per person
statutory penalty for misrepresentations.  Under the law,
plaintiffs need not demonstrate actual fraud and only need to show
the deceptive conduct, according to the suit.

Ms. Krivy estimates the size of the class to be less than 5,000
individuals, which means the school faces a $500,000 exposure.

In addition to a court order directing the school to provide the
notice and the refunds, Ms. Krivy wants the court to put an end to
the overcharging policy.


Ms. Krivy is represented by Stephen DeNittis --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- of DeNittis Osefchen PC.

The case is Sophia Krivy v. Jean Madeline Education Center of
Cosmetology Inc. et al, case number 140202603, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.


JRH RESTAURANT: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Abreu, Ernesto Lopez, Gamaliel Rojas, Luis Rojas, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. J.R.H
Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Kumo Sushi, Jimmy Chen and John Does
#1-10, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00394-RA (S.D.N.Y.,
January 22, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, spread-of-hours premiums, unlawful deductions, unlawful
kickbacks and statutory penalties for notice-and-recordkeeping
violations.  The Plaintiffs are hourly employees, who work for the
Defendants at their restaurant located in New York.

J.R.H Restaurant Group, Inc. is a New York domestic business
corporation.  Kumo Sushi is a busy and popular restaurant located
in the East Village of Manhattan and, according to its Yelp page,
renowned throughout the city as a party venue that offers "all-
you-can-eat" sushi, sake and beer for large groups of patrons.

Jimmy Chen and the Doe Defendants have been "shareholders" of
J.R.H. Restaurant Group, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq.
          EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          113 University Place
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 473-8700
          Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
          E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen Brian Irwin, Esq.
          Thomas E. Berinato, Esq.
          123-40 83 Ave.
          Kew Gardens, NY 11412
          Telephone: (718) 874-8423
          Facsimile: (718) 874-6843
          E-mail: sbirwin@live.com


MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Class Action Over Misdiagnosis Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit against a disgraced
pathologist and the Miramichi Regional Health Authority has been
allowed to go ahead by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

In a split decision on Feb. 27, the province's highest court
overruled a lower court decision that struck down the class-action
lawsuit brought by former patients.

The lawsuit against Dr. Rajgopal Menon and the health authority
was filed by three former patients, and about 100 people had
signed up for the class action.  Dr. Menon was previously found to
have made thousands of partial or full misdiagnoses between 1995
and 2007.

In the lower court decision, Justice Jean-Paul Ouellette of the
Court of Queen's Bench had ruled the plaintiffs "failed to
establish an identifiable class, define workable and manageable
common issues, or establish that a class action would be the
preferable procedure for proceeding within the requirements of the
Class Proceedings Act."  The judge noted that plaintiffs Albert
John Gay and Kimberley Ann Doyle had no change in their diagnoses
following a review of their pathology slides.

"They have suffered no physical harm and they have suffered no
recognizable psychiatric harm as a result of the action of
Dr. Menon or the hospital," Justice Ouellette said.  "It is
questionable as to whether they are appropriate representatives."

Lead plaintiff Jim Wilson, however, does appear to have cause for
action against Dr. Menon for the alleged misdiagnosis of prostate
cancer, Justice Ouellette concluded in his 41-page decision.

However, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that
decision amounted to reversible error and said the class-action
lawsuit can proceed, making it the first class-action lawsuit to
be certified in New Brunswick since legislation in 1982 was
enacted to allow class action lawsuits.

The certification order issued by the court defines the "class" in
the lawsuit as including:

More than 15,000 patients whose tissue samples underwent pathology
testing by Menon between Jan. 1, 1995 and Feb. 7, 2007;

The estates, children, parents and spouses of deceased patients.

"The Court's order does not determine the merits of the action,
but it simply allows it to go forward as a class proceeding,"
stated the decision by Chief Justice Ernest Drapeau and Justice
Alexandre Deschenes.

No automatic Supreme Court hearing

A dissenting opinion was given by Justice Joseph Robertson.

While split decisions of an appeal court are automatically heard
by the Supreme Court of Canada in appeals of criminal cases, there
is no such provision for split decisions in civil litigation to be
automatically heard by the province's highest court.  Either
Dr. Menon or the health authority can seek leave to appeal the
decision.

Dr. Menon was suspended from his position at the Miramichi
Regional Hospital in February 2007, following complaints about
incomplete diagnoses and delayed lab results.

Former health minister Michael Murphy called a formal public
inquiry into the pathology work at the Miramichi hospital after an
independent audit of 227 cases of breast and prostate cancer
biopsies from 2004-05 found 18 per cent had incomplete results and
three per cent had been misdiagnosed.

The head of the inquiry, Justice Paul Creaghan, found that
Dr. Menon should have been fired two years before he was
suspended.

Justice Creaghan's final report offered 52 recommendations to
improve pathology services in the province.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Homeowners Dispute Loan Servicing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Scata and Jeannie Scata, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00189-REB-KLM (D.
Colo., January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of classes of
similarly situated homeowners across the nation to challenge
Nationstar's alleged deficient, unfair, and deceptive loan
servicing practices and systematic failure to offer qualified
borrowers Trial Period Plans under the Federal Home Affordable
Modification Program.

The Scatas are citizens of Colorado.  They reside on Four Rivers
Road in Boulder, Colorado, and their home mortgage is one of the
loans at issue in the lawsuit.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Lewisville, Texas.
Nationstar operates as a servicer of residential mortgage loans
owned by third parties and as an originator of mortgage loans
directly to consumers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Megan L. Lindsey, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          999 18th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 357-4877
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com
                  mlindsey@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erik W. Kemp, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          One Embarcadero Center, #2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: ek@severson.com


NEVADA PROPERTY: Fraud Suit Over Cosmopolitan Condominium Moved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lenny Spangler v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; Deutsche Bank AG, a German bank; Tutor Perini
Building Corp., an Arizona corporation; First American Title
Insurance Company, a business entity of unknown form; Nevada Title
Company, a Nevada corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
8:13-cv-01315, has been transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.  The Nevada District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00125-GMN-NJK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, and the California Business and Professions
Code.  The Plaintiff and the Class members are individuals, who
paid earnest money deposits towards the purchase of condominium
units in The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas, formerly known as the
Cosmopolitan Resort & Casino.  They accepted a class action
settlement in the consolidated case, Watt v. Nevada Property,
Clark County District Court Case No. A582541.

Contrary to the Defendants' representations to the Plaintiff and
the Class, and unbeknownst to them, the Bank Defendants ordered
Tutor Perini Building Corp. to stop almost every phase of
construction while it completely redesigned the project to make it
more marketable as a hotel-only casino, Mr. Spangler alleges.  He
contends that Perini concealed this information from him and the
public.  He adds that in a concerted effort to deprive him of
earnest money deposits, the Defendants concealed the critical
facts, and worked together to falsely convince him that the Class
that the Bank Defendants were still planning to deliver the
condominiums.

Nevada Property I, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Deutsche Bank AG is a German
bank with its principal place of business in New York.  Tutor
Perini Building Corporation is an Arizona corporation
headquartered in Henderson, New York.  First American Title
Insurance Company is a California corporation based in the County
of Orange.  Nevada Title Company is a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harry A. Safarian, Esq.
          Alexis Ara Baroian, Esq.
          SAFARIAN AND BAROIAN LLP
          109 East Harvard Street, Suite 300
          Glendale, CA 91205
          Telephone: (818) 334-8528
          Facsimile: (818) 344-8107
          E-mail: hs@thesbfirm.com
                  ab@thesbfirm.com

Defendant Nevada Property 1 LLC is represented by:

          Matthew L. Lalli, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          15 West South Temple, Suite 1200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 257-1900
          Facsimile: (801) 257-1800
          E-mail: mlalli@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Alex Fugazzi, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 1100
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 784-5202
          Facsimile: (702) 784-5252
          E-mail: afugazzi@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth M. Weldon, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689
          Telephone: (714) 427-7000
          Facsimile: (714) 427-7799
          E-mail: eweldon@swlaw.com

Defendant Tutor Perini Building Corp. is represented by:

          Amanda C. Yen, Esq.
          MCDONALD CARANO WILSON
          2300 W. Sahara, Suite 1200
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: (702) 873-4100
          E-mail: ayen@mcdonaldcarano.com

Defendant First American Title Insurance Company is represented
by:

          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          Patrick N. Downes, Esq.
          LOEB AND LOEB LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4120
          Telephone: (310) 282-2287
          Facsimile: (310) 919-3883
          E-mail: mmallow@loeb.com
                  pdownes@loeb.com


NONGSHIM CO: Faces Antitrust Suit in Cal. Over Korean Noodles
-------------------------------------------------------------
California Market, LLC. a/k/a/ Gaju Market on Behalf of Itself and
a Class of All Others Similarly Situated v. Nongshim Co., Ltd.;
Nongshim America, Inc.; Ottogi Comopany, Ltd.; Ottogi America,
Inc.; Sam Yang Foods Company, Ltd.; Sam Yang U.S.A., Inc.; Korea
Yakult Company, Ltd., and Paldo Company, Ltd., Case No. 4:14-cv-
00335-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants conspired, combined, or contracted to fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize the prices of Korean Noodles that they sold
to Gaju and the other members of the Class.

Nongshim Co., Ltd., established in 1965, is organized and existing
under the laws of South Korea with its principal place of business
in Seoul.  Nongshim Co., Ltd. is a leading food company in South
Korea and has had a dominant market share in Korea.  Since 2010,
the Company has maintained approximately 70% of the Korean Noodles
business in Korea.  The Defendants are manufacturers, exporters,
distributors or sellers of Korean Noodles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Gene W. Kim, Esq.
          Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Ctr.
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  gkim@cpmlegal.com
                  etran@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Barbara Hart, Esq.
          Sung-Min Lee, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601-2301
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  SLee@lowey.com


OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Autodialing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America must face a class action alleging that it made
unsolicited, autodialed calls to voters' cellphones ahead of the
2012 election, reports Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

The case is Lori Shamblin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Obama for America, Case No. 8:13-cv-
2428-T-33TBM, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division.


OZ MINERALS: To Vigorously Defend Zinifex Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Finance News Network reports that OZ Minerals Limited says it will
vigorously defend a multi-million dollar class action brought
against it by Zinifex shareholders.  More than AUD250 million in
compensation is being sought for allegedly misleading shareholders
on the true position of its market debt.  The former Zinifex
shareholders acquired the shares in OZ Minerals as the result of a
2008 merger between Zinifex and Oxiana.

OZ Minerals booked a net loss of AUD294.4 million in the 2013
calendar year.


PAINT & BODY: Fails to Pay Federally Mandated OT Rate, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Crowley and Dempsey Brown, Jr. v. Paint & Body Experts
of Slidell, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00172-NJB-SS (E.D. La.,
January 22, 2014) is a collective action brought on behalf of
individuals who, since January 2011, previously worked or
currently work for Paint & Body.

While he worked for the Defendant through Slidell halfway house,
he was not paid the federally-mandated overtime rate of one and
one half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of
40 per week in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Mr. Crowley alleges.

Paint & Body Experts of Slidell, Inc. is a Louisiana company.  The
Defendant operates an auto body and paint shop in Slidell,
Louisiana.

The Plaintiffs are 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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ben E. Clayton, Esq.
          BEN E. CLAYTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          200 Commercial Square Rd., Suite D
          Slidell, LA 70461
          Telephone: (985) 863-3065
          E-mail: benclayt@bellsouth.net


PAK BUSINESS: Never Paid Extra Halftime Overtime Rate, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irlanda Rubi Alquicira Aguilar and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Pak Business LLC d/b/a Dry Clean Zone
and Abdul H Gilani, Case No. 3:14-cv-00260-N (N.D. Tex.,
January 22, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff worked an average of
72 hours per week but was never paid the extra halftime overtime
rate for hours worked above 40 hours in a week as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pak Business LLC, doing business as Dry Clean Zone, is a company
that regularly transacts business within Dallas County.  Abdul H.
Gilani is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
          Weina Zhou, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  nzhou78@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nellie G. Hooper, Esq.
          Barbara T. Hale, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Smith, Esq.
          BLANSCET HOOPER & HALE LLP
          14285 Midway Road, Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (214) 764-7977
          Facsimile: (214) 764-7981
          E-mail: nhooper@metrocrestlaw.com
                  bhale@metrocrestlaw.com
                  jsmith@metrocrestlaw.com


POLY-COR MANAGEMENT: Did Not Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Monk, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. Poly-Cor Management, Inc.; Polycor Enterprises Management,
Inc.; Poly-Cor Enterprises, Inc.; and Poly-Cor Enterprises, L.P.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00096-NBF (W.D. Pa., January 22, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants did not pay any extra overtime premium
compensation to the Plaintiff or other day-rate employees for
hours worked over 40 per week.

The Defendants are corporate entities headquartered in McMurray,
Pennsylvania (Washington County).  They are under common ownership
and are in the business of, inter alia, providing various services
to the natural gas extraction industry in Pennsylvania and
elsewhere.  The Defendants' services include bulk nitrogen
distribution, pipeline constriction, pipeline inspection, pipeline
surveying, pipeline x-ray, hydrostatic testing, nitrogen pressure
testing, water hauling, paving, and land clearing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


PAR ELECTRICAL: "Arnold" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stephanie Arnold v. PAR Electrical
Contractors Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS1315081, was removed from
the San Bernardino County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00133-ABC-DTB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aarin A. Zeif, Esq.
          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          GOULD AND ASSOCIATES
          17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 669-2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544-0800
          E-mail: aarin@wageandhourlaw.com
                  michael@wageandhourlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cassidy Mariko English, Esq.
          Charles F. Barker, Esq.
          Christina M. Hanna, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: cenglish@sheppardmullin.com
                  cbarker@sheppardmullin.com
                  channa@sheppardmullin.com


RAZOR CAPITAL: Illegally Attempts to Collect Debt, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Arevalo, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Razor Capital LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00135-
JAK-SP (C.D. Cal., January 22, 2014) challenges the Defendant's
alleged illegal actions with regard to its attempts to unlawfully
and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff.

Razor Capital LLC is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          S. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mike@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


REPSOL YPF: Court Dismisses Monroe County Employees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin dismissed the case captioned
MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. YPF
SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, et al., Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 842 (SAS), (S.D.
N.Y.).

Monroe County Employees' Retirement System filed this putative
class action Complaint on February 5, 2013, alleging violations of
the Securities Act of 1933. On June 5, 2013, the plaintiffs filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) asserting claims under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 but omitting the original
Securities Act claims.

In an opinion dated October 8, 2013, Judge Scheindlin granted
leave for plaintiffs to file a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint (SAC) reasserting the Securities Act Claims on behalf of
a new plaintiff, David Markovic.  Judge Scheindlin concluded that
Mr. Markovic's claims against certain defendants were tolled
pursuant to the doctrine set out in American Pipe & Construction
Co. v. Utah.  For purposes of the tolling analysis, Judge
Scheindlin credited plaintiffs' assertion that the statute of
limitations did not begin to run until April 16, 2012, and that
the CAC was filed on June 6, 2013. Judge Scheindlin indicated that
defendants could fully brief the issue of timeliness in their
motions to dismiss.

The SAC asserts claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities
Act against YPF Sociedad Anonima (YPF); Repsol YPF, S.A. (Repsol);
Morgan Stanley & Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (the Underwriters); and Sebastian Eskenazi,
Guillermo Reda, Antonio Brufau Niubo, Antonio Gomis Saez, Raul
Fortunato Cardoso Maycotte, Fernando Ramirez Mazarredo, Fernando
Marrero, Luis Suarez de Leze Mantilla, and Javier Monzon (the
Individual Defendants).  The Securities Act claims are based on a
March 23, 2011 offering of YPF American Depository Shares (ADSs)
(the Offering).

Although the SAC reasserts Securities Act claims against the
Individual Defendants, the October 8 Order explicitly declined to
toll the statute of limitations against those defendants.
Therefore, plaintiffs' Securities Act claims against the
Individual Defendants are dismissed as untimely.

The SAC also asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act against Repsol, YPF, and the Individual Defendants, and
Section 20(a) against Repsol and the Individual Defendants.  The
class period for the Exchange Act claims runs from December 22,
2009 to April 16, 2012 (the Class Period).

Repsol, YPF, and the Underwriters moved to dismiss the SAC. They
argued that the Securities Act claims are untimely, and the
Exchange Act claims fail to adequately allege material
misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, loss causation and
reliance.

Judge Scheindlin granted in full all three motions to dismiss with
prejudice. The claims against the Individual Defendants are
dismissed sua sponte.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/Jkm4WEfrom Leagle.com.

David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel
Howard Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Mario Alba, Jr.,
Esq. -- malba@rgrdlaw.com -- Avital Orly Malina, Esq. --
AMalina@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Melville,
NY, for Plaintiffs.

Thomas Joseph Hall, Esq. -- thall@chadbourne.com -- Marcelo Marlow
Blackburn, Esq. -- mblackburn@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke
LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant YPF Sociedad Anonima.

Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- Edward Nathaniel
Moss, Esq. -- emoss@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York,
NY, for Defendants Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Credit
Suisse.

James E. Brandt, Esq. -- james.brandt@lw.com -- Jason Kolbe, Esq.
-- jason.kolbe@lw.com -- Christopher Harris, Esq. --
christopher.harris@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY,
for Defendant Repsol.


RODALE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Baxter" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a district court's dismissal of the claims filed by the plaintiff
in the case captioned CHARLOTTE BAXTER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, AGR v.
RODALE, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee, NO.
12-56925.

Ms. Baxter filed this purported class action against Rodale, Inc.
under California's "Shine the Light" (STL) law, Cal. Civ. Code
Sections 1798.83-1798.84, and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-17210. She appealed the district
court's dismissal of her complaint for failing to state a claim.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed that Ms. Baxter lacked statutory
standing.

A copy of the Circuit Court's February 21, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/mtSC18from Leagle.com.


SLR HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay All Overtime Hours Worked, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bisai Cruz Garcia, 3527 Center Street, NW, Apartment B1,
Washington, DC 20010, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly
Situated Individuals v. SLR Holdings, LLC, 6914 Arlington Road,
Bethesda, Maryland 20814, and SLR Holdings, INC., 6914 Arlington
Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, Case No. 8:14-cv-00171-RWT (D.
Md., January 22, 2014) seeks to to recover damages under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for unpaid wages,
interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs under the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked about 65 or more
hours per week but was not paid for all overtime hours worked each
week in excess of 40.  He was employed by the Defendants as a
bread packer at their bakery in Silver Spring, Maryland, from
approximately 2005 through August 2012.

The Defendants were formed under the laws of Maryland, and both
are engaged in a single enterprise of operating a bakery and
retail bread and baked goods store in Montgomery County, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          THE ZIPIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          836 Bonifant Street
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


STANFORD INT'L: Ponzi Scheme Class Actions Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for Associated Press, reports the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 26 that victims of former Texas tycoon
R. Allen Stanford's massive Ponzi scheme can go forward with
class-action lawsuits against the law firms, accountants and
investment companies that allegedly aided the $7.2 billion fraud.

The decision is a loss for firms that claimed federal securities
law insulated them from state class-action lawsuits and sought to
have the cases thrown out.  But it offers another avenue for more
than 21,000 of Stanford's bilked investors to try to recover their
lost savings.

Federal law says class-action lawsuits related to securities fraud
cannot be filed under state law, as these cases were.  But a
federal appeals court said the cases could move forward because
the main part of the fraud involved certificates of deposit, not
stocks and other securities.

The high court agreed in a 7-2 decision, with the two dissenting
justices warning that the ruling would lead to an explosion of
state class-action lawsuits.

Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison after being
convicted of bilking investors in a $7.2 billion scheme that
involved the sale of fraudulent certificates of deposits from the
Stanford International Bank.  They supposedly were backed by safe
investments in securities issued by governments, multinational
companies and international banks, but those investments did not
exist.

Former investors who were blocked under federal law from seeking
damages from the firms that worked with Stanford filed suit under
state law in Louisiana and Texas.  But the defendants claimed
those suits were also blocked by the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act, a federal law aimed at limiting private lawsuits
that allege securities fraud.

Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the law does
not preclude the class-action lawsuits because the fraud at the
center of the scheme does not involve a "covered security."
Justice Breyer said the fraud involving certificates of deposit
"bears so remote a connection to the national securities market
that no person actually believed he was taking an ownership
position in that market."

Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito dissented in the
Stanford case, warning that the majority opinion would lead to an
explosion of state class-action lawsuits and frustrate the intent
of securities laws designed to protect those who advise investors.

"The state-law litigation will drive up legal costs for market
participants and the secondary actors, such as lawyers,
accountants, brokers and advisers, who seek to rely on the
stability that results from a national securities market regulated
by federal law," Justice Kennedy said in dissent.

The Obama administration had also argued against allowing the
cases to move forward, saying it could interfere with the
Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to go after fraud and
could weaken investor confidence.

But Justice Breyer said the government failed to show any example
of past SEC enforcement actions that would have been prevented by
the court's decision.  He pointed to the government's successful
prosecution of Stanford as proof that similar frauds will continue
to be within the reach of federal authorities.

Prosecutors say Stanford persuaded investors to buy certificates
of deposit from his bank on the Caribbean island of Antigua.  He
then used the money to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe
regulators and pay for his lavish lifestyle.

Many victims have been disappointed so far that they have
recovered only a pittance of their initial investments during a
recovery process that has dragged on for more than five years.  A
court-appointed receiver began distributing part of $55 million in
recovered assets to investors last year, just a tiny fraction of
what they lost.

The receiver and other court-appointed liquidators have recovered
more than $500 million of Stanford's remaining assets so far, but
that amount is reduced by millions in attorney fees, expenses and
other costs.


STATE FARM: Faces "Thompson" Class Suit Over Insurance Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson and Leigh Ann Thompson, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Fire And Casualty
Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-00032-MTT (M.D. Ga., January 22, 2014)
asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are 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
          Facsimile: (404) 524-4005
          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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas W. Curvin, Esq.
          Tracey K. Ledbetter, Esq.
          Valerie S. Sanders, Esq.
          SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN
          999 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 853-8000
          Facsimile: (404) 853-8806
          E-mail: tom.curvin@sablaw.com
                  tracey.ledbetter@sutherland.com
                  valerie.sanders@sutherland.com


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Wis. Suit Over RICO Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. continues to face a lawsuit in the United States
District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin over alleged
violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc.; and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The
Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all
proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Minn. Court Stays Lawsuit Over C&S Transaction
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted the motion of Supervalu Inc. to stay proceedings of a suit
related to a 2003 transaction with C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.
pending a decision on the second Eighth Circuit appeal regarding
class certification and summary judgment, according to the
company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed these decisions. On
February 12, 2013, the Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the Eighth Circuit
for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the Eighth Circuit
denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the
District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a
District Court ordered mandatory mediation which was not
successful in resolving the matter. On November 21, 2013, the
Eighth Circuit held a hearing on plaintiffs' appeal from the Class
Certification denial and Summary Judgment decisions. The Eighth
Circuit took the matter under advisement. On December 13, 2013,
the District Court granted the Company's motion to stay the
proceedings at the District Court pending a decision on the second
Eighth Circuit appeal regarding class certification and summary
judgment.


SUPERVALU INC: May Seek Initial OK of Labor Suit Accord in 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a suit filed against Supervalue Inc. by former
Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-Lot expect to file a motion
seeking preliminary approval of a settlement in early 2014,
according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
30, 2013.

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-
Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent
current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week
method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the
District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby
employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a
week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for
overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful
or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method
of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday
pay, and bonus payments.

In March 2013, the United States District Court granted
conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of
whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the
United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for
summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is
permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state
laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case.

The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two
additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU.   Shortly
before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed
by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW
was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save-
A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim
against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all
three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously,
plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the
matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the
Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to
settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and
settlement administration costs. The settlement is subject to the
applicable courts' preliminary and final approval. The parties
expect to file a motion seeking preliminary approval in early
2014. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5
million before tax ($3 million after tax) in the second quarter of
fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this
matter.


TRANQUILITY SALON: Loses Bid to Strike "Cava" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Cava commenced the action captioned KAITLYN CAVA,
individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly
situated; ANGELA CAIRA, and ASHLEY COLINO, Plaintiffs,
v. TRANQUILITY SALON & DAY SPA, INC. and LEAH PELENGARIS,
Defendants, NO. 13-CV-1109(JS)(ARL), (E.D. N.Y.) on March 1, 2013,
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., New York Labor Law (NYLL), N.Y.
LAB. LAW Section 190 et seq., and New York State Department of
Labor Regulations, N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 12 Sections
142-2.1-142-2.4.

The Plaintiff has moved to strike nine of Defendants' 19
affirmative defenses.  The affirmative defenses at issue are: (1)
First Affirmative Defense -- other litigation, (2) Second
Affirmative Defense -- exhaustion of administrative remedies, (3)
Seventh Affirmative Defense -- barred by contract, (4) Eighth
Affirmative Defense -- mitigation of damages, (5) Twelfth
Affirmative Defense -- punitive damages, (6) Fourteenth
Affirmative Defense -- class action, (7) Fifteenth Affirmative
Defense -- statute of limitations, (8) Eighteenth Affirmative
Defense -- duplicative recovery, and (9) Nineteenth Affirmative
Defense -- punitive damages as unconstitutional. Defendants cross-
moved for an order striking Plaintiff's Complaint, preventing
Plaintiff from seeking an award of damages beyond actual damages,
and striking any class action status.

District Judge Joanna Seybert granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's motion to strike. It is granted as to the Second,
Seventh, Eighth, and Nineteenth Affirmative Defenses, but
otherwise denied. Defendants' cross-motion to strike the Complaint
and for declaratory orders is denied; however, to the extent that
the Defendants seek to amend the Answer to correct typographical
errors, that request was granted.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Memorandum &
Order is available at http://is.gd/9GqoNQfrom Leagle.com.

Saul D. Zabell, Esq. -- SZabell@laborlawsny.com -- Zabell &
Associates, P.C., Bohemia, NY, for Plaintiffs.

For Defendants:

   Damon Andrew Hagan, Esq.
   Christopher R. Ross, Esq.
   Mayer, Ross & Hagan P.C.
   178 E Main St.
   Patchogue, NY 11772
   United States
   Telephone: (631) 654-5134


UNILIFE CORP: Writes to Shareholders About Suit at ASX's Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2013, in response to a request from the Australian
Securities Exchange (ASX), Unilife Corporation ("Unilife") issued
a letter to its stockholders regarding a securities class action
lawsuit. The letter is being posted to Unilife's website on
November 6, 2013 and a copy of such letter is being furnished as
Exhibit 99.1 to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Press Release states:

Unilife Corporation ("Unilife" or "Company") (NASDAQ: UNIS, ASX:
UNS), responded to a request from the Australian Stock Exchange
(ASX) by issuing a letter to its stockholders regarding a
securities class action lawsuit.

Dear Unilife Shareholders:

I am writing to you today [Nov. 6, 2013] regarding a lawsuit
brought in the US against Unilife Corporation (Unilife), myself,
and other officers of the company, which we believe is entirely
meritless. This lawsuit has been brought under US securities law
by a shareholder holding a very small parcel of shares and mostly
repeats the allegations of a lawsuit filed by a former employee,
which we are in the process of defending and which we believe to
be groundless. The former employee claims that he was terminated
in retaliation for reporting alleged regulatory violations by
Unilife. However, the former employee was in fact terminated due
to poor performance and we believe filed the lawsuit in
retaliation after Unilife refused to comply with his demand for
severance payments (which he was not entitled to due to the
reasons for his termination).

We are being advised by lawyers in the US with respect to both of
these claims and they have informed the company that, in the US,
securities law claims of this nature are not uncommon as a means
of opportunistic lawyers trying to attract clients.

I am confident that Unilife will prevail with regards to both of
these claims and can assure you that Unilife will vigorously
defend itself against these actions.

With respect to the allegations made in these claims, I can assure
all of you that Unilife is in full compliance with all applicable
regulatory requirements. In 2013 two regulatory compliance audits
of Unilife's quality system were performed. Both audits resulted
in zero observations, i.e., no deviations from applicable quality
standards were noted. In February 2013, the Notified Body NSAI
(National Standards Authority of Ireland) performed an audit of
our quality system, which is equivalent to an FDA audit for
European countries. This audit resulted in zero observations,
i.e., no deviations from the applicable standards were found. The
auditors' conclusion was that Unilife was in compliance with the
applicable standards. In March, the FDA performed an audit of
Unilife's quality system and facility. The FDA closed out the
audit with no FDA 483 Inspectional Observation issued, i.e., no
deviations from the applicable standards were noted.

Finally, Unilife is in full compliance with all applicable
securities laws. As a public company in the US we are subject to a
legal system in which employees can sue companies for undeserved
compensation while making unfounded allegations with impunity, and
plaintiffs lawyers can first advertise for clients and then bring
a lawsuit for the mere cost of the court filing fee in the hope
that the company will settle with them.

Thank you for your continued support of Unilife.

Sincerely

/s/ Alan Shortall

Alan Shortall

CEO


UPMC: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------
Lexi Belculfine, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
a class-action complaint was filed against UPMC and UPMC
McKeesport on Feb. 27 stating the company's negligence led to a
data breach and resulting identity thefts, now the subjects of a
federal investigation.

Vulnerabilities in UPMC's computer system allowed for the breach
and the company did not reasonably safeguard the sensitive
information in its care, according to the lawsuit filed by
Kraemer, Manes & Associates in Common Pleas Court.

UPMC said on Feb. 26 it believed 22 employees were "victimized" in
a "common fraud scheme during tax season."

The suit states that more than 50 employees' information has been
used to open bank accounts, file income tax returns or both,
though it is anticipated more will become victims of fraud.

"This isn't a theoretical breach.  This isn't some abstract game,"
attorney Michael Kraemer -- m@lawkm.com -- said.  "This
information is actively being used to hurt the people whose
identity was stolen."


UTAH: Attorney General Faces Suit Over Adoption Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Benito Manzanares; Christopher David Thomas Carlton; Jake
M. Strickland; Jacob D. Brooks; Michael D. Hunter; Frank L.
Martin; Samuel G. Dye; Bobby L. Nevares; William E. Bolden; John
M. Wyatt, III; Cody M. O'Dea; Scottie Wallace; personally and
individually, and for and on behalf of their Minor Children v.
Office of the Attorney General of the State of Utah; Mark L.
Shurtleff; and John E. Swallow, in both their personal/individual
and official capacities; and John Does I TO XX, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00040-EJF (D. Utah, January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of a
class of individuals and children, whose constitutional rights to
due process and other fundamental civil rights have been allegedly
violated by the Defendants.

In spite of promises by Mark L. Shurtleff, later endorsed by John
E. Swallow, even though they had received numerous written
notifications of gross adoption infirmities in Utah, they have
done nothing for more than a decade to correct the fraud and
deception that has consequently led to the unlawful and
unconstitutional removal of children from their biological
families, essentially resulting in their kidnapping and highly
unethical and disruptive placement into adoptive homes without the
knowledge or consent of their biological fathers, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Utah is an
executive office within the government of the state of Utah.

Mark L. Shurtleff was the Attorney General for the state of Utah
from January 2001 to January 2013.  John E. Swallow was the
Attorney General for the State of Utah from January 2013 to
December 2013, prior to which Mr. Swallow was Mr. Shurtleff's
Chief Deputy of civil matters.  The John Doe Defendants are
individuals and entities, whose identities are presently not
known.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Wesley D. Hutchins, Esq.
          THE HUTCHINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          6751 South Adventure Way
          West Jordan, UT 84081
          Telephone: (801) 969-0104
          Facsimile: (801) 618-4251
          E-Mail: wes@thehutchinslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David N. Wolf, Esq.
          UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (160-6-140856)
          LITIGATION UNIT
          160 E 300 S, 6th Floor
          PO Box 140856
          Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856
          Telephone: (801) 366-0100
          E-mail: dnwolf@utah.gov


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Class Atty. Deserves $7.5MM, Court Ruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that lawyers, who helped settle a class action against Verizon
over third-party billing claims, deserve $7.5 million in fees, a
California federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted the fee award,
noting that class counsel "achieved excellent results for the
class and significant benefits for non-class members."

Keller Grover in San Francisco represented the class, as did Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, the Law Offices of David Schachman
and Jacobs Kolton.

Their clients accused Verizon of charging consumers for products
and services that they did not purchase and illegally billing and
collecting of these charges.

"Verizon knows that its third-party billing and collection system
lacks sufficient checks and safeguards to prevent unauthorized
charges from being added to customers' wireline telephone bills --
indeed, to the contrary, it knows that there is a significant
likelihood of unauthorized charges, given the system presently
used -- yet it continues to bill and collect such third-party
charges without taking sufficient steps to ensure that the charges
are in fact authorized by the persons legally empowered to
authorize charges," the complaint stated.

A 2013 settlement required Verizon to fully refund customers of
all unauthorized third-party charges during the seven-year class
period, and to overhaul its third-party billing practices,
complete with an opt-in requirement for all new accounts.

Verizon also agreed outside of the settlement not to engage in
third-party billing for enhanced or miscellaneous services.

In their settlement motion, class counsel called the settlement
"unprecedented," and said that it has led "a great number of
Verizon customers to claim refunds" and millions more consumers
"have benefited from Verizon's subsequent exit from billing for
so-called miscellaneous or enhanced services, a move that was
subsequently matched by its major competitor, AT&T, and then yet a
third major player, CenturyLink."

Referred the matter of attorneys' fees and expenses, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley recommended approving a
motion for $7.5 million in fees and expenses.

Verizon argued that the award was "patently unreasonable" because
75 percent of class counsel's claimed hours were post-settlement,
many of the post-settlement hours were for a "cell center' set up
to perform administrative tasks, and that a multiplier was not
warranted.

Verizon requested the lodestar be reduced to $4.6 million based on
duplication of work and inefficiency.

Armstrong found February 14, 2014, however, that class counsel's
post-settlement time spent "communicating with class members was
reasonably expended and necessary to effectuate the parties'
claims-made settlement.  As noted by Magistrate Corley, this
Court's Order preliminarily approving the settlement expressly
directed class counsel and the settlement administrator to respond
to inquiries by class members."

Additionally, through their post-settlement work, the lawyers were
able to identify an additional 326,505 class members who had not
received notice of the settlement, leading to the submission of
additional claims, including a $1.2 million claim made by a public
educational institute.

"In the court's view, class counsel should be applauded, not
penalized, for their efforts to ensure that class members receive
the benefits they are entitled to under the settlement," Armstrong
wrote.

Armstrong also defended using a multiplier of at least 1.5, given
the results achieved and "because there is ample evidence in the
record establishing that this case was risky and that recovery was
far from certain."

"A review of the record reveals that class counsel displayed great
skill in resolving this complex case and protecting the interests
of class members through an extraordinary commitment of time,
resources, and energy that could have been devoted to other less
risky non-contingency matters," Armstrong wrote.  "It is clear to
the court that the results achieved would not have been possible
but for the considerable effort and skill of class counsel."

The case is Moore, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:09-cv-01823-SBA, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.

The Defendants are Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon California
Inc., Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., Verizon Services
Corp., Telesector Resources Group, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Services
Group, Verizon Services Operations Inc., Verizon Services
Organizations, Inc., Verizon Corporate Services Corp., and Verizon
Data Services Inc.


WEST SIDE COMMUNITY: Sued by Medical Assistants Over Labor Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evangelina Chavez and Jarely Zarate, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals v. West Side Community Health
Services, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-00207-SER (D. Minn., January 22,
2014) is brought to obtain monetary and equitable relief on behalf
of a class of individuals, who are or were employed by the
Defendant as Medical Assistants.  The case alleges violations of
the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

West Side Community Health Services, Inc., is a Minnesota
Nonprofit Corporation, operating health care facilities.  Among
other facilities, the Defendant operates La Clinica and the East
Side Family Clinic, both located in the City of St. Paul, County
of Ramsey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2955
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ingrid N. Culp, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA
          200 S 6th St., Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
          Telephone: (612) 492-7188
          Facsimile: (612) 492-7077
          E-mail: iculp@fredlaw.com


WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Falsely Labeling "All Natural" Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Garrison and Grace Garrison, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market California,
Inc., Mrs. Gooch's Natural Foods Market, Inc., Whole Foods Market
Rocky Mountain/Southwest, L.P., and Whole Foods Market Pacific
Northwest, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-EDL (N.D. Cal.,
January 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of a national class of
consumers, who have purchased certain food products from Whole
Foods stores that were falsely and misleadingly labeled as "All
Natural," but which, in fact, contained synthetic ingredients.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc. and Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food
Market, Inc. are Texas Corporations with their principal executive
offices in Austin, Texas.  Whole Foods Market Pacific Northwest,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation with executive offices in Bellevue,
Washington, and Austin, Texas.  Whole Foods Market Rocky
Mountain/Southwest, L.P. is a Texas limited partnership with its
principal executive offices in Austin, Texas.  The Defendants
advertise, market, sell, and distribute the "All Natural" Products
throughout California and elsewhere.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          Molly A. DeSario, Esq.
          Courtland W. Creekmore, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
                  mdesario@scalaw.com
                  ccreekmore@scalaw.com


ZALE CORP: Receives $1.9MM From De Beers Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in June 2004, various class-action lawsuits were filed
alleging that the De Beers group violated U.S. state and federal
antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. During
the first quarter of fiscal year 2013, Zale Corp. received
proceeds totaling $1.9 million as a result of a settlement reached
in the lawsuit, according to Zale Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.


ZALE CORP: Still Faces 3 Wage & Hour Suits in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Zale Corp. faces wage and hour suits filed by former Piercing
Pagoda and Zales employees, according to Zale Corp.'s Nov. 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in three purported class action
lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing
Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Bernardino, Naomi Tapia v.
Zale which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California, and Melissa Roberts v. Zale
Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

All three cases include allegations that the Company violated
various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of
current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zales employees. The
lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as
a result of the alleged violations.

The Company is investigating the underlying allegations and
intends to vigorously defend its position against them. The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of
loss, if any, for the lawsuits.


* Investors Lose $39-Bil. Yearly From Securities Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
investors each year have lost an average of $39 billion from
securities class action lawsuits to collect only about $5 billion
in settlements per year since the enactment of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995, according to a U.S.
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) study released on
Feb. 28.

During the past 18 years, the suits cost shareholders at least
$701 billion, while they only recovered about $90 billion, says
"Economic Consequences: The Real Costs of U.S. Securities Class
Action Litigation", the analysis Navigant Consulting Inc.
conducted for the ILR.  Plaintiffs lawyers in securities class
actions during the 18-year period took in fees of $19 billion, an
average of about $1 billion per year.

Following the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
which was intended to ward off meritless securities suits, courts
have received more than 4,200 securities class actions alleging
trillions of dollars in shareholder losses, and touching more than
40 percent of public companies.

The study's finding of billions of dollars lost is "pretty
momentous," ILR president Lisa Rickard said, speaking at a forum
at the Chamber on securities class actions.

"Under the current system, you have one group of innocent
shareholders paying another group of innocent shareholders with
very large transaction costs," she said.  "It's a situation pretty
much out of a [Franz] Kafka novel, and I can't think of any part
of the American lawsuit system that's more illogical or unjust."

The analysis came out only days before the U.S. Supreme Court will
hear an appeal on March 5 in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, in
which the justices will determine the validity of the "fraud-on-
the-market" theory in securities class actions.  The construct,
which the court advanced in Basic v. Levinson in 1988, makes it
easier for shareholders to file securities suits as a group, by
allowing courts to certify class actions without proof that
investors depended on company misstatements when they bought
stocks.

Invalidating the theory would improve the system and help end a
"cash cow" for plaintiffs lawyers, Ms. Rickard said.

"It will help deter some of the truly meritless cases that we've
seen over the last two decades, and it will be a meaningful step
in the direction of a better system," she said.


* New Rule May Spur Product Liability Suits v. Generic Drug Cos.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Rieders, Esq., at Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris Waters &
Waffenschmidt reports that generic drug manufacturers are
campaigning against a proposed U.S. rule that would require them
to change the prescribing information on their products if they
receive new safety information, which they allege would open them
up to product liability lawsuits.

The new rule would overturn regulations that have been in place
for three decades that prohibit generic companies from updating
safety data on their label without such changes first being made
by the branded company that developed the drug.

The Food and Drug Administration, which issued its proposal in
November, said the change is designed to "create parity" between
branded and generic drug makers with respect to labeling changes,
and remove an unnecessary impediment to the prompt communication
of safety data.

Generic drugmakers say the proposed rule would raise the cost of
drugs and lead to confusion among consumers.

The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee's
health panel was set to consider the proposed changes to generic
drug label during a hearing on March 3.


* Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door to More Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP disclosed that on February 26,
2014, in a 7-2 decision with Justice Breyer writing for the
majority, the Supreme Court issued a narrow interpretation of when
the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA")
preempts state-law securities class actions.

SLUSA precludes state-law class actions that allege "a
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection
with the purchase or sale of a covered security." 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 78bb(f)(1)(A).  In the Feb. 26 decision, the Supreme Court
determined that a misrepresentation is not considered "in
connection with" a securities transaction "unless it is material
to a decision by one or more individuals (other than the
fraudster) to buy or to sell a 'covered security.'" Chadbourne &
Parke LLP v. Troice, 571 U.S. __, (2014) (slip op., at 8). The
Court's narrow interpretation limits SLUSA's preclusion of state-
law class actions.

The three cases consolidated for review arose out of a Ponzi
scheme in which an individual and his companies allegedly induced
the plaintiffs to purchase certificates of deposit, which are not
covered securities under SLUSA, by representing that the
certificates were backed by covered securities.  The plaintiffs
sought to recover damages for their losses through state-law class
actions.  The district court held that SLUSA precluded the
plaintiffs' state-law class claims because (1) the plaintiffs'
purchases were induced by a misrepresentation that the
certificates of deposit were invested in a portfolio that included
"covered securities"; and (2) one or more of the plaintiffs sold
"covered securities" to purchase the certificates of deposit.  The
Fifth Circuit reversed that ruling, holding that a
misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of a
covered security had to be more than tangentially related to
transactions in covered securities. Roland v. Green, 675 F.3d 503,
519-20 (5th Cir. 2012).

The Supreme Court affirmed and clarified that SLUSA applies only
to misrepresentations that are material to the purchase or sale of
a covered security by one other than the person alleged to have
committed fraud. Troice, 571 U.S. __, (2014) (slip op., at 9).
The Court reasoned that "the phrase 'material fact in connection
with the purchase or sale' suggests a connection that matters"
(i.e., a connection such that the misrepresentation impacts a
person's decision to actually purchase or sell a covered
security). Id. In dissent, Justice Kennedy warned that the Court's
narrow interpretation of SLUSA "will subject many persons and
entities whose profession it is to give advice, counsel, and
assistance in investing in the securities markets to complex and
costly state-law litigation based on allegations of aiding or
participating in transactions that are in fact regulated by the
federal securities laws." Troice, 571 U.S. __, (2014) (slip op.,
at 4) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).

The Feb. 26 ruling will likely result in more securities class
actions being allowed to be litigated in state court.


                             *********

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  * * *