CAR_Public/140325.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 25, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 59

                             Headlines


44 TIMES CORP: Class Seeks to Recover OT and Spread of Hours Pay
AIDS HEALTHCARE: AIDS Victims Sue Over Deceptive Condom Claims
BP PLC: Seeks Review of Lower Court Ruling on Oil Spill Settlement
BYA CORP: Refused to Pay Class Proper Overtime Premium, Suit Says
CHRISTUS ST. VINCENT: Employees' Suit Gets Class Action Status

COMMERCIAL METALS: Settles Antitrust Class Action
COTY INC: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer Files Class Action in New York
CUMBERLAND PACKING: Faces Suit Over "Stevia In The Raw" Product
CURRENT CARRIER: "Rios" Class Suit Removed to Massachusetts
DA SILVANO CORP: Customarily Tipped Workers Seek Unpaid Wages

DOW JONES: Faces Class Action Over User Data Collection
EBERL'S TEMPORARY: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Suit Claims
FANNIE MAE: Class Action Over Transfer of Deed Taxes Dismissed
FELTEX CARPETS: Facing Shareholder Suit in Wellington, NZ
G. TIRES: Never Paid Extra Half Time Rate for Overtime, Suit Says

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action in Texas Following Recall
GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Over Recall
GENERAL MOTORS: Texas Firm Files Class Action Over Ignition Switch
GERAWAN FARMING: Fails to Provide Paid Rest Breaks, Class Claims
GERON CORP: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in Calif.

GOOGLE INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Classes in Gmail Privacy Suit
HONEYWELL BUILDING: Faces "Cortes" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
HONG KONG EXCHANGES: Sued Over Aluminium Price Manipulation
IC SYSTEM: Accused of Contacting Class in Violation of TCPA
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action in Miami Over Robo-Signing

LIFELOCK INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Violating 1st/4th/14th Amendment Rights
MASSEY ENERGY: May 14 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
MIN SHENG: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Kitchen Worker Says
MT GOX: Canadian Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Bankruptcy

NATIONAL UNION: Illegally Sells Group Insurance, Class Claims
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Claims
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Wants to Appeal Order in "Laurent" Suit
SELECT RESOURCE: "Abouriche" Suit Transferred to C.D. California

SUTHERLAND HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
TECHNICOOL SYSTEMS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TINLEY ICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
TORON RESTORATION: Manual Worker Seeks to Recover Back Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: $1.2BB Settlement May Sway Jurors in Remaining Suits

TOYOTA MOTOR: Failure to Disclose Safety Issues Shameful, DOJ Says
TRAFFIC CONTROL: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
TUNSTALL HOLDING: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
STATE FARM: Removed "Hayes" Suit to Western District of Oklahoma
UTI WORLDWIDE: Wolf Popper Files Class Action in California

UTOPIA HOME: Did Not Properly Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Claims


                             *********


44 TIMES CORP: Class Seeks to Recover OT and Spread of Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Moreno and Maximino Santos Benito, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by 44 Times Corp. d/b/a Amici 36 and any other entities affiliated
with, controlling, or controlled by 44 Times Corp. and Edward K
Jeung individually v. 44 Times Corp. d/b/a Amici 36 and any other
entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by 44 Times
Corp. and Edward K Jeung individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00678-LTS
(S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and unpaid spread of hours owed to the Plaintiffs and
all similarly situated persons, who are presently or were formerly
employed by the Defendants.

44 Times Corp., doing business as Amici 36, is a New York
corporation headquartered in New York City.  44 Times Corp. is
engaged in the restaurant and food cafe business.  Edward K. Jeung
is a resident of the state of New York and is an officer,
director, or owner of 44 Times Corp.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
          Kara Sue Miller, Esq.
          VIRGINA & AMBINDER, LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@bivas.net
                  kmiller@vandalllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan Yoon Sue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN Y. SUE
          1220 Broadway
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 967-1001
          Facsimile: (212) 967-1112
          E-mail: js@jyspllc.com


AIDS HEALTHCARE: AIDS Victims Sue Over Deceptive Condom Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Reisman, writing for WND, reports that a class action
lawsuit by AIDS victims and their loved ones would rock the world
-- a suit based on the fact that condom pushers have for years
dispensed false, deceptive claims about how the product protects
-- or fails to protect -- the health of sex participants.  The
reality is that everyday condoms are manufactured and approved for
natural, vaginal sex, not anal "sex" -- they are not effectively
designed to protect from disease those people who engage in
sodomy.

Such a lawsuit should target the AIDS Healthcare Foundation,
Planned Parenthood and a myriad of teachers and school systems,
too many to count, that have taught that anal "sex" (traditionally
termed "sodomy" or "buggery" under British-based legal codes) as
not so different than natural coitus.

The result of a class action suit should be the requirement of a
label, a la cigarette packs, that states: "This condom has never
been approved by the FDA for penile/anal intercourse."

Due to the lies that have told, people who practiced sodomy are
under the tragically mistaken notion that a condom is effective
protection from disease.  Those who have believed this lie and
have contracted AIDS or an STD (and the loved ones of those who've
lost their lives) have a cause of legal action.

Take the Hawaii public schools, for instance.  Republican
Bob McDermott, a member of the Hawaii House of Representatives,
cited a "federally funded sex education program currently in use
in 12 of the state's public schools . . . created by the
University of Hawaii and Planned Parenthood . . . [that] defines
the anus a 'genital.'"

"Genitals are sexual reproductive organs," Mr. McDermott told
EAGnews, "and the a- isn't that."

According to a report Mr. McDermott authored, the curriculum,
dubbed "The Pono Choices," defines the term "oral sex" to include
"mouth on genitalia," with the anus included among "genitalia."

McDermott points out that the curriculum states: "Both vaginal sex
with a condom and anal sex with a condom are rated as low risk
activities."

The school program, more aptly named "Porno Choices," diverges
wildly from what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration studies
have found regarding penile-rectal anal "sex."  In fact, the FDA,
even after looking at AIDS studies for roughly 40 years, has NEVER
-- that is never, not ever -- approved a condom for use in
oral/anal or penile-rectal anal "sex."

McDermott notes: "The Federal Drug Administration warns Americans,
on its website, that anal sex is 'simply too dangerous to
practice.'"  Pono Choices has received nearly $1 million in
federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Advertisements for experimental anal condoms affirm that standard
condoms were never tested or approved by the FDA.  The ad reads:

"The standard rolled latex condoms have never been 'tested or FDA
approved for anal use.'"

To reach the market, the Origami Anal Condom must be reviewed by
the World Health Organization, the C-Mark (EU) and the FDA to meet
safety standards.  After clinical trials this year to evaluate its
performance and safety, it is expected to reach the market in late
2015, pending regulatory approvals.

The "CDC National AIDS Hotline Training Bulletin" dated April 27,
1995, contained the following from Consumer Reports magazine:

"Some condom boxes specifically indicate they are designed for
vaginal sex only.  Are they not effective for anal sex? Which
condoms should be used for anal sex?

"For the most part, FDA has only evaluated data on condoms tested
in vaginal sex.  There have been several published studies and
surveys which indicate condom breakage and slippage rates may be
higher during anal sex.  However, these studies are only
retrospective.  Whatever the breakage rate, it may be reduced by
use of a water-based or silicone- based lubricant."

"Whatever the breakage rate"?! The Hawaii public schools'
recommendation of a prophylactic for activity for which it is not
designed, without warning children that it is unreliable for
protection, is shocking.

Even the CDC fact sheet does not warn that the condom is
unapproved as safe for anal "sex," but groups the activity with
vaginal and oral sex.

Planned Parenthood implicitly and explicitly has promoted anal
"sex" to children and adults for years.

"If you choose to have vaginal or anal intercourse, use condoms
every time.  They can reduce the risk of HPV.  They are not as
effective against HPV as they are against other infections such as
chlamydia and HIV.  But they greatly reduce the risk of HPV
infection. . . ."

Parents in Hawaii should well remember those responsible for
giving their children false information about protection from STDs
and AIDS.  If their children acquire deadly diseases as a result
of this propaganda and the deliberate withholding of key
information, not only should Hawaiian school districts be sued,
but everyone in the Hawaiian schools who had a hand in
disseminating this false information.


BP PLC: Seeks Review of Lower Court Ruling on Oil Spill Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that BP PLC has petitioned the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit to review a three-judge panel's decision to uphold
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement.

In a filing on March 17, BP asked the en banc court to review a
lower court ruling that submitting proof of causation -- in other
words, that damages were caused directly by the 2010 disaster --
wasn't required under the terms of the settlement, which BP has
now pegged to be worth about $9.2 billion.  A divided Fifth
Circuit panel of three judges upheld that order on March 3.

The panel's decision, BP attorney Theodore Olson --
tolson@gibsondunn.com -- said in court papers, upholds an
interpretation of the settlement that "rewrites the settlement
agreement" and gives standing to businesses that "cannot establish
a plausible nexus between their alleged injuries and the
defendant's conduct."

The decision also conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court and Fifth
Circuit precedents and "threatens to work an unprecedented
expansion in the availability of class certification," wrote
Mr. Olson, a partner in the Washington office of Los Angeles-based
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

BP has argued that the claims administrator's interpretations of
the class settlement have led to payments to businesses that
suffered no oil spill damages.

In BP's petition, Mr. Olson argued that the three-judge panel
relied on a Jan. 10 decision by a separate Fifth Circuit panel
upholding class certification and approval of the settlement.  BP
also has filed a petition for en banc review of that decision.

"If these panels' decisions were permitted to stand, they would
work a revolution in class-action law in this Circuit, permitting
the certification of classes that cannot be certified anywhere
else in the country and improperly permitting hundreds of millions
of dollars in windfall payments to large numbers of entities that
were not harmed by the spill," Mr. Olson wrote.


BYA CORP: Refused to Pay Class Proper Overtime Premium, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Biljana Sugranes, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. Bya Corp. d/b/a The Lobster Box, and
Vasilios Lambos, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00698-LTS
(S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2014) accuses the Defendants of willfully
refusing to pay the Plaintiff, and all similarly situated persons,
overtime wages owed to them for working hours in excess of 40
hours a week, at a rate of one and a half times their normal rate
of pay.

Bya Corp. d/b/a The Lobster Box is a New York domestic business
corporation.  Lobster Box is a restaurant with its principle place
of business located in the County of Bronx, New York.  Vasilios
Lambos is the owner of Lobster Box.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Gordon Kaupp, Esq.
          ARCE LAW GROUP, P.C.
          30 Broad Street, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 248-0120
          E-mail: gordon.kaupp@arcelawgroup.com


CHRISTUS ST. VINCENT: Employees' Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Malone, writing for Santa Fe New Mexican, reports that a
Santa Fe judge granted class-action status on March 13 to current
and former employees at Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical
Center in a lawsuit that accuses the hospital of stealing wages
from workers by denying their unpaid lunch breaks due to
inadequate staffing.

"Basically, this is a time-theft case," said Shane Youtz, the
Albuquerque lawyer representing the plaintiffs.  His clients claim
they often worked through their scheduled 30-minute breaks, and
they weren't paid for that time.

The ruling by state District Judge Sarah Singleton opens the door
for an estimated 1,200 to 1,500 current and past employees who
worked at the hospital between 2008 and the present to join the
litigation, originally brought by seven plaintiffs in 2010.

Last year, union employees at Christus complained to the state
Department of Health that staffing was inadequate.  A subsequent
investigation cleared the hospital, but employees argued that
staffing was stronger than usual at the time the state conducted
its review.

The Santa Fe City Council recently authorized a study group to
review health care in the community, including staffing levels at
Christus.  Nurses have unsuccessfully pushed for legislation that
would require hospitals to publicly announce their staffing
levels, and earlier this month, Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed a
provision in the state budget that would have provided $100,000 to
the Department of Health to post staffing levels online.

Following the March 13 ruling, the court will mail notices within
30 days to employees eligible to join the suit -- including
nurses, direct-care providers, technical employees and service and
maintenance staff, excluding supervisors.  The case is next
scheduled on Singleton's docket in the fall, though no trial date
has been set.

Mr. Youtz said he aims to prove the practice of denying lunch
breaks to employees was fostered at the highest levels of the
hospital's corporate administration.

Because the suit is ongoing, Christus spokesman Arturo Delgado
said on March 14 that the hospital's administration would reserve
comment about it, except to point out that the judge had found the
lunch policy in place at the hospital to be lawful.

Mr. Youtz said the policy, which sets aside scheduled lunch breaks
for employees, was not followed because insufficient staffing
makes it impractical for workers to take their scheduled breaks.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages equivalent to three times their
lost wages.  Mr. Youtz said it's difficult to quantify how much it
could cost the hospital if plaintiffs prevail, considering it's
not clear how many eligible employees will join the suit, what
their wages were or how many lunches they skipped.  He used the
example of a nurse earning $40 an hour to frame how costly a
judgment against St. Vincent could be.

"If a nurse makes $40 an hour and should have been paid the
overtime rate of $60, every missed half-hour lunch is $30,"
Mr. Youtz said.  "That's a lot of lunches times $30 times three,
so the liability could be substantial."

Some nurses at Christus say the wage lawsuit illuminates a
staffing shortage that not only forced them to work through their
lunch hours, but can compromise the level of care for patients.
"This problem, the nurses believe, is indicative of the staffing
problems," Mr. Youtz said.  "They didn't staff the hospital in
such a manner as to account for lunch breaks, which in the nurses'
opinion is emblematic of the bigger problem of staffing at the
hospital."


COMMERCIAL METALS: Settles Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company on March 14 disclosed that it has
reached final settlement in the Standard Iron Works v. Arcelor
Mittal et al. lawsuit in the amount of approximately $4 million,
which the Company estimates is less than the anticipated cost to
the Company of continuing to defend the lawsuit.  The class action
litigation, filed in September 2008 on behalf of the direct
purchasers of steel products, alleged violation of the federal
antitrust laws by eight U.S. steel producers through allegedly
concerted restrictions on production.  Commercial Metals Company
has denied from the outset any and all wrongdoing in connection
with the claims that have or could have been alleged against the
Company in the lawsuit, and the agreed upon settlement contains no
admission of liability from the Company.  The settlement requires
preliminary and final approval by the Court, which the Company
anticipates it will receive.  Despite the Company's belief, after
extensive discovery and investigation of the facts, that the
claims lack merit and that it has full and complete defenses to
all of the claims asserted against it, the Company agreed to enter
into the settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and
distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation.

                  About Commercial Metals Company

Commercial Metals Company and its subsidiaries manufacture,
recycle and market steel and metal products, related materials and
services through a network including steel minimills, steel
fabrication and processing plants, construction-related product
warehouses, metal recycling facilities and marketing and
distribution offices in the United States and in strategic
international markets.


COTY INC: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP on March 15 disclosed that it has
filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Coty Inc.

The complaint is brought on behalf of persons and/or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Coty pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form S-1/A on
May 28, 2013, and prospectus filed with the SEC on Form 424(b)(4)
on June 13, 2013, in the Company's initial public offering of over
57 million shares of common stock at a price of $17.50 per share.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 because the
Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance
with the applicable SEC rules and regulations governing its
preparation.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than April 14, 2014 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
purported class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.  With offices
in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey,
the firm -- http://www.kaplanfox.com-- has decades of experience
in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving
violations of the Federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please e-mail attorneys Jeff Campisi,
Esq. -- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- or Larry King, Esq. --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- or contact them by phone, regular mail, or
fax:

Jeffrey P. Campisi                  Laurence D. King
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor        350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10022                  San Francisco, CA 94104
Toll-Free
  Telephone: (800) 290-1952         Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Telephone: (212) 687-1980           Fax: (415) 772-4707
Fax: (212) 687-7714                 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


CUMBERLAND PACKING: Faces Suit Over "Stevia In The Raw" Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Frohberg and Nancy Harding, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cumberland Packing Corp., Case
No. 1:14-cv-00748-KAM-RLM (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2014) is a
proposed class action complaint brought on behalf of a "New York
Class," a "Minnesota Class," and a "Nationwide Class" consisting
of individuals, who purchased the Defendant's products labeled as
"Stevia In The Raw(R) 100% Natural Zero Calorie Sweetener."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant falsely represents that
Stevia In The Raw(R) is natural, when, in fact, it contains
nonnatural ingredients.  Stevia is a genus of plant native to
South America that has been used as a sweetener for thousands of
years but was first commercially available in the early 1970s.

Cumberland Packing Corp. New York headquartered in Brooklyn, New
York.  Cumberland manufactures, markets, and sells Stevia In The
Raw(R) throughout New York, Minnesota, and the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
                  krichman@reeserichman.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Susan M. Coler, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  coler@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


CURRENT CARRIER: "Rios" Class Suit Removed to Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Rios, et al. v. Current Carrier
Corp. d/b/a Now Delivery, et al., Case No. 2013- 4484G, was
removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-10247-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges labor law violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christina L. Lewis, Esq.
          HINCKLEY ALLEN & SNYDER, LLP
          28 State Street, 24th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 345-9000
          Facsimile: (617) 345-9020
          E-mail: clewis@haslaw.com


DA SILVANO CORP: Customarily Tipped Workers Seek Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ivica Abramovic; individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Da Silvano Corp., Silvano Marchetto, and any
other related entities, Case No. 1:14-cv-00676-KPF (S.D.N.Y.,
February 3, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum wages,
gratuities, and other statutorily required compensation for work
performed on behalf of the Defendants by the Plaintiffs and other
members of the class, including servers, waiters, busboys,
bartenders, and other customarily tipped employees.

Da Silvano Corp., is a New York domestic limited liability company
with its principal place of business located in New York City.
Silvano Marchetto is an officer, director, or owner of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Suzanne B. Leeds, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          111 Broadway, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@bivas.net
                  sleeds@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          1 Old Country Road
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
          E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com
                  mtompkins@lmblaw.com
                  dmarkowitz@leedsbrownlaw.com


DOW JONES: Faces Class Action Over User Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Dow Jones
& Co. Inc. was hit on March 14 with a proposed class action
accusing it of collecting and distributing to third parties the
personally identifiable information of consumers who use the
company's Wall Street Journal Channel on Roku TV boxes.

Plaintiff Terry Locklear alleges that unbeknownst to users, each
time they use the WSJ Channel to watch the news or other media
content, Dow Jones discloses their personally identifiable
information -- including a record of every video clip viewed by
the user -- to unrelated third parties.

"In addition to demonstrating a brazen disregard for its users'
privacy rights, defendant's actions also violate the Video Privacy
Protection Act, which prohibits companies from disclosing their
customers' video viewing records to third parties without express
written consent," the complaint said.

Dow Jones' violations of the VPPA are "particularly flagrant" in
this case, Locklear said, because the company programmed the WSJ
Channel to transmit users' data to a third-party data analytics
and advertising company.

According to the complaint, the business models of such "big data"
advertising companies center on the collection of disparate pieces
of individual consumers' uniquely identifying information and
online behavioral data, which they then compile to form
comprehensive profiles about a person's entire digital life.
These profiles can then allegedly be used for targeted
advertising, sold as a commodity to other data brokers or both.

"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," the complaint said.

It also said Dow Jones chose to disregard the statutorily
protected privacy rights of Locklear and thousands of other
customers by releasing their sensitive data into the marketplace.

The lawsuit said the WSJ Channel is a digital software application
that allows consumers to view the WSJ's news and entertainment
programming on their televisions via Roku's media-streaming
device.

Upon starting up the application, the WSJ Channel does not seek or
obtain the consent of the user to share or otherwise disclose
personal information to third parties for any purpose, according
to the complaint.

However, every time a user views video clips or news reports, the
WSJ Channel sends a record of such activities to an unrelated
third-party data analytics and video advertising company called
mDialog, according to the complaint.  The complete record is sent
each time a user views a video clip or news report, along with the
serial number associated with the user's Roku device.

MDialog then creates user identities from information supplied by
device manufacturers, the lawsuit said.

"At all times relevant, Locklear did not consent, agree, or
otherwise permit Wall Street Journal to disclose her [personal
data] to any third party analytics or advertising companies," the
complaint said.  "Likewise, Locklear has never been given the
opportunity to prevent the WSJ Channel from disclosing her
[personal data] to third parties."

Locklear is represented by Jennifer Auer Jordan of Jordan Law Firm
LLC.

The case is Terry Locklear v. Dow Jones & Co. Inc., case number
1:14-cv-00744, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.


EBERL'S TEMPORARY: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dina Abdulina, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons v. Eberl's Temporary Services, Inc., a Colorado
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00314-RM-BNB (D. Colo., February 3,
2014) alleges that the Company has violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act, by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the class
regular and premium pay for all hours worked.

Eberl's Temporary Services, Inc. is a Colorado corporation based
in Lakewood, Colorado.  Eberl provides catastrophic insurance
adjusting services to insurance companies throughout the United
States.  The Plaintiff worked in Maryland and Missouri for Eberl
as a rope and harness assistant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: Charles@rosslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 212-4665
          Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


FANNIE MAE: Class Action Over Transfer of Deed Taxes Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a decision
has been made regarding a lawsuit against the Federal National
Mortgage Association wherein Hennepin County, Minn., claimed
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to pay taxes on transfers of
deeds.

Hennepin County brought the putative class action on behalf of
similarly situated Minnesota counties seeking a declaratory
judgment that the defendants violated state law by failing to pay
a tax on transfers of deeds to real property.  The county is
seeking recovery for unjust enrichment as well as injunctive
relief.  The district court granted the federal agencies' motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Hennepin County appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The decision was filed on Feb. 5.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privately owned and publicly
traded for profit entities created by Congress to generate
financial stability in the secondary market for residential
mortgages," according to circuit judges Diane E. Murphy, Kermit
Edward Bye and Lavenski R. Smith's opinion.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages originated by third-party
lenders, gather them into bundles, and sell them as securities.
Following the 2008 financial crisis, which was caused in part by a
collapse in the value of these securities, Congress made the FHFA
the conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the document
states.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have acquired and sold mortgages on
thousands of real properties in Minnesota, including in Hennepin
County," according to the document.  "Minnesota imposes a tax on
'each deed or instrument by which any real property in this state
is granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed . . . '"

The federal agencies have not paid state taxes on the deed
transfers related to their real property transactions, and
Hennepin County alleges that the agencies owe the state an
estimated $5 million to $5.6 million in back taxes on these
transfers, according to the document.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHFA assert that their federal
charters exempt them from such taxes.

"Our review is de novo on a challenge to a dismissal for failure
to state a claim, and we take the facts alleged in the complaint
as true," the opinion states.

The judges state they disagree with Hennepin County's argument
that the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wells Fargo
Bank, limited the meaning of "all taxation" in an exemption
statute to mean only "all direct taxation."

"In Wells Fargo, the court was considering the scope of a tax
exemption created by the Housing Act of 1937 for local financing
instruments called 'project notes,' which had been created to
address the national housing shortage," the opinion states.

"After reviewing its precedent involving statutory tax exemptions
for certain types of property, the court concluded that '[w]ell
before the Housing Act was passed, an exemption of property from
all taxation had an understood meaning: the property was exempt
from direct taxation, but certain privileges of ownership, such as
the right to transfer the property, could be taxed.'"

The Housing Act had designated the project notes themselves to be
exempt from taxation, saying nothing about their transfer.
Because the estate tax in the Wells Fargo case was an excise tax
levied not on the notes themselves, but rather on their "use or
transfer," the court concluded that the owners of the notes were
subject to the tax, according to the opinion.

"Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err by
denying Hennepin County's claims for unjust enrichment and
injunctive relief," the opinion states.  "Unjust enrichment under
Minnesota law occurs when a party 'has knowingly received or
obtained something of value for which [that party] in equity and
good conscience should pay.'"

To state a claim, Hennepin County must allege that a party was
unjustly enriched in the sense that the term "unjustly" could mean
illegally or unlawfully.  Hennepin County alleges that the
entities were unjustly enriched by their failure to pay the
Minnesota deed transfer tax.  However, since the federal entities
were under no legal obligation to pay these taxes, there is no
basis for an unjust enrichment claim nor for an injunction
compelling payment, the decision says.

"Since Congress exempted Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHFA
from all state taxation except on real property, and Minnesota's
deed transfer tax falls within this broad exemption, we affirm the
district court's dismissal of Hennepin County's claims and the
denial of its request for declaratory judgment," according to the
opinion.

Hennepin County was represented by Daniel P. Rogan, Michael O.
Freeman, Paul R. Hannah and Jane N.B. Holzer of Hennepin County
Attorney's Office.

Federal National Mortgage Association was represented by Jill L.
Nicholson -- jnicholson@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP; and
Michael C. McCarthy -- mike.mccarthy@maslon.com -- of Maslon
Edelman Borman & Brand LLP.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage was represented by Michael J. Ciatti of
King & Spalding LLP and McCarthy.

Federal Housing Finance Agency was represented by Asim Varma,
Howard N. Cayne and Michael A.F. Johnson of Arnold & Porter LLP;
and Stephen E. Hart of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit case number: 13-1821


FELTEX CARPETS: Facing Shareholder Suit in Wellington, NZ
---------------------------------------------------------
The New Zealand Herald reports that Feltex Carpets was touted as
having excellent investment features when the carpet-maker was
taken public in 2004 but its prospectus failed to disclose risks
that contributed to its collapse just two years later, a
shareholder suit alleges.

Eric Houghton is suing the former Feltex directors, owners and
sale managers in a representative action on behalf of 3,639 former
shareholders who say they were misled by the prospectus.  The
action began in the Wellington High Court on March 17.  The suit
seeks $185 million including interest, Houghton's lawyer Austin
Forbes told the court.

Houghton bought 11,755 Feltex shares at $1.70 apiece, or $20,000,
in the initial public offering in May 2004, drawn to an investment
that offered a gross dividend yield of 9.6 per cent.  All up,
vendor Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners raised
$193 million, selling 113.5 million shares, and Feltex raised a
further $50 million to repay bondholders.

Within a year the stock was virtually worthless, thanks to a
series of warnings that the company would miss its prospectus
forecasts, and receivers were appointed in September 2006.

Australian carpet maker Godfrey Hirst ended up buying the assets.

Forbes told the court the short gap between profit downgrades and
collapse was "striking" after a prospectus that had painted "a
very rosy picture of Feltex."  His client would not have invested
had the true position of the company been known and in any case,
given the state of Feltex the offer "should never have been made,"
he said.

Mr. Houghton's suit has four main causes of action involving
breaches of the Fair Trading Act and negligence by all the
defendants, and breaches of the Securities Act.

To support the claim that the prospectus didn't adequately
disclose the risks of the investment, Forbes cited submissions
made by Feltex Australia to the Australian Productivity Commission
in which it warned that it faced significant risks from imported
carpets as a result of a drop in tariffs.

Of the directors, Tim Saunders, Sam Magill, John Feeney, Craig
Horrocks, Peter Hunter and Peter Thomas all had a financial
interest in Feltex, he said.  Joan Withers, the other first
defendant, was the exception.

Forbes is continuing with his opening submission in a case that
has drawn at least three other QCs among the defense lawyers.
Credit Suisse private Equity, the promoter of the sale, is second
defendant, while owner Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant
Partners is third.  First NZ Capital and Forsyth Barr, which
managed the IPO, are fourth and fifth defendant.

The case is continuing.


G. TIRES: Never Paid Extra Half Time Rate for Overtime, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Modesto Morales Morales and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. G. Tires & Wheels, Inc. and Lester M. Cardoso,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20428-MGC (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2014) alleges
that from February 15, 2011, through January 24, 2014, the
Plaintiff worked an average of 51 hours a week for the Defendants
but was never paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked
over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

G. Tires & Wheels, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County.  Lester M. Cardoso is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          K. David Kelly, 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
                  david.kelly38@rocketmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action in Texas Following Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors was
hit on March 14 with what appeared to be the first lawsuit related
to the recall of 1.6 million cars, as customers claimed their
vehicles lost value because of ignition problems blamed for a
series of fatal crashes.

The proposed class action, filed in federal court in Texas, said
GM knew about the problem since 2004, but failed to fix it,
creating "unreasonably dangerous" conditions for drivers of the
affected models.

"GM's mishandling of the ignition switch defect . . . . has
adversely affected the company's reputation as a manufacturer of
safe, reliable vehicles with high resale value," the lawsuit said.

The recall has led to government criminal and civil
investigations, an internal probe by GM, and preparations for
hearings by Congress.  All ask why GM took so long to address a
problem it has said first came to its attention in 2001.

A GM spokesman, Greg Martin, said the company has apologized for
how it handled the recall and that taking care of customers was
its first priority.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages from GM that include
compensation for loss of the use of their vehicles and repairs and
diminished resale value.  They are not claiming they were injured
in accidents stemming from ignition problems.

The lawsuit is reminiscent of claims faced by Toyota Motor Corp,
which recalled more than 10 million vehicles starting in 2009.
Toyota last year received approval for a settlement valued at
$1.6 billion to resolve economic loss claims and is currently
negotiating the settlement of hundreds of personal-injury
lawsuits.

GM announced the recall in February, despite learning of problems
with the ignition switch in 2001 and issuing related service
bulletins to dealers with suggested remedies in 2005.  GM said
that when the ignition switch was jostled, a key could turn off
the car's engine and disable airbags, sometimes while traveling at
high speed.  GM has said it received reports of 12 deaths and 34
crashes in the recalled cars.

The Center for Auto Safety, a watchdog group, on March 13 said
that data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
showed 303 deaths occurred when airbags failed to deploy in two of
the models GM recalled.  GM called the report "pure speculation"
and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National
Center for Trauma and EMS at the University of Maryland said the
figure did not take into account whether airbags would be expected
to deploy in some crashes.

The plaintiffs in the March 14 lawsuit, Daryl and Maria Brandt,
said they own a 2007 Chevy Cobalt, which was one of several models
recalled by GM.  They said that they have driven their car less
than they otherwise would because they feared being in an accident
stemming from the ignition issues, according to the complaint.

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of
Law who specializes in products liability, said he did not expect
GM would have to pay as much as Toyota did if it seeks to resolve
the economic loss claims.

The GM recall applied to older models and was significantly
smaller than the Toyota recall, although that could change as the
investigations against GM continue, he said.  GM also has offered
owners of recalled vehicles $500 toward the purchase of a new GM
vehicle, a factor that could mitigate any liability, he said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Over Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the law firm that obtained a $1.6 billion civil settlement
with Toyota over sudden-acceleration defects has filed a class
action against General Motors Co. over its recall of 1.6 million
vehicles for ignition switch defects.

Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, which filed the class
action on March 19 in U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers
who purchased or leased the recalled vehicles.  The suit was filed
on behalf of a woman in Irvine, Calif., who owns a 2007 Saturn Ion
Coupe.

Hagens Berman, which cited the federal Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act and
consumer protection laws in Michigan and California, estimates
that the statutory damages in the case could surpass $350 million.
The suit, which also seeks punitive damages, claims that General
Motors knew about the defects as early as 2001.

"G.M.'s inaction -- sitting mute while people died -- rises to the
level of criminal in my book," said Steve Berman, managing partner
of Hagens Berman.  "While civil in nature, we believe it is a step
toward holding G.M. accountable for its inaction."


GENERAL MOTORS: Texas Firm Files Class Action Over Ignition Switch
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alisa Priddle, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a
Texas law firm has filed the first class-action suit against
General Motors on behalf of anyone who has bought or leased a
vehicle subject to a recall for a potentially faulty ignition
switch.

The suit, filed on March 14 by Hilliard Munoz Gonzales of Corpus
Christi, Texas, demands compensation for falling resale values of
these damaged vehicles and also directs GM to tell vehicle owners
to stop driving recalled cars until parts arrive in April to fix
them.  Until then, lead attorney Bob Hilliard likens the cars to a
"stick of dynamite with a slow-burning fuse. When it goes off it
will be sudden, violent and deadly."

GM has recalled 1.6 million vehicles globally, including 2005-07
Chevrolet Cobalts, 2003-07 Saturn Ions, Pontiac G5s, Solstices and
Chevrolet HHRs.  The key in the ignition switch can be jostled
into accessory mode, which disables the power steering, air bags
and other electrical systems.  GM is advising owners to remove
heavy objects from their key chains.  Dealers will begin replacing
the ignition switches next month.  Twelve deaths and 31 crashes
have been linked to the defective switches amid suggestions the
number could be higher.

New information is emerging daily about what and when GM knew
about the ignition switches.  It faces four investigations.

"GM is focused now on ensuring the safety and peace of mind of our
customers involved in the recall," said GM spokesman Greg Martin.
"Our principle throughout this process has been to the put the
customer first, and that will continue to guide us."


GERAWAN FARMING: Fails to Provide Paid Rest Breaks, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Marquez Amaro, Jesus Alarcon Urzua, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Gerawan Farming, Inc., a
California Corporation; Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc., a
California Corporation; Does 1 - 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:14-at-
00065 (E.D. Cal., February 3, 2014) is brought on behalf current
and former employees of Gerawan for failure to provide paid rest
breaks, and for recovery of unpaid wages, penalties, and unpaid
overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs are seasonal farm workers, who have worked in the
Defendants' table grape fields and tree fruit orchards.

Gerawan Farming, Inc. and Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. are
California Corporations headquartered in Fresno County,
California.  The Defendants employ field workers and other
employees to work in their agricultural fields in or near Fresno,
Madera, and Tulare counties in California.  The Plaintiffs are
ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcos R. Camacho Esq.
          Mario G. Martinez, Esq.
          MARCOS CAMACHO, A LAW CORPORATION
          1227 California Ave.
          Bakersfield, CA 93304
          Telephone: (661) 324-8100
          Facsimile: (661) 324-8103
          E-mail: mcamacho@mclawmail.com
                  mariomtz@mclawmail.com

               - and -

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com


GERON CORP: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Geron
Corporation, on March 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class comprising
all purchasers of Geron securities between June 16, 2013 and
March 11, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888)
773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

Geron is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company developing
first-in-class therapies for cancer.  The Company's sole product
candidate, imetelstat, is designed to inhibit cancer cell
replication in hematologic myeloid malignancies such as
myelofibrosis or acute myelogenous leukemia.  The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants misrepresented
or failed to disclose that: (1) persistent low-grade liver
function test (LFT) abnormalities had been observed in the Phase 2
study of imetelstat in essential thrombocythemia (ET) or
polycythemia vera (PV) patients; (2) there was a potential risk of
chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat;
and (3), as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company and the prospects for imetelstat
lacked any reasonable basis and/or were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 12, 2014, Geron disclosed that it had received verbal
notice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that Geron's
Investigational New Drug application for imetelstat has been
placed on full clinical hold -- an order to a trial sponsor to
suspend an ongoing clinical trial or delay a proposed trial --
affecting all ongoing company-sponsored clinical trials, and that
the FDA expressed concern about whether the LFT abnormalities were
reversible.  As a result, Geron informed investors that the
clinical hold would affect the remaining eight patients in the
Company's Phase 2 study in ET/PV and the remaining two patients in
the company's Phase 2 study in multiple myeloma.  Also, the
Company indicated that a planned Phase 2 clinical trial in
myelofibrosis would likely be delayed due to the clinical hold.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve
as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about
this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh,
Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street,
Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail
to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

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


GOOGLE INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Classes in Gmail Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
has defused a potentially massive privacy class action targeting
Google's scanning of Gmail messages to help sell ads.

In a 41-page order issued on March 18, U.S. District Judge Lucy
Koh of the Northern District of California shot down the
plaintiffs' bids to certify sweeping classes of email users.
Plaintiffs accused Google Inc. of intercepting Gmail messages to
mine users' personal information in violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and state wiretap laws.  They stressed
that Google's uniform practices made their claims perfect for
class treatment.

But Judge Koh disagreed, finding the court would have to consider
how much each user knew about Google's practices in order to
determine whether they consented to the interceptions.

"The court finds that individual issues of consent are likely to
predominate over any common issues, and that accordingly, class
certification would be inappropriate," she wrote.

Judge Koh's order declaws multidistrict litigation that has been a
source of great consternation in the Valley, sparking similar
suits against Yahoo Inc. and LinkedIn Corp.  The cases are
particularly fearsome because they contain claims filed under
ECPA, which allows for statutory damages of up to $10,000 per
violation.

Plaintiffs lawyer Sean Rommel -- srommel@wylyrommel.com -- of
Wyly-Rommel did not immediately respond to a request for comment
about In re Google Gmail Litigation, 13-2430.  Google lawyer
Michael Rhodes of Cooley referred a request for comment to the
company, which cheered Koh's order.

"We're glad the court agreed that we have been upfront about
Gmail's automated processing, which allows us to provide security
and spam protection, tailored ads, and other great features like
Priority Inbox," a Google spokesman said in a statement.

Plaintiffs lawyers at Texas' Wyly-Rommel and Alabama's Cory Watson
Crowder & DeGaris sought to certify a vast class of non-Gmail
users who have sent or received emails from people who use the
service, as well as classes of minors, Google Apps for Education
users, Cable One users and several state classes.  Judge Koh
refused to allow the plaintiffs to refile their motion for class
certification, noting the issue was considered by another court
before the cases were consolidated as multidistrict litigation in
the Northern District in 2013.

Judge Koh rejected Google's bid to dismiss the case in September,
finding the company's behavior was not shielded by an exemption in
ECPA for an electronic service provider's ordinary course of
business.  She also found Google's privacy policy was not explicit
that messages would be intercepted to deliver targeted
advertisements.

But in deciding the classes can't proceed, Judge Koh agreed with
Google that the court must look beyond the company's formal
disclosures to consider whether plaintiffs were aware of the email
scanning.  She noted Google's business model had been widely
reported in the media.

"Courts have consistently held that implied consent is a question
of fact that requires looking at all of the circumstances
surrounding the interceptions to determine whether an individual
knew that her communications were being intercepted," Judge Koh
wrote.

She rejected plaintiffs' argument that media reports did not put
consumers on notice because they did not detail the tools Google
uses to intercept messages.  At a February hearing on the motion
for class certification, Mr. Rommel told Judge Koh that Google
relies on a little-known program called Content One Box to extract
information from users' messages.

"To find implied consent, a fact-finder need not determine email
users had specific knowledge of the particular devices that
intercepted their emails," Judge Koh wrote.

Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa
Clara University School of Law, said Judge Koh's order allows
email providers broad leeway to establish that users give implicit
consent for their practices.  But he noted her order on the motion
to dismiss remains troubling for the industry.  He expects Google
to attack Judge Koh's finding that automated processing is not
shielded by ECPA if the case goes up on appeal.

"If we accept the net effect of these rulings -- broad
interception standards but broad consent standards -- it still
leaves open the possibility of lots of lawsuits," Mr. Goldman
said.

But the order does underscore the challenges of class
certification in privacy cases, which may give the plaintiffs bar
pause in the future, Mr. Goldman said.

"The plaintiffs have to be discouraged," he said.  "They survived
the motion to dismiss, but they're not making a lot more progress,
and they're sinking a lot more money into the case."


HONEYWELL BUILDING: Faces "Cortes" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lissys Cortes and David Knight, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Honeywell Building Solutions SES
Corporation and Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
20429-CMA (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2014) is a Torts to Land case
brought as a class action.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Mark Brandwein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. BRANDWEIN, P.A.
          311 SE 10th Court
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 723-0090
          E-mail: davidbrandwein@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Jeannete C. Lewis, Esq.
          LEWIS LEGAL GROUP, P.A.
          17150 Royal Palm Blvd., Suite 1
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 888-9877
          Facsimile: (954) 217-0150
          E-mail: jlewis@lewislegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Rinaldi, Jr., Esq.
          BRILL RINALDI GARCIA
          999 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
          Penthouse 1120
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 809-8609
          Facsimile: (305) 445-5055
          E-mail: joe@brglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Juan Manuel Garcia, Jr., Esq.
          BRILL RINALDI GARCIA
          2929 Sw 3rd Ave., Suite 412
          Miami, FL 33129
          Telephone: (305) 809-8609
          Facsimile: (305) 858-1688
          E-mail: juan@brglawfirm.com

               - and -

          David Wayne Brill, Esq.
          BRILL RINALDI GARCIA
          17150 Royal Palm Boulevard, Suite 2
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 876-4344
          Facsimile: (954) 384-6226
          E-mail: david@brglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert J. McKee, Esq.
          THE MCKEE LAW GROUP LLC
          17150 Royal Palm Boulevard, Suite 1
          Weston, FL 33327
          Telephone: (954) 888-9877
          E-mail: rmckee@themckeelawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott N. Wagner, Esq.
          BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD, LLP
          1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131-3456
          E-mail: swagner@bilzin.com


HONG KONG EXCHANGES: Sued Over Aluminium Price Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetalBulletin reports that the Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing
(HKEx) has been named a co-defendant in the US class action
lawsuits alleging increasing wait time for aluminium and
manipulation of prices on the London Metal Exchange, the bourse
said on Friday March 14.

"HKEx management's initial assessment is that the lawsuit is
without merit and HKEx will contest it vigorously," the exchange
said in a regulatory filing.  The HKEx was notified on March 13
that it was named in the consolidated complaint.


IC SYSTEM: Accused of Contacting Class in Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Carlsberg Beecher, on behalf of herself and all others
similar situated v. IC System, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and
Does 1 through 20 inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00835-PA-AJW (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2014) seeks damages and other
available remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of
the Defendants in negligently knowingly and willfully contacting
the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy.

IC System is a Minnesota corporation with its principal in St.
Paul, Minnesota.  IC System conducts business in Los Angeles
County.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          David L. Weisberg, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 221
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  david@kristensenlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher W. Wood, Esq.
          Kelsey J. Fischer, Esq.
          DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP
          20 Bicentennial Circle
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Telephone: (916) 379-3500
          Facsimile: (310) 379-3599
          E-mail: cwood@dbbwlaw.com
                  kfischer@dbbwlaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action in Miami Over Robo-Signing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a team
of lawyers from around the country have filed a class action
lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates, alleging
it used robo-signed affidavits to illegally obtain default
judgments against credit cardholders.

The civil lawsuit filed March 11 in Miami federal court alleged
violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
and common law fraud.  The suit against JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Chase Bank USA N.A., Chase Bankcard LLC and Chase Bankcard
Services Inc. appears to mirror others filed in recent years
against lenders and mortgage services alleging robo-signing in
foreclosures.

A company spokeswoman declined comment on the suit, citing pending
litigation.

The suit was brought on behalf of Miami resident Ruth Moya, who
was sued twice by Chase in 2009.  In 2010, Chase USA moved for
default against Moya and submitted an affidavit signed by Zandra
Sanchez, a Chase Bankcard employee, according to the suit.  In the
second case against Moya, Chase Bankcard Services employee Kevin
Fletcher submitted a signed affidavit to obtain a judgment.  Both
motions resulted in orders of default against Moya.

Chase used robo-signed affidavits to obtain default judgments,
garnish wages, attach bank accounts and even seize assets, the
lawsuit claimed.

"For many years, defendants have committed debt collection abuses
against thousands of their credit card customers who have
purportedly defaulted on their accounts," the complaint said.  "To
collect on these accounts, defendants have flooded state courts,
including Florida courts and state courts across the United
States, with collection proceedings against their credit card
customers to collect on alleged credit cardholder debt."

This is not the first time Chase has been sued over its credit
card collection practices.  Last year, the California attorney
general sued the bank, accusing it of running a "massive debt
collection mill" that used robo-signed documents to obtain default
judgments against 100,000 credit cardholders in three years.

The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez.
It was filed by David Buckner -- dbu@grossmanroth.com -- and Seth
Miles -- sem@grossmanroth.com -- of Grossman Roth in Coral Gables,
Shannon Carson and Patrick Madden -- pmadden@bm.net -- of Berger &
Montague in Philadelphia, Joseph Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-
scott.com --  and Joseph Cohen -- jcohen@scott-scott.com -- of
Scott+Scott in New York, Christopher Burke -- cburke@scott-
scott.com -- and Joe Pettigrew -- jpettigrew@scott-scott.com -- of
Scott+Scott in San Diego, Edward Millstein of Sacks, Weston,
Petrelli, Diamond & Millstein of Philadelphia and John Bruster
Loyd of Jones, Gillaspia & Lloyd in Houston.


LIFELOCK INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 14 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the securities of LifeLock, Inc. between February 26,
2013 and February 19, 2014, inclusive, alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain of the Company's
officers.  The case is entitled Scesny v. LifeLock, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-479 (D. Ariz.).

If you purchased shares of LifeLock during the Class Period, and
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.,
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-
4242, by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com or at:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/lifelock-inc-lock

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business operations, financial condition and prospects.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that the Company's marketing and advertising practices
violated applicable government rules and regulations, as well as
the terms of the March 2010 Settlement Order, and that the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  As a result of the foregoing,
the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, in March 2010, the Company and
Defendant Todd Davis, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  of
the Company, entered into the Settlement Order with the Federal
Trade Commission whereby the Company settled allegations by the
FTC that certain of the Company's advertising and marketing
practices constituted deceptive acts or practices in violation of
the Federal Trade Commission Act.  The Settlement Order enjoined
the Company and Defendants Davis from deceptive advertising and
marketing of its identity theft protection services, including
making any misrepresentations of "the means, methods, procedures,
effects, effectiveness, coverage, or scope of" our identity theft
protection services.  Many of the allegations in the FTC
complaint, which accompanied the Settlement Order, related to the
inherent limitations of using credit report fraud alerts as the
foundation for identity theft protection.

Notwithstanding the Settlement Order, the Company allegedly
continued its deceptive advertising practices.  In its 2013 Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 19, 2014, LifeLock disclosed that it had met with the FTC
regarding its compliance with the terms of the Settlement Order,
after a whistleblower had discussed certain violations of the
Settlement Order with the FTC.

On this news, shares in LifeLock fell $2.29 per share, or nearly
10%, over the course of four trading sessions, closing at $20.00
per share on February 25, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 5, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed 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.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct
actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance
litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state
and federal courts throughout the United States.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Violating 1st/4th/14th Amendment Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Segura, individually and as class representative v. City of
Los Angeles, Michael Feuer, Charles Beck and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00805-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2014)
concerns the alleged unlawful deprivation of liberties of persons
selected to be served with, and served with, gang injunctions
through an unconstitutional extra-judicial targeting procedure
engaged in by prosecutors and police officers, without court
involvement, sanction or direction, resulting in violations of the
subject persons' First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
under the United States Constitution and their corollaries under
the California Constitution, without due process of law.

The gravamen of this complaint, Mr. Segura argues, concerns the
fact that deprivation of rights complained of in the case is
wrought upon persons, who are never named on gang injunctions,
never named as a party to any court action, and who are never
brought before any court of law unless and until they are seized,
detained, arrested and prosecuted for violating court orders that
the courts never determined were appropriately served upon them.

City of Los Angeles is a public entity organized and existing
under the laws of the state of California.  Defendants Los Angeles
City Attorney's Office and Los Angeles Police Department are duly
formed agencies of the City.  Michael Feuer is the elected City
Attorney of Los Angeles, and is the policy maker for the City
Attorney's Office.  Charles Beck is the Chief of the Los Angeles
Police Department, and is the policy maker for the LAPD.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Olu K. Orange, Esq.
          ORANGE LAW OFFICES
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 736-9900
          Facsimile: (213) 417-8800
          E-mail: oluorange@att.net


MASSEY ENERGY: May 14 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

In re MASSEY ENERGY CO. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Civil Action No. 5:10-cv-00689-ICB

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

TO:  ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY ("MASSEY")
DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1, 2008 AND JULY 27, 2010,
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
"SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an order of the Court, that the Settlement
Class in the above-captioned litigation ("Action") has been
preliminarily certified for the purposes of settlement only and
that a settlement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Pension Reserves Investment Trust ("Lead Plaintiff") and named
plaintiff David Wagner (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Massey,
Donald L. Blankenship, Baxter F. Phillips, Jr., Eric B. Tolbert,
J. Christopher Adkins, Dan R. Moore, E. Gordon Gee, Richard M.
Gabrys, James B. Crawford, Robert H. Foglesong, Stanley C.
Suboleski, Lady Barbara Thomas Judge (collectively, "Defendants"),
and Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. ("ANR") in the amount of
$265,000,000 in cash, has been proposed by the Settling Parties.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Irene C. Berger of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia in the Robert C. Byrd U.S. Courthouse, 110 North Heber
Street, 3rd Floor Courtroom, Beckley, WV 25801 at 9:00 a.m. on
June 4, 2014 to, among other things: determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; determine whether, thereafter, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of February 5,
2014; determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the settlement proceeds should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and consider the application of Co-Lead Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation
expenses.  The Court may change the date of the hearing without
providing another notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received
the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the
"Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of
Claim"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting
the Claims Administrator:

                   Massey Securities Settlement
               c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., PO Box 170600
                        Milwaukee, WI 53217
                           888-220-6258
                www.MasseySecuritiesSettlement.com,
                info@masseysecuritiessettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel: Joel H. Bernstein,
Esq., Ira A. Schochet, Esq., Labaton Sucharow LLP, 140 Broadway,
New York NY 10005, 888-219-6877, www.labaton.com,
settlementquestions@labaton.com; Paul J. Geller, Esq., Jack Reise,
Esq., Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 120 East Palmetto Park
Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432, 800-449-4900,
www.rgrdlaw.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim postmarked or received no later than July 3, 2014.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than
May 14, 2014.  If you are a putative Settlement Class Member and
do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be
bound by the Final Order and Judgment.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses
must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for the
Settling Parties in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice, so that they are received no later than May 14, 2014.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a
valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the Net
Settlement Fund, but you nevertheless will be bound by the Final
Order and Judgment.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Co-Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above.

DATED: MARCH 19, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


MIN SHENG: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Kitchen Worker Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cayetan Xitumul, On Behalf of Himself and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Min Sheng Corporation d/b/a New Border, Ou
Wang, Rong Sheng Shi and Ying Cai, Case No. 4:14-cv-00245 (S.D.
Tex., February 3, 2014) alleges that the Defendants required the
Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
compensating him for those hours at the overtime rate required
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a current kitchen employee at the Defendants' New
Border Chinese buffet restaurant located in Houston, Texas.

Min Sheng Corporation, doing business as New Border, is a Texas
corporation located in Houston, Texas.  The Individual Defendants
are owners or managers of New Border.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Lazarz, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: mlazarz@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


MT GOX: Canadian Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Bankruptcy
------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Vancouver Sun, reports that a
proposed class action will seek $500 million in compensation for
Canadians with deposits in what was once the largest bitcoin
digital-currency exchange in the world, according to a court
notice filed on March 14.

The lawsuit targets Mt. Gox and its two owners, Mark Karpeles and
Jed McCaleb, as well as one of the largest banks in Japan,
according to the notice of action to Ontario Superior Court.
Among other things, the action alleges negligence, breach of
contract and fraudulent misrepresentation -- none of which has
been proven in any court.

Toronto litigation lawyer Ted Charney said Mt. Gox held an
estimated US$465 million in trust for its clients and millions of
dollars belonged to Canadian users.  The company has offered no
accounting for how much non-bitcoin currency it held or what
happened to money that was supposed to have been kept in trust, he
said.

"We're never going to find out what's going on unless we start a
lawsuit because it's the only way we're going to get access to the
records," Mr. Charney said in an interview.

"It's really the only way to get the thing going."

The Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange halted all withdrawals early last
month, then abruptly shut down.  It consequently filed for
Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection in the United States.  The online
exchange had already filed for bankruptcy in Japan, saying it may
have lost bitcoins belonging to 750,000 of its customers.

Mr. Karpeles has said computer hackers took advantage of the
exchange's flawed software, a security breach critics said may
have persisted for years.

"After this news broke, the price of bitcoins plummeted, creating
a disruptive ripple effect that has nearly shut down the
industry," said the March 14 notice of action.

The notice, which provides a summary of the case, gives lawyers a
month to file a substantive statement of claim.

Proposed as class representatives are David Joyce, of Toronto,
Sancho McCann, of Vancouver, Alexandre Pepin, of Montreal, and
Paul Collin, of Calgary.  Each claims to be owed various amounts,
either in bitcoins or, in Joyce's case, as much as $24,500 in
cash.

The Canadian action also names Mizuho Bank on the grounds that the
Japanese financial institution held an account with non-bitcoin
currency that was transferred from the personal bank accounts of
users to the Mt. Gox exchange.

Mr. Charney said his firm is working together with the U.S.
lawyers who are pressing a class action south of the border.

According to the Canadian suit, Mt. Gox had contracted to hold all
money and digital currency deposits in user accounts.

The national class action seeks to represent Canadians who paid
Mt. Gox a fee to trade bitcoins or who had the digital or other
currency stored on the exchange when it went offline.


NATIONAL UNION: Illegally Sells Group Insurance, Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randy and Mary Williams and Larry and Linda Lake, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of a Putative Class v. National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, PA, d/b/a National Union Fire Insurance
Company, American International Group, Inc. (AIG), HealthExtras,
Inc., HealthExtras, LLC, HealthExtras Benefits Administrators,
Inc., Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, f/k/a Catalyst Health
Solutions, Inc., HealthExtras Insurance Agency, Inc., Alliant
Insurance Services, Inc., f/k/a Driver Alliant Insurance Services,
Inc., Alliant Services Houston, Inc., f/k/a JLT Services
Corporation, Alliant Insurance Services Houston, LLC, f/k/a
Capital Risk, LLC, f/k/a Jardine Lloyd Thompson, LLC, and,
Virginia Surety Company, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00309-TWT (N.D.
Ga., February 3, 2014) arises from the alleged wrongful conduct of
the Defendants toward the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
in the state of Georgia and the United States of America,
including the illegal selling and underwriting of group insurance
to consumers, who were not members of any lawful, blanket group
for which the sale of that insurance product could be authorized.

New York-based National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA, doing business as National Union Fire Insurance
Company, is a member of American International Group, Inc., is a
Pennsylvania corporation and has done business at all relevant
times in the state of Georgia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Benjamin Finley, Esq.
          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          2931 N. Druid Hills, Suite A
          Atlanta, GA
          Telephone: (404) 320-9979
          Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
          E-mail: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com
                  mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
          HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C.
          5613 Duraleigh Road, Suite 111
          PO Box 90698
          Raleigh, NC 27675
          Telephone: (919) 277-0161
          Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
          E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com

               - and -

          Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq.
          AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          1772 Platt Place
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 215-9873
          Facsimile: (334) 213-5663
          E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com

Defendant Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, formerly known as
Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., is represented by:

          Lewis E. Hassett, Esq.
          Pelham Wilder, IV, Esq.
          MORRIS MANNING & MARTIN, LLP
          1600 Atlanta Financial Center
          3343 Peachtree Road NE
          Atlanta, GA 30326-1044
          Telephone: (404) 233-7000
          E-mail: leh@mmmlaw.com
                  pwilder@mmmlaw.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Bearden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Mortgage Specialists
International, LLC, and TLC "Doe Defendant," Case No. 2:14-cv-
02051-EFM-GLR (D. Kan., February 3, 2014) is brought under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
          CONSUMER LEGAL CLINIC LLC
          748 Ann Avenue
          Kansas City, KS 66101
          Telephone: (913) 371-0727
          Facsimile: (913) 371-0147
          E-mail: mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com


NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Biver, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., Peter L. Vosotas, Ralph T.
Finkenbrink, Stephen Bragin, Scott Fink, Alton R. Neal, Prospect
Capital Corporation, Watershed Acquisition LP, 0988007 B.C.,
Unlimited Liability Company and Watershed Operating LLC, Case No.
8:14-cv-00250-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla., February 3, 2014) arises from
the proposed sale of the Company to Prospect Capital Corporation
and its affiliates.

Nicholas Financial is a Canadian holding company incorporated
under the laws of British Columbia and headquartered in
Clearwater, Florida.  The business activities of Nicholas
Financial are conducted through its two wholly-owned subsidiaries:
Nicholas Financial, Inc. and Nicholas Data Services, Inc.
Nicholas Financial-Florida is a specialized consumer finance
company engaged primarily in acquiring and servicing contracts for
purchases of new and used automobiles and light trucks.  Nicholas
Data Services is engaged in supporting and updating industry-
specific computer application software for small businesses
located primarily in the Southeast United States.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Nicholas Financial.

Prospect Capital is a Maryland corporation headquartered in New
York.  Prospect Capital is a financial services company that
primarily lends to and invests in middle market privately-held
companies.  Watershed Acquisition LP is a Delaware limited
partnership and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Prospect Capital
through which the Defendants seek to effectuate the takeover of
Nicholas Financial.  0988007 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company is a
British Columbia unlimited liability company and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Watershed Acquisition LP through which the
Defendants seek to effectuate the takeover of Nicholas Financial.
Watershed Operating LLC is a limited liability company existing
under the laws of Delaware and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of defendant 0988007 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company through
which the Defendants seek to effectuate the takeover of Nicholas
Financial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Esq.
          David Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  dWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          DEANS & LYONS
          325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 736-7861
          Facsimile: (214) 965-8505

Defendants Nicholas Financial and its directors and officers are
represented by:

          Michael P. Matthews, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 225-4131
          Facsimile: (813) 221-4210
          E-mail: mmatthews@foley.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Davis, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          2 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131-1808
          Telephone: (305) 482-8414
          Facsimile: (305) 482-8600
          E-mail: rdavis@foley.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Joseph Dougherty, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-2300
          Facsimile: (813) 225-4210
          E-mail: ldougherty@foley.com

The Prospect Defendants are represented by:

          Dennis Parker Waggoner, Esq.
          HILL WARD HENDERSON, PA
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
          PO Box 2231
          Tampa, FL 33602-5195
          Telephone: (813) 221-3900
          Facsimile: (813) 221-2900
          E-mail: dwaggoner@hwhlaw.com


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Wants to Appeal Order in "Laurent" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, The Retirement Benefit Accumulation
Plan for Employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and The
Administrative Committee to The Retirement Benefit Accumulation
Plan for Employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ask the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to
appeal the Opinion and Order entered on August 8, 2013, by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which
denied their motion to dismiss Timothy D. Laurent and Smeeta
Sharon's Second Amended Complaint.

The original case is Laurent, et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, et al., Case No. 06-cv-2280 (JPO), in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit is brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On January 22, 2014, the District Court entered an order
certifying the August 8 Order for interlocutory appeal because "a
successful appeal would immediately terminate the litigation."

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
          GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          498 7th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11215
          Telephone: (718) 788-1500
          Telecopier: (718) 788-1650
          E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Robert J. Kopecky, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: robert.kopecky@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Lauren O. Casazza, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4611
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: lauren.casazza@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Christopher Landau, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 15th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5087
          E-mail: christopher.landau@kirkland.com

The appellate case is Laurent, et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, et al., Case No. 14-314, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.


SELECT RESOURCE: "Abouriche" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Nabil Abouriche v. Select Resource Group
LLC, Case No. 3:13-CV-02056-GPC-KSC, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00802-GAF-SH to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, 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
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          CARLSON AND MESSER LLP
          5959 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1214
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 242-2200
          Facsimile: (310) 242-2222
          E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com


SUTHERLAND HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abby Sewell, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a patient
whose personal information was stolen in a break-in at a medical
billing contractor's office in Torrance has filed a class-action
lawsuit against the company and Los Angeles County.

Two Los Angeles law firms filed a complaint on March 14 in
Superior Court.  The suit was initially filed on behalf of a
single patient whose name was not disclosed, but seeks class-
action status.

An office of Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, which handles
billing and collections for the county's Department of Health
Services and Department of Public Health, was burglarized Feb. 5
and computers were stolen.

County officials said personal data of as many as 168,500 patients
may have been stolen.

Sutherland notified patients of the breach.  The complaint, filed
by Los Angeles attorneys Genie Harrison and Lisa L. Maki, alleges
that the company failed to encrypt the data stored on the
computers.  It also alleges that Sutherland did not notify
patients in a timely fashion and that the relief the company has
offered to those affected is "woefully insufficient."  The company
set up a toll-free line for patients to call and said it would
provide free credit monitoring.

The lawsuit seeks to require the company and Los Angeles County to
pay for additional credit monitoring and credit repair services,
identity theft insurance, home security systems and other costs
for the patients whose data was taken. It also asks the court to
order the county to require more stringent procedures to protect
private and confidential data in future contracts.


TECHNICOOL SYSTEMS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Horacio Valle Roman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Technicool Systems, Inc.; Robert Furlough
and Jay Barger, Case No. 4:14-cv-00239 (S.D. Tex., February 3,
2014) is brought as a collective action on behalf of similarly
situated employees to recover unpaid overtime wages from the
Defendants.

Technicool Systems, Inc. is a Texas corporation.  Technicool
manufactures custom heating, ventilation and air conditioning
systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


TINLEY ICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Garcia Hererra, on behalf of himself, and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Tinley Ice
Company, Harold M. Teehan III, Individually, and Timothy Teehan,
Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00740 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants paid the Plaintiff on an hourly basis,
however, they paid him at a straight hourly rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Tinley Ice Company is a business located in University Park,
Illinois, that manufactures ice and packs and delivers the ice to
businesses in the Chicagoland area as well as in Indiana.  The
Individual Defendants are the owners of Tinley Ice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
                  mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul Luca, Esq.
          AMATORE AND ASSOCIATES
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 236-9825


TORON RESTORATION: Manual Worker Seeks to Recover Back Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin Noboa, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Past and
Present Similarly Situated Employees v. Toron Restoration Corp.
a/k/a Toron Waterproof Corporation, Fernando Pouso and Jose Luis
Martinez, Case No. 1:14-cv-00730-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y., February 3,
2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York State Labor Law to recover back wages for minimum wage
and overtime on behalf of past and present employees comprised of
carpenters, demolition, bricklayers, painters and other manual
workers of the Defendants.

Toron Restoration is a foreign business corporation created under
the laws of state of New Jersey, duly authorized to conduct
business in New York and having its principal place of business in
Newark, New Jersey.  Toron Restoration operates a construction and
restoration company under the business name and "Toron
Restoration."  The Company is owned and closely managed by the
Individual Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 583-7401
          E-mail: akumar@cafaroesq.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: $1.2BB Settlement May Sway Jurors in Remaining Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a $1.2 billion settlement between Toyota Motor Corp. and the
U.S. Department of Justice will have little direct effect on
negotiations to settle remaining lawsuits over deaths and injuries
associated with sudden acceleration, but could sway jurors should
those cases go to trial, according to attorneys involved in those
actions.

In a deferred-prosecution agreement announced on March 19, Toyota
admitted that it made misleading statements to the National
Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Congress
regarding its knowledge of defects associated with floor mats and
sticky gas pedals -- the subjects of two recalls in 2009 and 2010.
The deal made no mention of any defects in its electronic throttle
systems, the core allegation in lawsuits filed against Toyota.

"If they paid $1.2 billion for that, they owe the government a
whole lot more for the rest of it," said Jere Beasley --
jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com -- founding shareholder of
Montgomery, Ala.'s Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles.
His firm obtained a $3 million verdict against Toyota in a case
blaming electronic defects for the fatal crash of a 2005 Camry in
Oklahoma.  "Their biggest problem -- 95 percent of their problems
-- have nothing to do with mats or sticky pedals.  It's strictly a
bad computer, and they know this."

Donald Slavik, senior counsel to Robinson Calcagnie Robinson
Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif., whose firm plays a lead
role in the civil matters, agreed that the deal wouldn't directly
affect settlement negotiations.  But it could provide perspective
about their overall value, which he estimated Toyota could resolve
"for a sum certainly much less than the $1.2 billion they're
paying here."

Even Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of
New York, said during a March 19 news conference that the $1.2
billion, which will go to the Justice Department's asset
forfeiture fund, could have limited value for civil litigants.

"It is possible for individuals who were victimized or who believe
they were victims to get recompensed through the asset forfeiture
program, although it's my understanding that many of them have
already settled or found recompense through civil litigation," he
said.

Still, the payment is the largest criminal penalty imposed on a
car company in U.S. history.

Toyota assured consumers and the NHTSA that it had addressed the
"root cause" of sudden acceleration in 2009, when it recalled
eight models over floor mats it said became entrapped against gas
pedals.  But internally, Toyota knew of many other models with
floor-mat problems and, more significantly, was aware that stuck
gas pedals could be causing sudden acceleration, the company
conceded.

"Entering this agreement, while difficult, is a major step toward
putting this unfortunate chapter behind us," Christopher Reynolds,
chief legal officer of Toyota Motor North America Inc., said in a
prepared statement.

In the civil matters, Toyota has reached "agreements in principle"
to settle 131 of the remaining cases, according to a status report
filed on March 17 with U.S. District Judge James Selna.  The
litigation -- hundreds of wrongful death and personal injury cases
--represents the last of the lawsuits filed against Toyota
following its recalls.  In 2012, Toyota agreed to a $1.6 billion
deal to resolve hundreds of cases claiming that it misled
consumers about the safety of its vehicles.

Toyota scheduled a settlement conference for March 26 in Chicago,
with another one planned in Houston, according to the status
report.  At least one case is scheduled for trial on May 2, Slavik
said.  And that's where the $1.2 billion agreement could be most
helpful.

"Certainly, if a case ends up going to trial, the publicity about
Toyota is renewed with regards to issues on unwanted
acceleration," he said.  "It can cut both ways.  Toyota may say
that was only related to pedals and floor mats.

But yet, if one looks deeply into these documents, it's the
pattern of conduct -- Toyota's responses to inquiries about
problems -- that would be the issues that plaintiffs attorneys
might raise at trial later."


TOYOTA MOTOR: Failure to Disclose Safety Issues Shameful, DOJ Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Ruger, writing for Legal Times, reports that Toyota Motor
Corp. has agreed to pay a $1.2 billion financial penalty to settle
a fraud charge related to misleading statements about the safety
of its cars to the public and regulators, the U.S. Department of
Justice said on March 19.

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said at a press conference at
Main Justice on March 19 that Toyota will also submit to a review
by an independent monitor as a condition of a deferred-prosecution
agreement.  The monitor will look at, among other things, how the
company reports safety issues.

The agreement was signed by Christopher Reynolds, general counsel
and chief legal officer for Toyota Motor North America Inc.  Three
Debevoise & Plimpton partners in New York -- James Johnson --
jejohnsn@debevoise.com -- Matthew Fishbein --
mfishbein@debevoise.com -- and Helen Cantwell --
hvcantwell@debevoise.com -- represented Toyota in the settlement.

"Put simply, Toyota's conduct was shameful," Mr. Holder said.  "It
showed a blatant disregard for systems and laws designed to look
after the safety of consumers. By the company's own admission, it
protected its brand ahead of its own customers.  This constitutes
a clear and reprehensible abuse of the public trust."

The years-long criminal investigation focused on how the automaker
disclosed complaints about problems of sudden acceleration
associated with its most popular Toyota and Lexus models, Holder
said.  Prosecutors filed information against Toyota in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"Rather than promptly disclosing and correcting safety issues
about which they were aware, Toyota made misleading public
statements to consumers and gave inaccurate facts to members of
Congress," Mr. Holder said.  "And they concealed from federal
regulators the extent of problems that some consumers encountered
with sticking gas pedals and unsecured or incompatible floor mats
that could cause these unintended-acceleration episodes."

Mr. Holder said he hoped the resolution of the case will serve as
a model for how to approach similar cases in the future, and that
it would send a message to other car companies about not repeating
Toyota's mistake of putting the company's reputation before
customer safety.


TRAFFIC CONTROL: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Wallace, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Traffic Control Devices, Inc., a Florida corporation, Case No.
6:14-cv-00173-CEH-TBS (M.D. Fla., February 3, 2014) seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs
and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Traffic Control Devices, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business in Altamonte Springs, Seminole County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
          1515 S Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


TUNSTALL HOLDING: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sergey Bulba, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; Mariluz Rodriguez; Arnaldo Rodriguez; Vladislav Faynblut
v. Tunstall Holding, LLC, d/b/a Tunstall Americas, d/b/a Tunstall
Healthcare; American Medical Alert Corporation; and Richard Rallo,
Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00746-FB-JO (E.D.N.Y., February 3,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          Building 2, Suite 220
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


STATE FARM: Removed "Hayes" Suit to Western District of Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Hayes Family Trust, et
al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Case No. CJ-2014-211,
was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma
City).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00106-C
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit involves a dispute over State Farm's alleged failure
to pay for damages to the Plaintiffs pursuant to a claim for
benefits under a Business Owners Insurance Policy.  The Plaintiffs
allege State Farm breached the insurance contract and committed
bad faith.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason J. Waddell, Esq.
          JASON WADDELL PLLC
          222 NW 13th St.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 232-5291
          Facsimile: (405) 708-7871
          E-mail: jason@jasonwaddelllaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David V. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin G. Kemble, Esq.
          JONES ANDREWS & ORTIZ-OKC
          21 E Main St., Suite 101
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (405) 601-8713
          Facsimile: (405) 232-8330
          E-mail: dvj@jao-law.com
                  bkemble@jao-law.com


UTI WORLDWIDE: Wolf Popper Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on March 17 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against UTi Worldwide Inc., and two of its senior
officers, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares of UTi common stock on the open market during the period
December 5, 2013 through February 25, 2014, and were damaged
thereby.  This action alleges claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than May 16, 2014 to be appointed the lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased UTi common stock during the Class Period and suffered
losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights.

The Complaint charges that defendants omitted material facts from
their SEC filings and other public statements, namely, that UTI
was experiencing a cash crunch and was rapidly depleting its lines
of credit because of problems experienced with the rollout of its
new freight forwarding operating and global financial systems.
UTi's undisclosed liquidity problems were so severe that UTi was
forced to engage in a heavily dilutive offering of convertible
notes and preferred shares totaling over $500 million to provide
UTi with emergency financing.  The disclosures of the severity of
the financial problems caused UTi's stock price to fall nearly 30%
on February 26, 2014, as the market digested the news.

Wolf Popper LLP has successfully recovered billions of dollars for
defrauded investors.  The firm's reputation and expertise have
been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed the
firm to major positions in complex multi-district and consolidated
litigations.

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel: 212-759-4600 or 877-370-7703 (toll free)
Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 (toll free)
E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


UTOPIA HOME: Did Not Properly Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shenithia Cowell, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Utopia Home Care, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00736-LDW-WDW (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2014) is brought on behalf
current and former similarly situated employees of UHC, who were
not properly compensated with overtime pay as required under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Utopia Home Care, Inc. is a New York corporation which, through 22
locations in six different states, provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by "nurses,
therapists, social workers, home health aides, personal care
aides, live-in aides and homemakers."  The Company is
headquartered in Kings Park, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Ratner, Esq.
          MORELLI ALTERS RATNER L.L.P.
          950 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 1002
          Telephone: (212) 751-9800
          Facsimile: (212) 751-0046
          E-mail: DRatner@morellialters.com

               - and -

          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 266-2536
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com


                             *********

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

Copyright 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  * * *