CAR_Public/140326.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 60

                             Headlines


AB RESOURCES: Hoskins' Bid for Relief From Judgment Okayed
ABIOMED INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Junk Stock Suit Held
ACB RECEIVABLES: Class Seeks Damages Over FDCPA Violations
ALBERTA: Bragg Creek Residents File Class Action v. ESRD
ALPHABET HOLDING: Settlement in Dietary Supplements Suit Approved

AMERICAN CLEANERS: Settles Class Action Over $0.25 Fee
AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: D&J Plastics Files RICO Class Action
AMERICAN PACIFIC: Faces Suit Over Pending Acquisition by H.I.G.
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Agrees to Pay $10MM to Settle Stock Suit
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.

APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Rasmussen Suit With Leave to Amend
BANKIA: Madrid Court Accepts Securities Class Action
BFC MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Wages to Exotic Dancers, Suit Claims
CMS ENERGY: Ruling in Gas Index Price Reporting Suit on Appeal
COMMERCIAL METALS: To Pay $4MM Settlement on Price-Fixing Claims

CONGREGATION MACHNA: Suits Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
COOPER AEROBICS: Never Paid Extra Halftime OT Rate, Cleaner Says
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit Appealed
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Securities Lawsuit in Calif. Amended
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Former HVAC Students Seek Review of Case

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Considers Suit by Medical Students Abandoned
CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Former Admissions Representatives File Suits
CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Faces Suit by Former Instructor at Fremont
CYTRX CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
DEVI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Says

DOW JONES: Faces Class Action for Disclosing WSJ Users' Info
EL TROMPITO: Illegally Seized Tips or Gratuities, Class Claims
FELKER: Court Denies Mitchell's Motion to Set Trial
FITBIT: Faces Class Action Over Bracelet Recall
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Sued for Not Having Blind-Friendly POS Devices

GARFIELD BEACH CVS: Faces Class Action Over Personal Questions
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit in Michigan Over Ignition Switches
GENERAL MOTORS: Merchant Law Firm Files Suit in Ontario & Quebec
GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
GOOGLE INC: No Class Status for Data-Mining Claims, Judge Rules

HBS MANAGEMENT: Heavenly Bodies Dancer Seeks to Recover Wages
HIKO ENERGY: Customers File Class Action Over Deceptive Trade
HOME SHOPPING: Faces Class Action Over Counterfeit Knives
I & A RESTAURANT: Cook Sues Over Non-Payment of Overtime Premium
JJ THAI KITCHEN: Sued for Not Paying Minimum Wages to Workers

LEDGEWOOD BK: FACTA Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim Court OK
LIBRETTOS ON 3RD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Dishwasher Says
LINDA A. KING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
MCDONALD'S CORP: Franchise Owner Settles Wage Suit for $500,000

MINNESOTA: Faces Class Action Over Pretrial Diversions
NU SKIN: Fails to Disclose Sales Practices in China, Suit Says
O'HARE INN: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages
PACER INTERNATIONAL: Being Sold to XPO for Too Little, Suit Claims
PLENTY CAFE: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Compensation

PROSPECT MORTGAGE: Bid to Strike Jury Demand in Noble Suit Okayed
QB&G LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Waitress-Bartender Claims
SAFEWAY INC: Judge Grants Class Certification in Customer Lawsuit
TARGET CORP: Faces "Hachey" Suit in Minnesota Over Data Breach
TARGET CORP: Has Inadequate Security Measures, "Hill" Suit Says

TIME WARNER: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
TIME WARNER: Los Angeles Sues Over Withholding of $10MM Fees
TOWER GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in New York
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Tasion" Suit
UTI WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Action Over Share Price Drop

VOLVO: 3rd Cir. Agrees to Review Sun Roof Class Action Status


                             *********


AB RESOURCES: Hoskins' Bid for Relief From Judgment Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Preston Bailey issued a memorandum order on
February 26, 2014, in the case styled, Patricia S. Hoskins and
Mary Jako, Clarence Rulong, William R. Standiford and Linda
Standiford, and Lewis A. Aston and Cathy Aston, individually and
as the representatives of The Class of All Similarly Situated
Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. AB Resources, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-78, (N.D.
W. Va.).

The plaintiffs in this putative class action, jointly with the
defendant AB Resources, LLC, moved the Court to express its
willingness to grant their joint motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for the limited
purpose of considering the parties' joint motion for conditional
certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of a
class action settlement.

Judge Bailey affirmatively stated that the Court is inclined to
grant the joint motion for relief from judgment and further to
consider the joint motion for conditional certification of a
settlement class and preliminary approval of a class action
settlement in the event that the Fourth Circuit determines that
this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over this matter and
the Fourth Circuit remands the action for that purpose.

A copy of the Court's memorandum order is available at
http://is.gd/lOTlQxfrom Leagle.com.

The Court directed the Clerk to transmit copies of this memorandum
order to the Clerk of the Fourth Circuit and to counsel of record.

Phillip T. Giyptis, Esq. -- phillip.glyptis@steptoe-johnson.com --
Karen Kahle, Esq. -- karen.kahle@steptoe-johnson.com -- Kristen
Andrews Wilson, Esq. -- kristen.andrews-wilson@steptoe -- Steptoe
& Johnson PLLC, Wheeling, WV, Counsel for Defendant.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

   Jonathan E. Turak, Esq.
   Gold, Khourey & Turak, L.C.
   510 Tomlinson Avenue
   Moundsville, WV 26041
   Phone: 304-845-9750
   Toll Free: 1-800-388-2529
   Fax: 304-845-1286

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

   Daniel J. Guida, Esq.
   Guida Law Offices
   3374 Main St
   Weirton, WV 26062
   Telephone: 304-748-121

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

   Eric Gordon, Esq.
   Berry Kessler Crutchfield Taylor & Gordon
   514 7th Street
   Moundsville, WV 26041
   Telephone: 304 845-2580
   Facsimile: 304-845-9055


ABIOMED INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Junk Stock Suit Held
------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the motion of Abiomed, Inc. to dismiss a
securities suit filed against it in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts was conducted before the presiding
district court judge in September 2013, according to the company's
Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On November 16 and 19, 2012, two purported class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by alleged
purchasers of its common stock, on behalf of themselves and
persons or entities that purchased or acquired securities of the
Company between August 5, 2011 and October 31, 2012. The
complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws in connection with disclosures related to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and the marketing and labeling of the
Company's Impella 2.5 product and seek damages in an unspecified
amount. The Court has consolidated these complaints and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May
20, 2013. On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint. Oral argument on the Company's motion
to dismiss was conducted before the presiding district court judge
on September 18, 2013.


ACB RECEIVABLES: Class Seeks Damages Over FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Logan Loreaux, an infant by parent and natural guardian Katelyn
Jones; and, Katelyn Jones, individually; on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. ACB Receivables Management, Inc.,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-00710-JAP-TJB (D.N.J.,
February 4, 2014) is brought for damages arising from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

ACB Receivables Management, Inc. is a domestic corporation with
its principal place of business located in Asbury Park, New
Jersey.  ACB is a company that uses mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly attempts to collect debts alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com


ALBERTA: Bragg Creek Residents File Class Action v. ESRD
--------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn McMackin, writing for Cochrane Eagle, reports that a class
action has been filed on behalf of some residents of Bragg Creek
against Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
(ESRD), claiming the smoke from wood burning in West Bragg Creek
has caused a health hazard.

Doug Sephton, the proposed representative plaintiff, seeks a
remedy that includes $10,000 for each class member, along with
awards for a variety of damages, as written in the statement of
claim.

"There are a number of people who are having health issues as a
result of the wood smoke," said Clint Docken, legal counsel for
the plaintiff.

Wood smoke can irritate the eyes, nose and throats, and can be
harmful for those suffering from lung problems such as asthma or
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Mr. Docken said the suit could represent hundreds of people from
the hamlet.  He added he has heard reports of residents moving out
of their homes, or not allowing their dogs outside because of the
smoke from the slash burning.

According to the statement of claim, the class was assured that
incinerators would control the slash burning; ensuring residents
would not be exposed to wood smoke.  The claim went on to state
that the logging operations ceased the use of incinerators to
control slash burning.

Nikki Booth, a spokesperson with ESRD, said slash was disposed of
during the winter months through controlled burning.  Winter
season burning has ceased, she added.

The statement of claim says the plaintiff and class have suffered
a number of damages, including damages to personal property,
illness, emotional and psychological trauma, out of pocket
expenses, and loss of income.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Settlement in Dietary Supplements Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an opinion and order approving a settlement
reached in Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al., according to Alphabet
Holding Company, Inc.'s Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against Alphabet Holding's wholly
owned subsidiary NBTY, Inc., its subsidiary Rexall Sundown, Inc.
("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there may be a duty
to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing of glucosamine-
based dietary supplements, under various states' consumer
protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its
subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive
damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory
damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive
relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against
certain wholesale customers as to which the company may have
certain indemnification obligations. The Nunez Case settled on an
individual basis on June 20, 2013.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
remaining plaintiffs, which includes all cases and resolves all
pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability
by NBTY, and which provides for a release of all claims in return
for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and
notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on
October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013.

On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order
approving the settlement as modified ("the Order"). The final
judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 ("the Judgment"). Certain
objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment
on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
February 3, 2014.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12.0 million
reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class
together with attorney's fees, and notice and administrative costs
in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of
the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the
claims period, NBTY has reduced its estimate of exposure to $6.1
million. This reduction in the estimated exposure has been
reflected in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014.
Until the appeal is resolved, no final determination can be made
as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of
liability on the part of NBTY.


AMERICAN CLEANERS: Settles Class Action Over $0.25 Fee
------------------------------------------------------
KSDK.com reports that American Cleaners has agreed to a settlement
in a class action lawsuit over a $0.25 fee the company was
charging on every item it cleaned.  The lawsuit could add up to a
payout of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  To find out more
about the class action lawsuit and if you qualify for a payout,
visit AmericanCleanersHelp.com.


AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: D&J Plastics Files RICO Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AIG et al. fraudulently
underreported receipts of payment for workers comp premiums, an
employer claims in a RICO class action.

The parties to the RICO class action are: D & J Plastics Inc. v.
American International Group Inc.; American Home Assurance
Company; AIU Insurance Company; American Fuji Fire and Marine
Insurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company; Commerce and
Industry Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance Company; The
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh Pa; New Hampshire Insurance
Company; AIG Risk Management Inc.; and [AIG Chairman and CEO]
Maurice R. Greenberg.


AMERICAN PACIFIC: Faces Suit Over Pending Acquisition by H.I.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Pacific Corporation faces several lawsuits over a pending
acquisition by H.I.G. Capital LLC, according to American Pacific's
Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 9, 2014, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and with Flamingo Parent
Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Flamingo Merger Sub
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), both of which are affiliates of and
controlled by H.I.G. Capital, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the terms and subject to
the conditions thereof, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer (the
"Offer") on January 24, 2014 to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of the Company (the "Shares"), at a
purchase price of $46.50 per share, in cash (the "Offer Price"),
payable without interest and less any applicable withholding
taxes. The Offer is scheduled to expire at midnight, New York City
time, on February 24, 2014, unless the Offer is extended or
earlier terminated.

Following the consummation of the Offer and subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the company,
and the company will continue as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent (the "Merger"). As of the effective time of the Merger,
each outstanding Share (other than Shares owned by the Company as
treasury stock, Shares owned by Parent, Merger Sub or any other
direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, Merger Sub
or the Company or Shares held by stockholders that have properly
exercised and perfected appraisal rights under Delaware law) will
be converted automatically into the right to receive an amount in
cash equal to the Offer Price, without interest.

On January 16, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Quick, et al. v. American Pacific Corp., et al., Case No. A-14-
694633-C, was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark
County, Nevada regarding the proposed acquisition and subsequently
amended on January 30, 2014. The amended complaint (the "Quick
Complaint") was purportedly filed on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company, and names as defendants the Company,
each of the Company's directors, Parent, Merger Sub and H.I.G. The
Quick Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value in a proposed sale of the Company and by
engaging in self-dealing. The Quick Complaint further alleges that
the Company's directors failed to provide material information
relating to the acquisition and that the Company and H.I.G. aided
and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's directors. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action status, an
injunction preventing the completion of the acquisition, monetary
damages and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On January 29, 2014 and February 4, 2014, two putative class
action lawsuits captioned Berger v. Campbell, et al., Case No.
9292, and Jeweltex Manufacturing Inc. Retirement Plan v. American
Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 9308, were filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware regarding the proposed
acquisition. The complaints (the "Berger Complaint" and "Jeweltex
Complaint", respectively) were purportedly filed on behalf of the
public stockholders of the Company, and name as defendants the
Company, each of the Company's directors, Parent, Merger Sub, and
H.I.G. The Berger Complaint and Jeweltex Complaint allege, among
other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to deal protection devices designed
to prevent unsolicited bids and by engaging in self-dealing. The
Berger Complaint and the Jeweltex Complaint further allege that
the Company's directors failed to provide material information
relating to the acquisition and that the Company's directors
effectuated a scheme to temporarily lower the Company's share
price through deliberate misleading acts, allowing a sale of the
Company to take place and providing immediate liquidity for the
stock holdings of the Company's directors and management. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, class action status, an
injunction preventing the completion of the acquisition, monetary
damages and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On January 30, 2014, two putative class action lawsuits captioned
Norcini v. American Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. A-14-
695381-B, and Solak v. American Pacific Corporation, et al., Case
No. A-14695365-C were filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court
in Clark County, Nevada regarding the proposed acquisition. The
complaints (the "Norcini Complaint" and "Solak Complaint",
respectively) were purportedly filed on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company and name as defendants the Company,
each of the Company's directors, Parent, Merger Sub, and H.I.G.
The Norcini and Solak Complaints allege, among other things, that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by not
maximizing stockholder value and not fully informing themselves
about whether greater value could be achieved. The Norcini and
Solak Complaints further allege that the Company's directors
agreed to onerous deal protection devices that assured
consummation of the deal and collectively engaged in a scheme to
unfairly sell the Company to H.I.G. at a bargain price. The Solak
Complaint further alleges that the Company's directors failed to
provide material information relating to the acquisition. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, class action status, an
injunction preventing the completion of the acquisition, monetary
damages and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On January 31, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Pill v. Gibson, et al., Case No. A-14-695405, was filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada regarding
the proposed acquisition. The complaint (the "Pill Complaint") was
purportedly filed on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company, and names as defendants the Company, each of the
Company's directors, Parent, Merger Sub, and H.I.G. The Pill
Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by allowing allegedly
conflicted directors and an allegedly conflicted financial advisor
to negotiate, analyze, and approve the acquisition, which
contained alleged deal protection devices. The Pill Complaint
further alleges that the Company's directors failed to provide
material information relating to the acquisition. The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, class action status, an injunction
preventing the completion of the acquisition, monetary damages and
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Agrees to Pay $10MM to Settle Stock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation reached a settlement to pay
$10.0 million to settle a lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the
company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the company and two of
the company's officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts; one complaint additionally asserted
claims against the underwriters who participated in the company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the
"Court") consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v.
American Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-
10582-WGY.

On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the company, the company's officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in the company's November 12, 2010
securities offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, as well as
under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act").

The complaint alleges that during the relevant class period, the
company and the company's officers omitted to state material facts
and made materially false and misleading statements relating to,
among other things, the company's projected and recognized
revenues and earnings, as well as the company's relationship with
Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. ("Sinovel") that artificially
inflated the value of the company's stock price. The complaint
further alleges that the company's November 12, 2010 securities
offering contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated therein. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On December 16, 2011, the district court issued a
summary order declining to dismiss the Securities Act claims
against the company and the company's officers, and taking under
advisement the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims against
the company and the company's officers and the motion to dismiss
the Securities Act claims made against the underwriters. On July
26, 2012, the district court dismissed the Exchange Act claims
against the company and the company's officers and denied the
motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims made against the
underwriters.

On November 19, 2013, the company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which will resolve
the claims asserted against the company, certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters.
The terms of the Stipulation provide, among other things, a
settlement payment by the company of $10.0 million, $8.2 million
of which will be funded by the company's insurers and $1.8 million
of which is expected to be paid through the issuance of 944,882
shares of the company's common stock (the "Settlement Shares"). In
the event that the value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated
under the Stipulation) decreases as of the effective date of the
settlement, the company is required to make a cash payment for the
difference in value. As of March 31, 2013, the company has
established a reserve for the anticipated cost to settle this
class action litigation. The terms of the Stipulation are subject
to approval by the Court following notice to all class members.
The issuance of the Settlement Shares is expected to be exempt
from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.  Based on the company's assessment of the
probable losses on this claim, the company has recorded a loss
contingency of $1.8 million as of December 31, 2013.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 20 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-736 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of AmTrust
between February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013, both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AmTrust securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 7, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

AmTrust, through its subsidiaries, underwrites and provides
property and casualty insurance in the United States and
internationally.  The company operates in four segments: Small
Commercial Business, Specialty Risk and Extended Warranty,
Specialty Program, and Personal Lines Reinsurance.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that the Company: 1) manipulated its
loan loss reserves in order to inflate reported earnings; 2)
manipulated its deferred tax liabilities; 3) underestimated the
discount rates for its life settlement contracts in an effort to
inflate the Company's reported assets and total stockholder's
equity; 4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and 5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On December 12, 2013, a report by analyst firm Geoinvesting
exposed certain alleged accounting improprieties at AmTrust.  Such
improprieties included: 1) manipulation of the Company's loan loss
reserves; 2) manipulation of the Company's deferred tax
liabilities; and 3) underestimating the Company's discount rates
for its life settlement contracts.

On this news, shares of AmTrust fell $4.63 per share, more than
12%, on intraday trading, to a price of $33.67 on December 12,
2013.

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


APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Rasmussen Suit With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order on March 14, 2014,
granting a motion to dismiss the case captioned CORBIN RASMUSSEN,
Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, NO. C-13-4923 EMC, (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Corbin Rasmussen brought the action alleging that
Apple's 27-inch iMac computers suffer from a defect which causes
the screen to "dim" permanently, affecting the usefulness of the
computer. Plaintiff asserted two causes of action on behalf of a
proposed class consisting of all individuals who have purchased a
27-inch iMac -- a California Legal Remedies Act claim, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1750, and a California Unfair Competition Law claim,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. Plaintiff argued
that Apple's advertising trumpeted the high quality nature of the
screen and of the "long productive life" of Mac computers more
generally while knowing that the 27-inch model of iMac suffered
from a defect which made the eventual failure of the display
highly likely. Plaintiff argued that this failure to disclose the
defect violates both the CLRA and UCL. Apple has moved to dismiss
for failure to state a claim.

The Court granted Apple's motion to dismiss, but with leave to
amend.

A copy of the ruling may be accessed for free at
http://is.gd/Q2d5Skfrom Leagle.com.

Corbin Rasmussen, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Caitlyn D Finley --
cdf@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, David K. Stein --
dks@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes --
dsh@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk --
smg@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew David Powers --
mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Victoria Leigh
Weatherford -- weatherford@aya.yale.edu


BANKIA: Madrid Court Accepts Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
IFA Magazine reports that ADICAE, or Asociacion de Usuarios de
Bancos, Cajas y Seguros, a Spanish consumer agency for bank and
insurance customers, announced that a Madrid court accepted a
class-action lawsuit placed by 3,200 holders of preferred
participating securities against Bankia and Caja Madrid Finance
Preferred for fraud.

ADICAE added that the judge ordered the suit to be made public on
Spanish daily El Pais so that other people affected could join the
class-action suit.

ADICAE also pointed out that another 560 people have already
joined the cause for a total of more than 4,000.  The suit calls
for the preferred share contracts to be deemed invalid due to
their abusive conditions and requests damage compensation over
their misleading commercialization.

On its part, Bankia has been offering customers that purchased
preferred participating securities and subordinated debt the
option to use arbitration to settle their claims on a case-by-case
basis.  According to the bank's website, 137,476 out of 182,942
total applications received a favorable opinion from an
independent expert on February 28, 2014.  Customers agreeing to
accept the arbitration award waived the right to pursue the matter
in the courts.


BFC MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Wages to Exotic Dancers, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Does 1-7 v. BFC Management Company d/b/a Ace of Spades
Detroit, Case No. 2:14-cv-10522-SFC-LJM (E.D. Mich., February 4,
2014) alleges that contrary to the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Defendant has paid
the Plaintiffs no wages whatsoever throughout their employment.
The Defendant has employed the Plaintiffs as exotic
dancers/entertainers.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that they have never been
paid the required minimum wage and overtime rates during their
employment.  Rather, the Plaintiffs say, they and other class
members are compensated entirely by customer tips, which are paid
directly by customers and not by the Defendant.

BFC Management Company is a Michigan corporation, doing business
as the Ace of Spades Gentlemen's Club.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah L. Gordon, Esq.
          Sarah S. Prescott, Esq.
          DEBORAH GORDON LAW
          GORDON, LAUGHBAUM & PRESCOTT
          33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220
          Bloomfield Hills MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 258-2500
          Facsimile: (248) 258-7881
          E-mail: dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com
                  sprescott@deborahgordonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
          Christina A. Daskas, Esq.
          Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 936-1900
          Facsimile: (248) 936-1901
          E-mail: Rubina@jacksonlewis.com
                  Daskasc@jacksonlewis.com
                  matthew.disbrow@jacksonlewis.com


CMS ENERGY: Ruling in Gas Index Price Reporting Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The petition against a ruling dismissing claims against CMS Energy
Corporation in the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation is pending
before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the company's Feb.
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as
defendants in various lawsuits arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information.  Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX
natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies,
restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail
prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

The following provides more detail on the cases in which CMS
Energy or its affiliates remain as parties:

     (i) In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas
state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.  The
complaint alleges that during the putative class period, January
1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, the defendants engaged in a
scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.  The
plaintiffs are seeking statutory full consideration damages
consisting of the full consideration paid by the plaintiffs for
natural gas allegedly purchased from the defendants.

    (ii) In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional
Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed as a
putative class action in Missouri state court alleging violations
of Missouri antitrust laws.  The defendants, including CMS Energy,
CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas
reporting activities.  The plaintiffs are seeking full
consideration damages and treble damages.

   (iii) In 2006, a class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al.
v. XCEL Energy Inc., et al., was filed in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2002.  The defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are
alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute.  The
plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary
damages and attorneys' fees.

    (iv) In 2009, a class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin
System v. CMS ERM, et al., was filed in circuit court in Wood
County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
Company, and others.  The plaintiff is seeking full consideration
damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

     (v) In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity
as Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas
state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and
others.  The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiff is seeking statutory full
consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and
2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL.  In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas Company were
dismissed from the Newpage case.  In 2011, all claims against
remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL cases were dismissed
based on FERC preemption.  Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the
cases.  The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred
in dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.  The plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases,
but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.

In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the MDL decision and remanded the case to the MDL judge
for further proceedings.  The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases.  The
Court affirmed the MDL court's denial of leave to amend to add
federal antitrust claims.

In August 2013, the joint defense group in these cases, of which
CMS Energy defendants are members, filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The petition is pending
action by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court has asked the
Solicitor General for an opinion regarding this matter and may
follow his guidance on whether to grant the petition.


COMMERCIAL METALS: To Pay $4MM Settlement on Price-Fixing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for the Courthouse News Service, reports that a
large Texas steel producer will pay $4 million to settle claims
that it conspired with other competitors to fix prices and
coordinate production reductions.

Standard Iron Works had filed the proposed federal class action in
2008 against Commercial Metals Co. and eight other major steel
producers: Arcelormittal, Arcelormittal USA, United States Steel
Corp., Nucor Corp., Gerdau Ameristeel Corp., Steel Dynamics, AK
Steel Holding Corp. and SSAB Swedish Steel Corp.  It claimed the
companies had fixed steel prices since January 2005, leading to
"unusual and supracompetitive profits."

"Defendants met with each other to discuss the need to impose
industry production 'discipline' and to 'adjust their production
rates so the price of steel doesn't drop,'" the complaint stated.
"These and other calls to arms and pledges by and between
Defendants were followed with action: massive, coordinated and
unprecedented market downtime, i.e., idling and/or reducing
production of steel products. By acting in concert pursuant to
their conspiracy, defendants removed substantial amounts of steel
products from the market, which caused prices artificially to
rise."

In reaching the settlement, Irving, Texas-based CMC said
$4 million is less than its anticipated cost of continuing to
defend the suit.  It admits no liability in the settlement.

"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," CMC said in a statement on
March 14, 2014.


CONGREGATION MACHNA: Suits Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Emilio Horna Martinez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Congregation Machna Shalva, Inc, Bobov
Yeshiva Bnei Zion, Menachem Goldberg, and Joseph Deutsch, Case No.
1:14-cv-00761-ENV-MDG (E.D.N.Y., February 4, 2014) alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants (1) unpaid minimum wages; (2) unpaid
overtime compensation; (3) liquidated damages; (4) prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

Congregation Machna Shalva, Inc., is a New York religious
corporation operating multiple religious schools throughout
Brooklyn, New York.  Bobov Yeshiva Bnei Zion, is a New York
domestic religious organization, which operates multiple religious
schools in Brooklyn, New York.  Congregation Machna Shalva, Inc.,
and Bobov Yeshiva Bnei Zion, manage, operate, maintain, and
control religious schools in Kings County, New York.

The schools owned and operated by the Defendants are associated as
a single enterprise, engaging in related activities, namely, the
preschool and elementary education of school boys and girls in
Brooklyn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


COOPER AEROBICS: Never Paid Extra Halftime OT Rate, Cleaner Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keydi Matamoros and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. The Cooper Clinic, a Professional Association, VIP Hotel
Services, LLC, and David Carpenter, Case No. 3:14-cv-00442-D (N.D.
Tex., February 4, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff worked an
average of 60 hours per week but was never paid the extra halftime
overtime rate for hours worked above 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a hotel cleaner at the
clinic's hotel, doing a mix of cleaning hotel rooms and performing
laundry services for hotel guests of the Defendants, from
April 20, 2011, through February 3, 2014.

The Cooper Clinic, a Professional Association, is a company that
regularly transacts business within Dallas County.  VIP Hotel
Services, LLC, is a limited liability company that regularly
transacts business within Dallas County.  David Carpenter is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of VIP.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Monte K. Hurst, Esq.
          HERMES SARGENT BATES
          901 Main St., Suite 5200
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-6515
          Facsimile: (214) 749-6315
          E-mail: monte.hurst@hsblaw.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities suit filed against Corinthian Colleges,
Inc. have appealed the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007 through August 19, 2010 against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed
to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices at the time when plaintiffs purchased their stock.
The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Massimino, Waller,
Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief. On October 29,
2010, another putative class action complaint captioned Neal J.
Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed by the same
law firm that filed the Karam matter described in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.

Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned
the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs. On March 30,
2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement System and
Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs,
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for lead
plaintiffs, in the consolidated action. Lead plaintiffs thereafter
filed a second amended consolidated complaint, and the Company
moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint.

On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On February 29, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in U.S. District Court,
and, on March 30, 2012 the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.  On August 20, 2012, the U.S. District
Court granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion
to dismiss, with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed that
dismissal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the
Company will continue to defend itself and its current and former
officers vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Securities Lawsuit in Calif. Amended
---------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit pending against Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California filed a First Amended Complaint, according to the
company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 20, 2013, a putative class action complaint captioned
Frank Erickson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from August 23, 2011
through June 10, 2013, against the Company and Jack Massimino,
Robert Owen and Kenneth Ord, all of whom are officers of the
Company. The complaint alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects during
the putative class period, causing the Company's common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices at the time when plaintiff
purchased his stock.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons. In October 2013, the court
granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
transfer the case to the Central District of California. In
December 2013, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in
the Central District of California. The Company believes the
complaint is without merit, has filed a motion to dismiss the
case, and intends to vigorously defend itself and its officers and
directors against these allegations.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Former HVAC Students Seek Review of Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. have sought review of the California Court of
Appeal's decision by the California Supreme Court, according to
the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus. The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus. The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution. On November 22, 2011,
a California state court judge refused to confirm the arbitrator's
clause construction decision and remanded the matter to the
arbitrator for further consideration.

The Company appealed the state court order, and, in October 2013,
the California Court of Appeal vacated the trial court's order and
remanded the matter to the trial court with orders to enter
judgment confirming the arbitration award. The plaintiffs have
sought review of the California Court of Appeal's decision by the
California Supreme Court. The Company believes the matter is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these allegations.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Considers Suit by Medical Students Abandoned
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. considers remaining cases by former
students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program at the Everest
College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois as substantively
abandoned, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In November 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiffs are
former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program at the
Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois. The Company
removed the case to federal court and moved to compel individual
arbitrations, which the court granted. Thirty-two plaintiffs filed
individual demands in arbitration.

The Company and 21 of the plaintiffs have now reached  settlements
in amounts that are not material to the Company's results of
operations and financial condition.  The plaintiffs' original
counsel has ended representation of the other 11. While some of
the remaining plaintiffs may represent themselves or seek new
counsel, the Company considers these remaining plaintiffs' cases
as substantively abandoned.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented
increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students. In
many of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought to
represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the
complaint. The Company believes these lawsuits were largely the
result of negative publicity and aggressive lawyer recruitment of
potential clients surrounding the Department of Education's
("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings,
the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other
related matters that occurred during that time period. All of
those cases have now been compelled to individual arbitrations or
dismissed. In the individual arbitration matters that have been
heard, the Company has achieved complete defense verdicts in the
vast majority.  In the small number of matters where the
plaintiffs have prevailed, they have been awarded only nominal
damages.  Only a small number of individual student arbitration
matters are currently pending against the Company. The Company
intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries vigorously in all of
the remaining individual matters.


CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Former Admissions Representatives File Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Schools, Inc. faces several lawsuits in California,
according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2013.

On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court. A virtually identical action with the same
caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on September
15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court. The
plaintiff is a former admissions representative at the Company's
Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allege violations
of California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and
the California Labor Code for alleged failure to pay for all hours
worked, purported denial of meal periods, and alleged failure to
pay wages upon termination.

The Alameda complaint has since been voluntarily dismissed.
Another putative class action by an admissions representative
employed at the company's Anaheim campus was filed in December
2013, alleging unpaid wages, unpaid meal and rest breaks, unpaid
overtime and double time, and payroll reporting violations.  While
the scope of the putative classes in these cases is not clear,
they appear to seek certification of a class of current and former
admissions representatives over the last four years at the
Company's California campuses. The Company believes the
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself.


CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Faces Suit by Former Instructor at Fremont
--------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2013, an action captioned David Ratto, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Corinthian Schools,
Inc., et al., was filed in California's Alameda Superior Court,
according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2013.

The plaintiff is a former instructor at the Company's Fremont
campus. The action alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Section, Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders for alleged failure to pay straight time,
minimum and/or overtime wages for all hours worked, failure to
provide all meal periods, failure to authorize and permit all paid
rest periods, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, violation of Labor Code Section 203, incurrence of
penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq., and
unfair business practices.  While the scope of the putative class
is not clear, the matter appears to seek certification of a class
of current and former instructors who have worked at the Company's
California campuses over the relevant statute of limitations
period. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of CytRx
Corporation, on March 20 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of CytRx securities between November 20, 2013 and
March 13, 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.

CytRx is a biopharmaceutical research and development company
specializing in oncology.  The Company is currently focused on the
clinical development of its product candidate aldoxorubicin -- a
modified version of the widely used chemotherapeutic agent
doxorubicin.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that the
Company hired a promoter -- The DreamTeam Group -- to tout CytRx
stock without disclosing that it was paid by the Company to
promote the stock.  The Complaint further alleges that the
promotional articles were written under multiple aliases and
defendants coordinated the release of news and data from the
Company to interpret and amplify the effect of the news.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than May 13, 2014, 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.


DEVI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Marin, Francisco Patino, Rigoberto Garcia, and Emmanuel
Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
plaintiffs, known and unknown v. Evi, Enterprises, Inc., an
Illinois corporation, Jayesh Rawal, individually, and Pooja Rawal,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00760 (N.D. Ill., February 4, 2014)
arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages to the
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at time-and-one-half
their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in individual work weeks.

Devi, Enterprises Inc. is an Illinois corporation headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.  The Individual Defendants are "employers" as
defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Milton E. Castro, Esq.
          Charles P. Romaker, Esq.
          THE ROMAKER LAW FIRM
          211 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 377-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 345-1940
          E-mail: cpr@romakerlaw.com
                  mcastro@romakerlaw.com


DOW JONES: Faces Class Action for Disclosing WSJ Users' Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses Dow Jones & Co. and Wall Street Journal Live of illegally
"disclosing its users' sensitive information" to third parties
each time they log on to the WSJ Channel.


EL TROMPITO: Illegally Seized Tips or Gratuities, Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Castorena, Angeles Salas, and Elizabeth Sanchez, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. El
Trompito, Inc. d/b/a El Trompito Taqueria, Antunez Holdings, Inc.
d/b/a El Trompito, Luis Alfonso Antunez, and Silvia Antunez, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00326-KLM (D. Colo., February 4, 2014) alleges that
the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are or were employed
by the Defendants to work long hours for low wages in the
Defendants' "El Trompito" Mexican restaurants.

The Defendants failed to pay their hourly employees overtime wages
for hours worked beyond 40 each workweek, and they unlawfully
seized tips or gratuities that patrons of their restaurants left
for the Plaintiffs and their co-workers, according to the
complaint.

El Trompito, Inc. is a registered Colorado corporation based in
Denver, Colorado, and does business under the trade name El
Trompito Taqueria.  Antunez Holdings, Inc. is a registered
Colorado corporation that does business under the trade name El
Trompito.  The Individual Defendants are owners and managers of El
Trompito and El Trompito Taqueria.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          M. Jeanette Fedele, Esq.
          BUSECHER, KELMAN & PERERA, P.C.
          600 Grant Street, Suite 450
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303)-333-7751
          Facsimile: (303)-333-7758
          E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


FELKER: Court Denies Mitchell's Motion to Set Trial
---------------------------------------------------
In a March 13, 2014 Order issued by District Judge Troy L. Nunley
in ROBERT MITCHELL, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. FELKER, ET AL.,
Defendant, NO. 2:08-CV-1196 TLN, (E.D. Cal.), the Court denied
Plaintiffs' Motion to Set for Status Conference, Pretrial
Conference, and Trial.

The Court found that parties' interests would be better served by
allowing the Court to rule on the other pending matters before
setting a status conference. Although, this case has been pending
since 2008, it has only recently been assigned to this Court, said
Judge Nunley. There are numerous matters before this Court and
Plaintiffs' recent appearance on this Court's docket does not
entitle them to preferential treatment, he added.  After the Court
has had the opportunity to rule on the pending matters before it,
the Court will schedule a status conference to set the pretrial
conference and trial, said the ruling.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available for free at
http://is.gd/8lWbjTfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey Thomas Holtz
-- geoffrey.holtz@bingham.com -- Bingham McCutchen LLP, Matthew
Flairty -- matthew.flairty@bingham.com -- Bingham McCutchen, LLP,
Warren E. George, Jr. -- wgeorge@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law
Office, Donald Specter -- dspecter@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law
Office & Rebekah B. Evenson -- revenson@prisonlaw.com -- Prison
Law Office.

Hanif Abdullah, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey Thomas Holtz,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Matthew Flairty, Bingham McCutchen, LLP,
Warren E. George, Jr., Prison Law Office & Rebekah B. Evenson,
Prison Law Office.

Alvaro Quezada, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey Thomas Holtz,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Matthew Flairty, Bingham McCutchen, LLP,
Warren E. George, Jr., Prison Law Office & Rebekah B. Evenson,
Prison Law Office.

Tony Trujillo, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey Thomas Holtz,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Matthew Flairty, Bingham McCutchen, LLP,
Warren E. George, Jr., Prison Law Office & Rebekah B. Evenson,
Prison Law Office.

T. Felker, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain,
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Julianne
Mossler, California Office of the Attorney General San Francisco,
Marisa Yee Kirschenbauer, California Department of Justice,
Michelle A. Des Jardins, Office Of The Attorney General,
Christopher James Becker, Attorney General's Office for the State
of California, Erin B. Sullivan, Attorney General's Office & Grant
Lien, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

D. Vanderville, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain,
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Julianne
Mossler, California Office of the Attorney General San Francisco,
Marisa Yee Kirschenbauer, California Department of Justice,
Michelle A. Des Jardins, Office Of The Attorney General,
Christopher James Becker, Attorney General's Office for the State
of California, Erin B. Sullivan, Attorney General's Office & Grant
Lien, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

J. Owen, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain, Department
of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Julianne Mossler,
California Office of the Attorney General San Francisco, Marisa
Yee Kirschenbauer, California Department of Justice, Michelle A.
Des Jardins, Office Of The Attorney General, Christopher James
Becker, Attorney General's Office for the State of California,
Erin B. Sullivan, Attorney General's Office & Grant Lien, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.

D. Hellwig, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain,
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Julianne
Mossler, California Office of the Attorney General San Francisco,
Marisa Yee Kirschenbauer, California Department of Justice,
Michelle A. Des Jardins, Office Of The Attorney General,
Christopher James Becker, Attorney General's Office for the State
of California, Erin B. Sullivan, Attorney General's Office & Grant
Lien, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

J. Tilton, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain,
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Julianne
Mossler, California Office of the Attorney General San Francisco,
Marisa Yee Kirschenbauer, California Department of Justice,
Michelle A. Des Jardins, Office Of The Attorney General,
Christopher James Becker, Attorney General's Office for the State
of California, Erin B. Sullivan, Attorney General's Office & Grant
Lien, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

F Foulk, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain, Department
of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Erin B. Sullivan,
Attorney General's Office, Julianne Mossler, California Office of
the Attorney General San Francisco, Marisa Yee Kirschenbauer,
California Department of Justice, Michelle A. Des Jardins, Office
Of The Attorney General & Christopher James Becker, Attorney
General's Office for the State of California.

M. Wright, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain,
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Erin B.
Sullivan, Attorney General's Office, Julianne Mossler, California
Office of the Attorney General San Francisco, Marisa Yee
Kirschenbauer, California Department of Justice, Michelle A. Des
Jardins, Office Of The Attorney General & Christopher James
Becker, Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

Matthew Cate, CDCR Secretary, Defendant, represented by Damon
Grant McClain, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
General, Erin B. Sullivan, Attorney General's Office, Marisa Yee
Kirschenbauer, California Department of Justice, Michelle A. Des
Jardins, Office Of The Attorney General, Christopher James Becker,
Attorney General's Office for the State of California & Julianne
Mossler, California Office of the Attorney General San Francisco.

Scott Kernan, CDCR Undersecretary of Operations, Defendant,
represented by Damon Grant McClain, Department of Justice, Office
of the Attorney General, Erin B. Sullivan, Attorney General's
Office, Julianne Mossler, California Office of the Attorney
General San Francisco, Marisa Yee Kirschenbauer, California
Department of Justice, Michelle A. Des Jardins, Office Of The
Attorney General & Christopher James Becker, Attorney General's
Office for the State of California.

Terri McDonald, CDCR Chief Deputy Secretary of Adult Operations,
Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain, Department of
Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Erin B. Sullivan,
Attorney General's Office, Julianne Mossler, California Office of
the Attorney General San Francisco, Marisa Yee Kirschenbauer,
California Department of Justice, Michelle A. Des Jardins, Office
Of The Attorney General & Christopher James Becker, Attorney
General's Office for the State of California.

George Giurbino, CDCR Director of the Division of Adult
Institutions, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain,
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Erin B.
Sullivan, Attorney General's Office, Julianne Mossler, California
Office of the Attorney General San Francisco, Marisa Yee
Kirschenbauer, California Department of Justice, Michelle A. Des
Jardins, Office Of The Attorney General & Christopher James
Becker, Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

J Beard, Defendant, represented by Damon Grant McClain, Department
of Justice, Office of the Attorney General & Julianne Mossler,
California Office of the Attorney General San Francisco.

Equal Justice Society, Amicus, represented by Benjamin Jonathan
Fox -- bfox@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP & Hanna Abrams
-- habrams@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

United States of America, Amicus, represented by Laura Lee Coon,
U.S. Department Of Justice.


FITBIT: Faces Class Action Over Bracelet Recall
-----------------------------------------------
Katherine Rosman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that a month after Fitbit issued a recall of its fitness-tracking
bracelet following complaints of blisters and rashes, the startup
now faces its first lawsuit.

The suit, filed on March 17 in the Superior Court of California in
the County of San Diego, is seeking class-action status and
alleges the company misled consumers in promoting and advertising
the Fitbit Force device.  The suit calls for Fitbit to notify
every person who has bought the Fitbit Force device in the state
of California, and to arrange to refund the $130 cost of the
device, plus tax and any shipping fees.  It also calls for Fitbit
to provide a full disclosure of the cause of the wrist
irritations.

The case has been filed by John Fiske, head of the mass torts
practice at the Gomez Firm in San Diego.  Jim Spivey, a 49-year-
old aviation teacher, is the lead plaintiff representing the
class.

Fitbit in October released the Force, a digital bracelet that
measures people's activity and sleep patterns.  Before the end of
the year, some Force consumers began to complain they were
developing irritations on their wrists where the Force touched
their skin.  The symptoms ranged from red patches to festering
blisters. Some of the afflicted consumers sought medical attention
and received prescription ointment to treat the reaction.  At the
time of the recall, Fitbit reported to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission that it was aware of about 9,900 cases of consumers
having a skin reaction after wearing the Force.  The CPSC says
there are one million units subject to the recall.

Mr. Spivey bought his Fitbit Force in January and only learned of
the problems associated with the wristband when looking on the
Fitbit site for information about the product's features.  He has
not developed a skin irritation.  He contacted attorneys and
agreed to front a class-action suit because he believes the burden
of alerting consumers to the recall should be upon Fitbit.  "I
have a concern that there is still a risk of developing an injury
for me and others," he says.

"We are asking for full disclosure of the dangerous aspects of the
product and a full disclosure of why it's causing these injuries,"
says Mr. Fiske, the class action's lead attorney.  Beginning
March 19, Mr. Fiske is also filing suits seeking damages on behalf
of consumers afflicted with the Fitbit Force rash.

Other law firms also are planning legal action related to the
Fitbit Force.  "We have fielded hundreds of calls on this," says
Matt Schelkopf -- MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com -- a partner with
the Haverford, Pa., law firm Chimicles & Tikellis which
specializes in class action suits.

Mr. Schelkopf says he has not yet filed any suits but intends to.

Fitbit was founded in 2007 and is backed by a number of venture-
capital firms, including Foundry Group and True Ventures, which
last year invested $43 million.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Sued for Not Having Blind-Friendly POS Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gander Mountain Company, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00158-
LPL (W.D. Pa., February 4, 2014) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.

Mr. Jahoda, a blind individual, contends that he brings the civil
rights class action against the Company for failing to design,
construct, own or operate Point of Sale Devices that are fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people.

Gander Mountain Company, Inc. is headquartered in Saint Paul,
Minnesota, and is a public accommodation pursuant to the ADA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roy W. Arnold, Esq.
          James L. Rockney, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          E-mail: rarnold@reedsmith.com
                  jrockney@reedsmith.com


GARFIELD BEACH CVS: Faces Class Action Over Personal Questions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Johnson, writing for the Courthouse News Service, reports
that CVS pharmacy makes employees take a "Wellness Exam," which
includes questions on whether they are sexually active and blood
work to see if they are at risk for "a variety of medical
conditions," a woman claims in a class action in state court.

Roberta Watterson, a cashier, sued the Garfield Beach CVS in
Alameda County Court.

Watterson claims her employer required her to take a "Wellness
Exam" at either a CVS "Minute Clinic" or at a doctor of her
choice. Employees who did not take the exam faced a $600 annual
fine, deducted from their paycheck, she says.

"During the 'Wellness Exam,' a doctor performs blood work, which,
upon information and belief, is utilized by defendants to 'flag'
employees who are at risk for a variety of medical conditions,"
the complaint states.

In addition to the exam, which Watterson says she had to pay for,
CVS made her fill out a survey that asked personal questions such
as weight, body fat percentage, whether she drinks or smokes and
is sexually active.  The survey was "required in lieu of a $600
fine," according to the lawsuit.

Watterson says she chose to visit her own doctor for the wellness
exam for a $25 co-pay. "Her other option was to undergo the
Wellness Exam at a CVS Minute Clinic, and incur an expense of
$125," the complaint states.

"Defendants did not indemnify plaintiff for expenses she incurred
for the Wellness Exam," the complaint adds. "Defendants did not
indemnify plaintiff for mileage/gasoline expenses she incurred
attending an off-site physician.  Defendants did not compensate
plaintiff for the time she spent attending the Wellness Exam,
despite the fact that it was required of her in lieu of a $600
fine.  Further, defendants did not compensate plaintiff for the
time she spent filling out the survey."

Watterson claims these practices are companywide.  She seeks class
certification and damages for failure to pay hourly and overtime
wages, failure to indemnify, illegal wage deductions, failure to
provide accurate wage statements and unfair competition.

Watterson is represented by Shaun Setareh, of Beverly Hills.

In April 2012 Judge John J. McConnell of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Rhode Island approved a $34 million settlement
of an overtime pay class action against CVS.  The settlement
stemmed from multiple lawsuits that claimed CVS misclassified
assistant store managers as exempt from overtime.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit in Michigan Over Ignition Switches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Snell and David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News,
report that a Dearborn man filed a class-action lawsuit on
March 19 against General Motors Co., alleging the automaker
covered up problems involving bad ignition switches in Chevrolet
Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other older cars.

The lawsuit is the latest legal problem for the Detroit automaker
over a recall of 1.62 million cars linked to 12 deaths.  The
complaint is the first class-action lawsuit filed in federal court
in Michigan involving the ignition switch defect. It's the third
lawsuit nationwide; the first was filed in Texas.

Dearborn resident Adnan Jawad owns a 2007 Cobalt and alleges GM
covered up the defect while touting vehicle safety to customers,
according to the 14-page complaint.

"All the while, GM had information that the defective GM vehicles
were involved in crashes leading to fatalities, and did nothing to
correct the problems or even to warn the public," lawyer Kassem
Dakhlallah wrote in the lawsuit.

Mr. Jawad is suing for negligence and breach of warranty and wants
unspecified damages, though the complaint alleges the amount at
issue is more than $5 million.

GM said it will respond to the lawsuit, but didn't comment on the
merits.

GM CEO Mary Barra on March 18 wouldn't answer whether the company
as a gesture of goodwill would accept liabilities for accidents
that happened before GM became a new company post-bankruptcy.  She
also wouldn't answer whether GM would create a victims' fund.  The
Center for Auto Safety has urged her to set aside $1 billion.

Under terms of the automaker's bankruptcy agreement, the "new" GM
is not liable for accidents that happened before GM filed
Chapter 11.


GENERAL MOTORS: Merchant Law Firm Files Suit in Ontario & Quebec
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Flavelle, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a Canadian
law firm has launched a class-action lawsuit against General
Motors on behalf of 235,000 small car owners affected by an
allegedly defective ignition switch.

Merchant Law Group LLP says it filed the claims against the
Detroit-based auto maker and its Canadian subsidiary on March 19
in Ontario and Quebec courts.  The company has also filed a claim
in Saskatchewan.

The Canadian lawsuit is the latest in a growing list of class
actions, most in the U.S., seeking compensation for up to 1.6
million owners of various GM cars, including the Chevrolet Cobalt
and Pontiac G5, made between 2003 and 2007.

Heavy key rings or jarring can cause the ignition switches to slip
out of position, cutting off power and deactivating power steering
and airbags, GM acknowledged in a recall announced Feb. 10.

The problem has been linked to 31 crashes that resulted in 13
front-seat deaths, according to the U.S. National Highway Safety
Administrations.  Transport Canada is also investigating a related
death in Canada.

GM knew of the defect as early as 2004, the Canadian lawsuit says,
citing documents the auto maker filed with the U.S. safety
administration.

GM chief executive officer Mary Barra apologized on March 17 for
the delay in disclosing the defect.  She also appointed a new
safety chief to ensure defects get a more timely resolution.  "Our
goal is that something like this will never happen again," she
said.

GM is facing a possible U.S. criminal probe over similar matters.

The recall affects the Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac G5, Saturn Ion,
Chevrolet HHR, Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky.

GM is also facing lawsuits in Texas, Michigan and California.

The cost to GM of settling the Canadian lawsuit could be as much
as $1.6 billion, including the cost of replacing the ignition,
plus punitive damages for hiding the defect and reduced resale
value of the vehicles, said Tony Merchant, a partner in Merchant
Law Group.

More victims may come forward now that the defect has been
disclosed, he added.

Christina Duquette, the named plaintiff in the Ontario lawsuit, is
among those who never considered a defect was to blame for two
unexpected engine shutdowns.

Ms. Duquette, who owns a 2006 Pontiac G5, says she thought she
must have somehow bumped her car keys with her knee.

"I didn't even know what happened.  It just caused my whole car to
completely shut off," Ms. Duquette, 23, said in a telephone
interview from her home in Windsor on March 20.

Both incidents occurred on quiet side streets with little traffic.
Still, it was unnerving, she said.  "You literally have nothing,
no power steering, no power to your vehicle.  Trying to turn, you
don't have any steering," she said.

"At that moment, it was a little bit scary.  If I was on a busier
road, I don't even want to think about it."

Ms. Duquette said she's now trying to sell her car, but figures
she won't get much for it.  "I know it's worth nothing.  It's the
age.  The fact it's been discontinued.  And now there's a recall."
GM's decision to keep mum about the defect was "not the smartest
thing on their part at all," Ms. Duquette said.  "Obviously, that
doesn't help their reputation."

She'd think twice about buying another car from GM, she said.

Transport Canada has opened an investigation into a fatal crash in
Quebec in June 2013 that appears to be related to the ignition
switch defect.  One person was killed.

The crash involved a "high-severity motor-vehicle collision when
the vehicle went off road and impacted multiple trees."

On March 17, GM issued three additional recalls affecting 1.6
million larger cars, commercial vans and sport utility vehicles,
over various issues related to airbags, seat belts and brakes
larger vehicles, including the Buick Enclave and GMC Acadia.

The company said it will take a $300 million U.S. charge in its
next quarter in relation to the latest recalls and also the
ignition defect.


GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on March 20 disclosed that it has filed a class
action against Global Geophysical Services, Inc. on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
April 21, 2010 through March 18, 2014, and also on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's Series A preferred stock from December
3, 2013 through March 18, 2014.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for GGS shareholders under the federal securities laws.

To join the GGS class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.  The
lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT.  YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

On March 18, 2014, GGS announced that it is restating its annual
financial statements for the years ended December 31 2009, 2010,
2011, and 2012, as well as its quarterly financial statements for
the first three quarters of 2013.  For the three months ended
September 30, 2013, GGS announced that the restatement would
decrease revenues by $5.0 million.  The restatement indicates that
GGS's prior financial statements for these periods were materially
inaccurate.  The restatement caused GGS's share price to fall 61%,
and the price of its preferred stock 76%, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
May 19, 2014.  If you wish to join the litigation or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


GOOGLE INC: No Class Status for Data-Mining Claims, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a class action is not suitable to resolve whether Gmail users
consented to Google's data mining for targeted ads, a federal
judge ruled March 11, 2014.

Updates Google made to its privacy policy in 2012 launched a
tsunami of class actions accusing the company of aggregating the
information it collects from users of its various apps and
platforms.  The plaintiffs in those cases claimed that the new
policy -- which went into effect in March 2012 -- violates various
state and federal computer fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap laws.

The claims have since been combined into the massive In re Google
Inc.-Gmail Litigation.  The plaintiffs in the cases proposed four
classes and three subclasses: Cable One users who have a Gmail
address as part of their Internet packages, colleges and
universities that use the Google Apps for Education platform,
Gmail users under the age of 18, and U.S. residents who have ever
sent or received emails to or from a Gmail user.

The subclasses include plaintiffs from California, Florida and
Maryland who are suing under their states' wiretap laws.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh refused this past fall to dismiss the
sprawling putative class action, finding that Gmail's
interceptions fall outside the narrow "ordinary course of
business" exceptions carved out of federal electronic privacy
laws.

On March 11, 2014, however, she noted that the tech giant's
different terms and policies for the classes and subclasses made
the matter impossible to litigate collectively.

"The court finds that with respect to the education class, the
substantial individual questions regarding the nature of each
Google Apps administrator's disclosures are likely to lead to
individual questions regarding express consent that will
predominate over common questions," Koh wrote.  "The court need
not determine whether classwide express consent questions will
predominate over individual questions with respect to the minor
class, Cable One class, and the non-Gmail user classes because the
court finds that individualized questions regarding implied
consent will overwhelm any common issues regarding these classes."

And while the judge had previously rejected Google's argument that
all email users give implied consent to interceptions they know
are part of the email delivery process, those questions of what
users know and have consented to will also generate thousands --
if not millions -- of different answers.

"The court finds that individual issues regarding consent are
likely to overwhelmingly predominate over common issues," Koh's
41-page ruling states.  "Specifically, there is a panoply of
sources from which email users could have learned of Google's
interceptions other than Google's terms of service and privacy
policies."

Koh noted that Google's own pages explaining the interceptions
have been viewed over a million times, and that the case has
received significant press coverage.

"Some class members likely viewed some of these Google and non-
Google disclosures, but others likely did not," Koh wrote.  "A
fact finder, in determining whether class members impliedly
consented, would have to evaluate to which of the various sources
each individual user had been exposed and whether each individual
knew about and consented to the interception based on the sources
to which she was exposed.  This fact-intensive inquiry will
require individual inquiries into the knowledge of individual
users.  Such inquiries - determining to what disclosures each
class member was privy and determining whether that specific
combination of disclosures was sufficient to imply consent - will
lead to numerous individualized inquiries that will overwhelm any
common questions."

The judge also denied a late request by the plaintiffs -- which
came at the end of a reply brief -- to make a fourth pitch for
class certification.

"Entertaining plaintiffs' belated request would prejudice Google,
which has been opposing class certification motions in this
litigation since September, 2011, and which did not have the
opportunity in the briefing on the instant motion to oppose
plaintiffs' request to refile," Koh wrote.  "Moreover, the court
finds that when asked about plaintiffs' request to refile at the
hearing, plaintiffs' counsel did not provide any persuasive basis
for allowing such refiling. Accordingly, the denial of the class
certification motion is with prejudice."


HBS MANAGEMENT: Heavenly Bodies Dancer Seeks to Recover Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorissa Ball, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. HBS Management Corp. d/b/a Heavenly
Bodies, and Michael Welleck, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00800
(N.D. Ill., February 4, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law on account of the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons.

HBS Management Corp. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business located in Elk Grove Village, Illinois.  Michael
Welleck is an owner and shareholder of HBS.  The Defendants
operate a "Fantasy Sports Bar," known as Heavenly Bodies.  The
Plaintiff works as a dancer at Heavenly Bodies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, Il 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  dstevents@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com


HIKO ENERGY: Customers File Class Action Over Deceptive Trade
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Hiko Energy deceptively induced customers to sign up for its
electric service, then hiked the rates.


HOME SHOPPING: Faces Class Action Over Counterfeit Knives
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for National Law Journal, reports that The
Home Shopping Network and companies associated with cooking stars
Emeril Lagasse and Martha Stewart are facing a putative class
action accusing them of marketing and selling counterfeit knives.

California resident Allen Moshiri filed suit on March 5 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
the Emeril Santuku Knife he bought in 2012 from HSN was described
as having been made in Solingen, Germany, where some of the
world's best designed cutlery and scissors are made with high-
grade materials and skill.

In his complaint, Mr. Moshiri said the 5-inch, $21.44 knife he
bought was of such poor quality that it rusted after two weeks,
quickly dulled and could not be sharpened with the tool that came
with it.  And, although one side of the blade was stamped with the
Emeril trademark and the words "Solingen Germany," the other bore
the word "China," which, the complaint stated, was where the knife
was made.  The suit says other customers have complained online
about the poor quality of the Emeril knives, citing the blades
easily chipped and broke.

The defendants, who the complaint said violated the California
Business and Professions Code by engaging in unfair business
practices and false advertising, are HSNi, dba Home Shopping
Network, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., Emeril's Homebase,
Emerils.com LLC, and 1 through 20 Does.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are Farrah Mirabel, Newport Beach,
Calif., and J. Kirk Donnelly, Carlsbad, Calif.


I & A RESTAURANT: Cook Sues Over Non-Payment of Overtime Premium
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. I & A Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a El Economico), Franklin
Vargas and Marilyn Vargas, Case No. 1:14-cv-00726-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
February 4, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff regularly worked for
the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked over 40
each week.

Mr. Sanchez was an employee of the Defendants.  He worked as a
cook at their restaurant located at in Bronx, New York.

I & A Restaurant Corp., doing business as El Economico, is a New
York corporation with its principal place of business in Bronx,
New York.  The Defendants own, operate and control a Dominican
Restaurant located at 5589 Broadway, in Bronx, New York, under the
name of El Economico.  Franklin Vargas and Marilyn Vargas own and
operate El Economico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


JJ THAI KITCHEN: Sued for Not Paying Minimum Wages to Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Juarez and Eliseo Cuahua, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. JJ Thai Kitchen Corp. (d/b/a Thai
51), Joy Mang and Sandy Mang, Case No. 1:14-cv-00724-ER (S.D.N.Y.,
February 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants maintain a policy
and practice of requiring the Plaintiffs and other employees to
work without providing the minimum wage compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant located
in the Midtown East Section of Manhattan in New York City under
the name "Thai 51."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


LEDGEWOOD BK: FACTA Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
DiSabato & Bouckenooghe LLC obtained preliminary settlement
approval in a class action lawsuit against the popular Bottle
King(R) liquor stores for the printing of credit and debit card
expiration dates on sales receipts in the State of New Jersey in
alleged violation of New Jersey's Fair Credit Reporting Act and
New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.
The lawsuit, captioned Nelson v. Ledgewood B.K., et al., Docket
No. MRS-L-2426-12, was filed on behalf of a class of New Jersey
consumers who used a credit or debit card to make a purchase at
Bottle King(R) locations during the period April 30, 2008 through
October 10, 2012 in the State of New Jersey.

On March 10, 2014 the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Morris County, granted conditional certification of the settlement
class and preliminary approval of the settlement in the Nelson
action.  Members of the settlement class may be entitled to a
coupon with a value of up to $40.00 redeemable at Bottle King(R)
locations in New Jersey.

The claim period runs from March 17, 2014 through April 16, 2014.
To obtain a detailed copy of the full Notice of Settlement, or to
download your claim form, visit
http://www.bottlekingsettlement.com

As stated by the Bottle King(R) defendants in the approved Notice
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, the Bottle King(R)
defendants deny any wrongdoing and any liability whatsoever.
However, the Bottle King(R) defendants concluded that it was in
their best interests to resolve the Nelson Action in order to
avoid expense, inconvenience, and interference with ongoing
business operations.

Any questions concerning the Nelson Action, the Nelson Settlement,
or the Claim Form should be directed to Class Counsel, DiSabato &
Bouckenooghe LLC, at 973-813-2525 or ddisabato@disabatolaw.com
with reference to the Nelson Action.

          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Esq.
          DISABATO & BOUCKENOOGHE LLC
          4 Hilltop Road
          Mendham, New Jersey 07945
          Tel.: 973-813-2525
          E-mail: ddisabato@disabatolaw.com
                  lbouckenooghe@disabatolaw.com
          Web site: http://www.disabatolaw.com


LIBRETTOS ON 3RD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Dishwasher Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nauh Aguirre, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Libretto's on 3rd Avenue, Inc., (d/b/a Libretto's
Pizzeria) and Michael Libretto, Case No. 1:14-cv-00725-RJS
(S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff worked for
the Defendants as a salad preparer and dishwasher in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 per week that he worked.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a pizza parlor located at
546 Third Avenue, in New York, under the name "Libretto's
Pizzeria."  Michael Libretto is the owner, manager, principal or
agent of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
                  jandrophy@faillacelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Keith Jason Gutstein, Esq.
          Yale Brett Pollack, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, DOLOWICH, VOLUCK & GONZO LLP
          135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 681-1100
          Facsimile: (516) 681-1101
          E-mail: Kgutstein@kdvglaw.com
                  ypollack@kdvglaw.com


LINDA A. KING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Wilson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Linda A. King and Associates Claims Management, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05101-JRC (W.D. Wash., February 4, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com

               - and -

          Mathew J. Cunanan, Esq.
          DC LAW GROUP NW LLC
          101 Warren Avenue N.
          Seattle, WA 98109
          Telephone: (206) 494-0400
          Facsimile: (855) 494-0400
          E-mail: matthew@dclglawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel E. Wright, Esq.
          Marc Rosenberg, Esq.
          LEE SMART PS INC.
          701 Pike St., Suite 1800
          One Convention PL
          Seattle, WA 98101-3929
          Telephone: (206) 624-7990
          Facsimile: (206) 624-5944
          E-mail: jw@leesmart.com
                  mr@leesmart.com


MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that a US court has denied a motion for
"class certification" in a lawsuit brought by US automobile
dealers against Mahindra & Mahindra, the company on March 20 said.

"The United States District Court in Atlanta, USA, issued an order
on March 14, 2014 denying the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in a lawsuit brought by US automobile dealers
against Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M)," the auto major said in a
statement.

It further said the plaintiffs in Ackerman vs Mahindra & Mahindra,
Ltd took legal action against M&M based on agreements they had
made with Global Vehicles USA, Inc (GV), a former distributor for
the company.  The plaintiffs sought to represent all dealers who
entered into agreements with Global Vehicles to sell Mahindra
vehicles in the United States.

"The court concluded that a number of factual and legal issues
regarding dealer claims must be resolved on a case-by- case basis,
and that this case was inappropriate for class certification," the
company said.

Under "class certification", the group of dealers would have been
allowed to sue M&M jointly.

In June 2012, a group of automobile dealers in the US had filed a
lawsuit against M&M, accusing fraud, misrepresentation and
conspiracy that the Indian firm denied.

According to the lawsuit, "Mahindra duped hundreds of US auto
dealers and walked away with more than $60 million in cash and
trade secrets".  It further had said M&M "obtained $9.5 million in
fees from the dealers" with a promise that products from the
Indian auto maker would be launched in the US by 2008.

M&M had planned to launch its pick-up trucks in the US in early
2009, but got delayed due to regulatory issues.  The entry
deadline was revised twice and then to end of 2010, which too was
missed.

Subsequently, Global Vehicles dragged the Indian firm to the court
alleging an inordinate delay in the introduction of the pick-up
truck.  Atlanta-based GV had claimed that it spent close to $35
million in preparation for the launch of the Mahindra vehicles in
the US and had signed with as many as 360 dealers nationwide.  The
case was then referred to the London-based arbitration panel.

In March 2012, M&M had said an international arbitration panel
ruled in its favor in the case against GV, the firm that was to
sell its vehicles in the US.

M&M and GV had entered into an agreement on September 28, 2006,
according to which the latter became the sole distributor of the
Indian company's motor vehicles in the US.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Franchise Owner Settles Wage Suit for $500,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa De Bode, writing for Al Jazeera America, reports that ongoing
litigation targeting fast-food restaurants for alleged labor-law
violations yielded a significant victory for low-wage workers in
New York City on March 18.  A McDonald's franchise owner settled a
lawsuit in the amount of $500,000 for unpaid laundry allowances,
uncompensated work time and unlawful wage deductions.

Richard Cisneros, owner of seven McDonald's restaurant franchises,
agreed to compensate 1,600 current and former employees for
failing to pay legally-required stipends to launder their Golden
Arches uniforms, enforcing unlawful wage deductions for covering
cash register shortfalls and unpaid overtime incurred between 2007
and July 2013, according to a statement published on New York
State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman's website.  McDonald's
also faces class-action lawsuits in Michigan and California for
alleged wage theft.

A statement posted to McDonald's website said it took the
allegations seriously.


MINNESOTA: Faces Class Action Over Pretrial Diversions
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action against a slew
of Minnesota cities and counties challenges their pretrial
diversion programs for traffic offenses, in Wabasha County Court.


NU SKIN: Fails to Disclose Sales Practices in China, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Siesser, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nu Skin Enterprises Inc, Ritch N. Wood, And M. Truman
Hunt, Case No. 2:14-cv-00074-BCW (D. Utah, February 4, 2014)
arises from Nu Skin's alleged failure to disclose its fraudulent
sales practices and non-compliance with Chinese laws and
regulations.

Mr. Siesser brings the securities class action on behalf of all
investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Nu Skin securities
between July 10, 2013, and January 16, 2014, inclusive.

Nu Skin is a Utah-based global direct selling company that offers
antiaging personal care products and nutritional supplements in 53
markets worldwide.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware, and
maintains principal executive offices in Provo, Utah.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark F. James, Esq.
          HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
          10 West Broadway, Suite 400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 363-6363
          Facsimile: (801) 363-6666
          E-mail: mjames@hjdlaw.com

               - and -

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          Facsimile: (484) 450-2582
          E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
                  rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel E. Barnett, Esq.
          Robert S. Clark, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
          185 S State St., Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          E-mail: dbarnett@parrbrown.com
                  rclark@parrbrown.com


O'HARE INN: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Antonio Moreno-Olivas, Lorena Sanchez-Sanchez, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown v. O'Hare Inn & Suites, LLC, Babu Patel, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00764 (N.D. Ill., February 4, 2014) arises from
the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees earned minimum wage and overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

O'Hare Inn & Suites, LLC, is an Illinois corporation.  Babu Patel
is the owner of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Valentin Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
                  consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allen William Dub, Esq.
          Brian Scott Schwartz, Esq.
          KLEIN, DUB & HOLLEB, LIMITED
          660 LaSalle Place
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 681-9100
          E-mail: awd@labor-law.com
                  Brian.Schwartz@labor-law.com


PACER INTERNATIONAL: Being Sold to XPO for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Pacer
International are selling the company too cheaply through an
unfair process to XPO Logistics, in a $335 million cash and stock
deal that prices Pacer stock at $9 a share, shareholders claim in
Shelby County Chancery Court.


PLENTY CAFE: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Leon and Jesus Ruiz, individually and on behalfofothers
similarly situated v. Plenty Cafe Bakery Catering LLC (d/b/a
Plenty Cafe Bakery Catering), Ruben Weiss, Jessica Weiss, and Reba
Mangers, Case No. 1:14-cv-00722-WHP (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 per week that they worked.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a cafe/bakery located in
New York under the name Plenty Cafe Bakery Catering.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, managers, principals, or agents
of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Regina Elaine Faul, Esq.
          PHILLIPS NIZER LLP
          666 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10103
          Telephone: (212) 977-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 262-5152
          E-mail: rfaul@phillipsnizer.com


PROSPECT MORTGAGE: Bid to Strike Jury Demand in Noble Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In LAURA NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. PROSPECT MORTGAGE, L.L.C.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-11837, (E.D. Mich.), District Judge John
Corbett O'Meara granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the
defendant's jury demand.

Defendant Prospect Mortgage employed plaintiff Laura Noble as a
loan officer. In October 2010, three other loan officers filed a
putative class action suit in the Eastern District of California,
alleging claims for overtime pay and minimum wage violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act against defendant Prospect Mortgage.
Plaintiff Noble opted-in in the California collective action,
Sliger v. Prospect Mortgage, L.L.C., Case No. 11-00465 (E.D.
Cal.). Ultimately, however, the case did not go to trial; and the
parties in Sliger stipulated to decertify the action, with the
agreement that all opt-in plaintiffs could file their own cases in
another forum. It was further agreed that the applicable statute
of limitation would be tolled until April 23, 2013, the date on
which plaintiff Noble filed this action.

Plaintiff Noble did not file a jury demand in the present action;
however, defendant Prospect Mortgage filed a jury demand with its
answer July 30, 2013. Plaintiff moved to strike the jury demand
based on the Jury Waiver Agreement she was required to sign as a
condition of her employment with Prospect.

A copy of the February 25, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/cgzXEFfrom Leagle.com.


QB&G LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Waitress-Bartender Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Vicin v. QB&G, L.L.C. and Kyle B. Estep, Case No. 6:14-cv-
01039-SAC-KGS (D. Kan., February 4, 2014) is brought on behalf of
the Defendants' current and former employees, who earned tips, who
were subject to the tip credit used by the Defendants, whose tips
were deducted for walked tabs, and who were not paid the minimum
wage by the Defendants.

QB&G, L.L.C. is a Kansas limited liability company doing business
as Quincy's Bar & Grill.  Kyle B. Estep is the owner of Quincy's.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a waitress and
bartender at Quincy's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
          Joseph A. Schremmer, Esq.
          WITHERS, GOUGH, PIKE, PFAFF & PETERSON, LLC
          O.W. Garvey Building
          200 W. Douglas, Suite 1010
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 267-1562
          Facsimile: (316) 303-1018
          E-mail: smcgivern@withersgough.com
                  jschremmer@withersgough.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark G. Ayesh, Esq.
          Ray E. Simmons, Esq.
          AYESH LAW OFFICES
          8100 E 22nd N Bldg. 2300
          P.O. Box 781750
          Wichita, KS 67278-1750
          Telephone: (316) 682-7381
          Facsimile: (316) 682-1729
          E-mail: mayesh@ayesh.kscoxmail.com
                  rsimmons@ayesh.kscoxmail.com


SAFEWAY INC: Judge Grants Class Certification in Customer Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart writing for Courthouse News Service reports
that a federal judge has partially granted class certification in
a lawsuit that alleges Safeway "secretly" overcharges for online
groceries.

Safeway Inc., one of the largest grocery chains in the U.S.,
offers home delivery in select metropolitan areas for groceries
purchased online through Safeway.com, Genuardes.com and Vons.com.
In order to use the service, consumers must accept a delivery
agreement when they register online, and are also asked to click
on a "special terms" agreement that lays out Safeway's pricing
structure for delivered items.

The fee for delivery ranges between $7 and $13 "depending on order
size and delivery options," the complaint says.  According to lead
plaintiff Michael Rodman, online shoppers are told they will pay
the same prices for products as they would if they bought them at
a brick and mortar store.  In reality, he says, the grocer uses a
"scaled system" to mark up prices on items that are delivered.

Rodman claims Safeway "adds $.10 for every dollar of the in-store
price. So, for items that cost $.01 to $0.99 in the store, Safeway
adds an extra $.10 for the same item delivered," the complaint
states.  The percentage goes up to $.20 for items over a dollar
and $.30 for items over two dollars.

"Since Safeway uses $.10 increments for every dollar of in-store
cost, consumers are overcharged at least 10 percent extra for most
home-delivered items," Rodman says.  He sued Safeway in June 2011
for breach of contract and violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law.

Rodman filed a motion for class certification on all claims in
September 2013. Last week, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar
granted the motion in regard to the breach of contract claim only.

"The court does not yet reach the question of how the alleged
contract should be interpreted, but it can determine, after
rigorous analysis, that there is no obstacle to commonality or
predominance," Tigar wrote.  "The scope and proper interpretation
of the objective words of the parties' agreement is a common
question that applies commonly to all members of the class, is an
issue whose resolution will drive resolution of the litigation,
and will predominate over any individualized issues."

Safeway argued that some customers kept shopping through
Safeway.com after learning of the additional charges, opening the
door for "affirmative defenses of waiver/affirmation, consent and
estoppel," which would require individual inquiries, but Tigar
disagreed.

"Here, there is no reason to suspect that it is likely that a
predominant number of class members might have knowingly and
willingly chosen to pay an additional fee that they were under no
obligation to pay under the terms of the contract," he wrote.
"With no evidence to suggest that inquiry into particular issues
will predominate over the common issues driving the litigation
forward, a defendant cannot defeat predominance that a plaintiff
has otherwise established."

Tigar denied class certification for Rodman's statutory claims.

He said "the fact less than five percent of Safeway.com
registrants actually clicked through to view the Special Terms is
likely to be fatal to most of the proposed class members'
statutory claims.  To the extent that plaintiff's statutory claims
rest on representations of the 'Payment & Receipt' FAQ page ... an
even smaller number of website visitors viewed that page.  It
therefore appears certain that, in determining liability on the
statutory claims, individualized issues will predominate over the
common issues."

Tigar scheduled a case management conference for April 23, 2014.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Hachey" Suit in Minnesota Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hachey, Barbara Alt, Sherry Yude, Alex Chi, Duncan Kreiser,
Staci Kreiser, Jihye Muniz, and Sharon Hall, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Target Corporation and
Target.com, Case No. 0:14-cv-00320-PAM-JJK (D. Minn., February 4,
2014) arises from the data breach at Target stores in late 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory N. McEwen, Esq.
          MCEWEN LAW FIRM, LTD
          5850 Blackshire Path
          Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
          Telephone: (651) 224-3833
          Facsimile: (651) 223-5790
          E-mail: gmcewen@mcewenlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Gian M. Fanelli, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  gianmfane1li@jtblawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Ponto, Esq.
          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com
                  wendy.wildung@faegrebd.com


TARGET CORP: Has Inadequate Security Measures, "Hill" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sadie Jean Hill and Judith D. Borchert, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Target Corporation, Case No.
0:14-cv-00322-PAM-JJK (D. Minn., February 4, 2014) is based on
Target's data breach on November 27, 2013, to December 15, 2013,
where millions of Target shoppers' personal and financial
information was obtained by hackers, as a result of Target's
alleged inadequate or unreasonable security measures.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Phillips, Esq.
          Mike Miller, Esq.
          Todd Miller, Esq.
          SOLBERG STEWART MILLER
          1123 Fifth Avenue South
          P.O. Box 1897
          Fargo, ND 58107-1897
          Telephone: (701) 237-3166
          Facsimile: (701) 237-4627
          E-mail: dphillips@solberglaw.com
                  mjm@solberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Ponto, Esq.
          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com
                  wendy.wildung@faegrebd.com


TIME WARNER: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Chelin, writing for L.A. Ross, reports that Time Warner
Cable, recently purchased by Comcast, is facing a potential class
action lawsuit over automated phone calls that the plaintiff
claims violate federal law designed to protect consumers from the
"nuisance and privacy invasion" of telemarketing calls.

In a suit filed in U.S. District Court in California on March 18,
the cable company is accused of invading plaintiff John Fontes'
privacy via a series of unsolicited auto-dialed calls to his cell
phone.  Those incoming calls from Time Warner Cable also caused
Mr. Fontes to incur charges on his prepaid cell phone bill, the
suit alleges.

The claims stem from four prerecorded messages Time Warner Cable
allegedly left on Mr. Fontes' phone regarding the account of a
person named Anna Pounzie.  Mr. Fontes says in the suit that he is
not a Time Warner Cable subscriber nor had he ever given the
company his contact information or express permission to call his
cell phone.  These actions, the lawsuit claims, are in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which deemed
"automated or prerecorded calls are a nuisance and an invasion of
privacy, regardless of the type of call."

The Act was updated in 2003 to protect cell phone users and allow
consumers to join the National Do Not Call Registry.  Time Warner
Cable is accused of "negligently and/or willfully" contacting Mr.
Fontes in violation of the provisions of the TCPA.

Lawyers for the plaintiff included language requesting the lawsuit
be classified as a class action.

The suit only seeks damages incurred as a result of the alleged
unsolicited calls and injunctive relief designed to stop the
calls -- the action is expressly not intended to request recovery
of personal injury.


TIME WARNER: Los Angeles Sues Over Withholding of $10MM Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
though it enjoys a virtual monopoly of the Los Angeles cable-
television market, Time Warner Cable has withheld nearly $10
million in fees, the city claims in court.

In a federal complaint filed March 14, 2014, against Time Warner
Cable and its affiliates, Los Angeles claims that the cable
company makes $1 billion every two years providing cable services
to city residents but "stubbornly" refuses to pay franchise fees
or support local public programming.

Angry cable customers filed two lawsuits against Time Warner Cable
in 2013.  In the first, a class claimed that Warner Cable's $11
billion deal to broadcast Dodgers and Lakers games was passed on
to subscribers.  Customers in a second lawsuit took legal action
after the cable company dropped Showtime and CBS from its lineup,
as part of a bitter dispute over fees.  The latest lawsuit alleges
that Los Angeles unsuccessfully tried to resolve its dispute with
the cable company out of court.

"The city of Los Angeles enabled Time Warner to make billions and
in turn they shortchanged the taxpayers millions," City Attorney
Mike Feuer said in statement.  "This is the day where we stand up
and say enough is enough."

Time Warner's franchise has let it lay network cables beneath city
streets and on telephone poles.

"These franchise fees, though insignificant as a percentage of
TWC's Los Angeles-generated revenue, are important to the city's
general fund, representing dollars which can be expended on core
services such as police and fire protection, sanitation, and the
operation of the city's parks, senior centers, and libraries," the
lawsuit states, abbreviating Time Warner Cable.

Time Warner likewise avoided an agreement to provide nonmonetary
support to public access studios for city residents, the city
alleges.

Los Angeles calls the franchise fee and commitment to public
programming "modest" and a "small price to pay for the enormous
financial benefits accruing to Time Warner from its control over
the city-wide cable market."  It says Time Warner refused in 2008
and 2011 to pay more than $5 million in fees.

"Not coincidentally," Time Warner's stance coincided with the
enactment of a California law that encouraged competition from
other pay TV service providers, like AT&T and Verizon, the lawsuit
claims.

That legislation required Time Warner to support new public access
studios, the city adds.

Los Angeles also filed suit in 2008 after Time Warner acquired the
bankrupt business, Adelphia cable systems.

"The acquisition had resulted in TWC obtaining control over more
than 90 percent of the customers in the Los Angeles cable
television market, but had also been accompanied by allegations of
unexpected rate hikes and severe disruption in the continuity and
quality of service, among other wrongful consumer practices," the
complaint states.

Time Warner allegedly ducked its obligations to the city by
arguing that it had never agreed to provide the bulk of support
for public access studios.  But the city contends that the cable
company's refusal is grounded in its increased obligations to
support public access studios under California law.

"Perhaps not by coincidence, TWC's precipitous and wrongful
withholding of the franchise fee occurred less than eight weeks
before the end of Los Angeles' 2010 - 2011 fiscal year,
exacerbating the city's well-publicized fiscal crisis, and further
reducing the city's ability to pay for its already diminished core
services," the complaint states.

Los Angeles demands Time Warner Cable pay $9.6 million in fees,
including $2.5 million for the 2008 and 2009 franchise fees, as
wells as public, governmental, and educational fees.  The same
fees allegedly totaled $7.1 in 2010 and 2011.

Time Warner's actions violate the Digital Infrastructure and Video
Competition Act of 2006, the California Public Utilities Code and
the False Claims Act, the city alleges.

The company defended its conduct "as a major job creator, tax
contributor and service provider in the city of Los Angeles."

"We are disappointed the city has chosen to bring this action,
which we strongly believe is without merit," Time Warner said in a
statement.

Named defendants are Time Warner Cable; Time Warner Cable Pacific
West; Time Warner Cable Enterprises; Time Warner NY Cable; TW NY
Cable Holding; and Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse
Partnership.


TOWER GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 20
disclosed that the firm filed a class action lawsuit on
February 27, 2014, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York, on behalf of the shareholders of Tower Group
International, Ltd. against Tower Group, its Board of Directors,
ACP Re, Ltd., AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., and London
Acquisition Company Limited for, among other things, violations of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Tower Group by ACP Re.

The complaint arises out of a January 6, 2014 press release
announcing that Tower Group had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with the ACP Re, pursuant to which Tower Group
shareholders would receive $3 in cash for each share of Tower
Group they own.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf
of the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated
shareholders of Tower Group as of January 6, 2014.  The named
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The named plaintiff alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty and due care owed to Tower Group shareholders.  The
complaint further alleges that, in an attempt to secure
shareholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants
filed a materially false and misleading preliminary proxy
statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in violation of the Exchange Act and their state law
fiduciary duties of candor and full disclosure.  The omitted
and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to
Tower Group shareholders' ability to make an informed decision
whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from March 20, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the 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.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- represents
individual and institutional investors in securities class action
lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.

Contact: Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
         Web site: http://www.robbinsarroyo.com


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Tasion" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In TASION COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBIQUITI
NETWORKS, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-1803 EMC, (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order denying
defendants' motion to strike; and granting defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Before the Court were the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and Streakwave Wireless, Inc. In these
motions, the Defendants seek to dismiss various warranty-based
causes of action brought by Plaintiffs Tasion Communications Inc.,
International Power Systems, LLC (d/b/a Freeway Networks), and
Fundamental Holdings, Corp. (d/b/a Peak Internet) in their First
Amended Complaint.  Defendants have also moved to strike various
allegations contained in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' FAC. This dismissal is with prejudice as to Tasion's
warranty claims against Defendant Streakwave and as to all
Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims. Dismissal is
without prejudice and with leave to amend as to all other claims.
Plaintiffs must file their Second Amended Complaint within 30 days
of the order.  Furthermore, Plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to
show cause why they should not be required to pay Defendants'
expenses incurred in drafting that portion of their motion to
dismiss addressing Plaintiff Tasion's breach of warranty claims
against Tasion. Plaintiffs' response must be filed within 7 days
of the order, shall not exceed 5 pages in length.

The motion to strike was denied as procedurally improper.

A copy of the March 14, 2014 Order may be accessed for free at
http://is.gd/BoiD2cfrom Leagle.com.

Tasion Communications Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David
Christopher Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens
LLP, Alan Himmelfarb -- consumerlaw1@earthlink.net -- The Law
Offices of Alan Himmelfard & Suzanne L. Havens Beckman --
shavens@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens LLP.

International Power Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, Parisi & Havens LLP.

Fundamental Holdings, Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Suzanne L.
Havens Beckman, Parisi & Havens LLP.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Devin C.
Courteau -- dcourteau@rmkb.com -- Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley,
Justin Ananda Zucker -- jzucker@rmkb.com -- Ropers, Majeski, Kohn
and Bentley PC & N. Kathleen Strickland -- kstrickland@rmkb.com --
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley.

Streakwave Wireless, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Henry
Horn -- Charles.Horn@LeClairRyan.com -- LeClairRyan LLP, Aleksandr
Korzh -- akorzh@hopkinscarley.com -- & Lindsey Libed --
lindsey.libed@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Action Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Uti Worldwide, a freight
shipper, goosed its share price by concealing its problems, and
the share price dropped by nearly 30% when the truth came out and
the company diluted its shares with a $500 million secondary
offering, shareholders claim in Federal Court.


VOLVO: 3rd Cir. Agrees to Review Sun Roof Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES, reports that at Volvo's
request, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to review
the six-state class action status of a lawsuit which alleges
defects to the automaker's sunroofs.  Volvo made the appellate
request after a New Jersey District Court judge declined to
reconsider the class certification.

The initial lawsuit was filed in New Jersey U.S. District Court by
Joanne Neale of Needham, Mass., and seven other owners.  The
lawsuit covers Massachusetts, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey,
California and Maryland.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege
there is a defect in the automaker's sunroofs, which allegedly
allows water to flood their vehicles.  They contend the "defect"
sunroofs are on Volvo's S40, S60, S80, V50 (model years 2004 to
present), XC90 (model years 2003 to present) and V50 (model years
2005 to present).

"Plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class applying New
Jersey law to claims for consumer and common law fraud, breach of
implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," Volvo's
attorneys write in their Appellate Court case summary.  "On
March 26, 2013, the District Court denied certification of a
nationwide class because of variations in applicable law.
However, the District Court granted plaintiffs' alternative motion
to certify six statewide classes to pursue claims under the laws
of California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New
Jersey.

"Appeal is taken from the order certifying six statewide classes
and the order denying reconsideration of that order.  In addition,
to the extent they facilitated the District Court's class
certification decision, appeal is taken from the orders precluding
the testimony of Volvo's expert witnesses offered in opposition to
class certification, the orders denying reconsideration of those
orders and the order denying Volvo's motion to preclude the
testimony of plaintiffs' proffered expert, Dr. Charles Benedict,"
the attorneys write in court documents.

"[T]he District Court certified six statewide classes.  It did so
without examining the elements of any claim under the laws of any
state, without examining the common and individual issues with
respect to those elements, and without weighing the common and
individual issues against each other with respect to those
elements," Volvo attorneys continued.

"The District Court also rejected Volvo's argument that
certification was improper because plaintiffs had not demonstrated
that the fact or amount of damages could be proved with common
evidence.  The District Court certified litigation classes even
though key elements of the six statewide classes could not be
shown with class-wide evidence and even though the classes
included many people who could not recover had they brought
individual claims under their state's law," attorneys claim.  "The
District Court facilitated its class certification decision by
using erroneous standards to exclude Volvo's proffered expert
evidence and admit plaintiffs' proffered expert evidence."

The Third Circuit Court has not issued a decision at press time.


                             *********

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  * * *