CAR_Public/140327.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 61

                             Headlines


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Accused of Issuing Misleading Statements
ANAREN INC: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in N.Y. Supreme Court
APPLE INC: Still Faces iPod iTunes Antitrust Suit in California
APPLE INC: Lawyers Who Settled Claims to Get $1.5MM, Judge Rules
BIMBO BAKERIES: Class Can't Pursue "Fresh" & "Baked Daily" Claims

CANADA: Court Certifies Student Loan Privacy Breach Class Action
CARMAX AUTO: Faces Overtime Class Action in Cal. Superior Court
CHASE INVESTMENT: Overtimes Not for Federal Court, Judge Rules
CIRRUS LOGIC: Securities Lawsuit in New York Now Concluded
COMPASS HEALTH: Settles Labor Class Action for $1.1 Million

CORDISH COMPANIES: Faces Class Action Over Hiring White "Rabbits"
CORONA FARMACIA: Former Cashier Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
DONNA KARAN: Accused of Violating FACTA and FCRA in New York
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lidoderm Patch
EQUAL ENERGY: Faces "Scripture" Merger-Related Suit in Oklahoma

FORD MOTOR: Persuades Judge to Dismiss Warranty Claims
FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Customers
FRANKIE'S TOWING: Sued by Tow Truck Driver Over Unpaid Wages
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Sutts Strossberg Launches Recall Class Action

GEROVA FINANCIAL: June 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GOOGLE INC: Judge Denies Request to Combine Gmail Privacy Suits
GOOGLE INC: Android Users' Class Action May Advance, Judge Rules
GRACO INC: Class Actions of Price-Fixing Too Late, Judge Rules
HARVEY'S: Judge Approves E. Coli Outbreak Class Action Settlement

JEFFERIES GROUP: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Leucadia Merger
JPMORGAN CHASE: Illegally Won Thousands of Default Judgments
KEG INC: Exotic Dancers, Strippers Seek Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
M & M PETROLEUM: Class Were Not Paid at Proper OT Rate, Suit Says
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action

MAZDA MOTOR: Judge Tosses Remaining Claims in Rx-8 Class Action
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces OT Class Action in Alameda County Court
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Va. Tech Athletic Director Responds to New Case
PATRIZIO & ZHAO: Faces Securities Suit by Keyuan Shareholder
PFAFF RANCH: Truck Driver Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

PIE SALVATORE'S: Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime and Minimum Wages
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in California
RATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Judge Dismisses Poker Class Action
REXNORD CORPORATION: Pays Out Lawyers' Fees in Zurn Fittings Suit
SAGE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Illegal "Agents Fees"

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Cal. for Infringing Apple's Patents
SIMPLEXITY LLC: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoff
SUTHERLAND HEALTHCARE: Data Breach Suit to Undergo Discovery Phase
TOYOTA MOTORS: Judge Set to Hear Arguments on Attorneys Fees
TRANS UNION: Faces Consumer Suit Alleging FCRA & CCRAA Violations

UBS FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Background Check Practices
UNITED NATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Haiti Cholera Epidemic
UNITED STATES: FISA Reverses Ruling on Destroying Records
UNITED STATES: Opponents Want Proof Phone Records Are Preserved
UNITEK GLOBAL: June 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

WALLABY YOGURT: Class May Pursue Suit Over Evaporated Cane Juice


                             *********


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Accused of Issuing Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Harris, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., Barry D.
Zyskind, and Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr., Case No. 1:14-cv-00736-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2014) alleges that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, Mr. Harris alleges, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that the Company,
among other things, manipulated its loan loss reserves in order to
inflate reported earnings.

AmTrust is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
AmTrust offers insurance coverage to policyholders including
property/casualty, workers' compensation, special risk, and
warranty insurance, and extended service plans.  Barry D. Zyskind
has served at all relevant times as the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, President and director.  Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr. has served
at all relevant times as the Company's Chief Financial Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica Perry Corley, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP (GA)
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7374
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: jessica.corley@alston.com

               - and -

          John Dalgarno Roesser, Esq.
          Todd R. David, Esq.
          Joseph Gerard Tully, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP (NYC)
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 294-6700
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: john.roesser@alston.com
                  todd.david@alston.com
                  joe.tully@alston.com

               - and -

          Louis Arnold Russo, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP (NY)
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-5310
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: louis.russo@alston.com


ANAREN INC: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in N.Y. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anaren, Inc. is defending two putative class action lawsuits filed
with respect to a Merger Agreement by purported shareholders of
Anaren Inc. in New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County,
which have been consolidated, according to the company's Jan.
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.


APPLE INC: Still Faces iPod iTunes Antitrust Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. continues to face the Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust
Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker
v. Apple Computer, Inc.) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
Jan. 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2013.

These related cases were filed on January 3, 2005 and July 21,
2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of a purported class of direct purchasers
of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various claims
including alleged unlawful tying of music and video purchased on
the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and unlawful
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California
monopolization law. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys fees. Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights
management free versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an
order requiring the Company to license its digital rights
management to all competing music players. The cases are currently
pending.


APPLE INC: Lawyers Who Settled Claims to Get $1.5MM, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
attorneys who settled claims of "a classic 'bait and switch' fraud
scheme" involving unlimited data plans for iPads will recover more
than $1.5 million in fees, a federal judge ruled.

Apple launched its 3G-enabled iPad on April 30, 2010, with AT&T as
exclusive provider of 3G data service.  Though the companies
pushed unlimited 3G data plans to prospective buyers, it was
announced weeks after the launch that they would discontinue the
unlimited data plan.  In subsequent lawsuits against Apple and
AT&T Mobility (ATTM), consumers claimed that the promise of an
unlimited 3G data plan induced them into buying more expensive,
3G-enabled iPads, which cost $130 more than iPads without 3G.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte forced most of the plaintiffs
into arbitration, but a plaintiff named Joe Hanna, who never
accepted AT&T's arbitration agreement because he never bought an
iPad data plan, was allowed to proceed.  After Hanna filed a first
amended master consolidated complaint, AT&T moved to strike the
class allegations or deny class certification.  The wireless
provider claimed that class certification was improper since the
court allowed Hanna alone to proceed.

Whyte refused, however, agreeing that the case should proceed to
discovery.  Whyte ruled there was "no basis to assume that the
availability of the unlimited data plan in particular would have
been material to all class members."

This past fall, Whyte granted preliminary approval to a settlement
that required Apple to pay valid claimants $40 and required AT&T
to take $20 off alternative data plans, for up to one year, that
the claimants may choose.  Claims related to 3G-capable iPad
bought on or before June 7, 2010, were due Feb. 3.  Whyte gave the
settlements final approval in separate six-page orders on March
11, 2014.

The Apple order reflects that five class representatives will also
each receive $1,000, and that class counsel will take home $1.5
million in attorneys' fees.

AT&T is set to pay class counsel $17,200 for expenses, plus up to
$232,700 in attorneys' fees.

"As of the effective date, the class representative and all ATTM
non-subscriber settlement class members shall be forever barred
from bringing or prosecuting, in any capacity, any action or
proceeding that involves or asserts any of the released claims
against any released person and shall conclusively be deemed to
have released and forever discharged the released persons from all
released claims," the order states.


BIMBO BAKERIES: Class Can't Pursue "Fresh" & "Baked Daily" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted, in part, a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the lawsuit, ALEX ANG, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
13-cv-01196-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs allege that Bimbo Bakeries misbranded a multitude
of "substantially similar" baked good products in addition to ones
they actually purchased in reliance on the defendant's alleged
misbranding.  Bimbo Bakeries objects to the plaintiffs' attempt to
include the unpurchased products in this case.

Judge Orrick said the plaintiffs may pursue their claims with
respect to unpurchased products for their whole grain nutrient
claim, added coloring claim, 100% Whole Wheat claim, and use of
the Heart-Check mark claim.  Plaintiffs may not pursue their
"fresh" and "baked daily" claims for any produce other than the
purchased Soft'ees.  Bimbo Bakeries' motion to dismiss is granted
in part and the "fresh" and "baked daily" claims are dismissed
with prejudice as to the unpurchased products.  Bimbo Bakeries
shall answer within 20 days.


CANADA: Court Certifies Student Loan Privacy Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that a class action lawsuit over a Canada
Student Loans privacy breach has been certified by the Federal
Court of Canada, says St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham, one of the
lead counsels on the national case.

The lawsuit centers on the loss of a hard drive by the federal
government.  Certification means lawyers can proceed to argue the
claim.

"This is a major step forward in the process," Mr. Buckingham said
in a news release on March 18.

"The legal team will now focus its energies on moving the matter
to conclusion as quickly as possible.  There is significant
interest in this action -- more than 24,000 people have viewed my
firm's Facebook page since the decision was issued," Buckingham
said.  He said the case related to a hard drive lost by Human
Resources and Skills Development containing personal information
about 583,000 student loan borrowers.

Representative plaintiffs in the national class action are Gaelon
Condon, Rebecca Walker and Angela Piggott.

The plaintiffs don't know the identity of those whose information
as lost, Buckingham said. But he said the federal court order
allows all potentially affected individuals to participate.
Anyone who received a Canada Student Loan between 2000 and 2006
from any province except Quebec or the territories of Nunavut or
the Northwest Territories can register as potential claimants at
www.studentloansclassaction.com


CARMAX AUTO: Faces Overtime Class Action in Cal. Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Carmax Auto Superstores stiff
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court in
Riverside, Calif.


CHASE INVESTMENT: Overtimes Not for Federal Court, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that federal court is not the proper venue for overtime claims
against Chase Investment Services under California's Private
Attorney General Act, the 9th Circuit ruled.

Joseph Baumann is the lead plaintiff in the action alleging that
Chase had failed to pay financial advisers for overtime or allow
them meal and rest breaks.  He brought the suit under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA), which authorizes aggrieved employees, acting as private
attorneys general, to recover civil penalties from their employers
for violations of the Labor Code when the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) declines to investigate the
alleged violations.  In such actions, the agency receives 75
percent of the penalties collected and the aggrieved employees
receive the remaining 25 percent.

Baumann filed his complaint in California superior court, seeking
PAGA statutory civil penalties for each of Chase's alleged
violations.  Chase removed the action to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, invoking jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

A federal judge in Los Angeles refused to remand, but the 9th
Circuit reversed March 13, 2014, after finding that a PAGA suit is
not a "class action" as defined in CAFA.

The California Supreme Court already authoritatively determined
that PAGA actions are not class actions under state law, as such
statutory suits are essentially law-enforcement actions, according
to the ruling.

CAFA does not require, however, that a lawsuit be filed under a
state class action statute, only that it be brought under a state
statute similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which
allows for class actions under certain conditions.

The three-judge panel found that PAGA suits are fundamentally
different than Rule 23 class actions, so they do not trigger CAFA
jurisdiction.  Unlike Rule 23, "PAGA has no notice requirements
for unnamed aggrieved employees, nor may such employees opt out of
a PAGA action," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the Pasadena court.
"In a PAGA action, the court does not inquire into the named
plaintiff's and class counsel's ability to fairly and adequately
represent unnamed employees -- critical requirements in federal
class actions."

PAGA also allows employees to retain all rights to pursue other
remedies in connection to the claims in the suit, whereas the
federal rule ensures that any class members who received notice
and did not opt out are bound by the judgment in the case,
according to the ruling.

"PAGA plaintiffs are private attorneys general who, stepping into
the shoes of the LWDA, bring claims on behalf of the state
agency," Hurwitz wrote.  "Because an identical suit brought by the
state agency itself would plainly not qualify as a CAFA class
action, no different result should obtain when a private attorney
general is the nominal plaintiff."

PAGA penalties are also different than the damages sought in Rule
23 class actions, as the bulk of any recovery goes to the LDWA,
not the employees.

"In the end, Rule 23 and PAGA are more dissimilar than alike. A
PAGA action is at heart a civil enforcement action filed on behalf
of and for the benefit of the state, not a claim for class
relief," Hurwitz wrote.


CIRRUS LOGIC: Securities Lawsuit in New York Now Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit filed against Cirrus Logic,
Inc. in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
did not appeal the Court's dismissal order in the case and the
case has concluded, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2013.

On February 4, 2013, a purported shareholder filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York against the Company and two of the Company's executives (the
"Securities Case"). Koplyay v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 13-CV-0790. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business results
between July 31, 2012, and October 31, 2012, and seeks unspecified
damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.  A second complaint was filed on April 13, 2013,
by a different purported shareholder, in the same Court, setting
forth substantially the same allegations.  On April 19, 2013, the
Court appointed the plaintiff and counsel in the first class
action complaint as the lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2013, including
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.  On
May 24, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  On December 2, 2013, the
Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the case with
prejudice.  The plaintiff did not appeal the Court's order and the
case has concluded.


COMPASS HEALTH: Settles Labor Class Action for $1.1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cal Coast News.com reports that Grover Beach based Compass Health
agreed to pay a $1.1 million settlement in a class action lawsuit
for multiple violations of California's labor code, according to a
March 5 agreement.

In the suit filed last year by San Luis Obispo based attorney
Hernaldo Baltodano, several former employees claim Compass Health
failed to pay overtime and failed to provide required breaks for
meals and rest.  Because of staffing issues, the employees said
that patients were sometimes neglected and did not always receive
prescribed medications.

All current and former hourly workers who were employed from
March 29, 2009 to Jan. 6, 2014, are required to file a claim
before April 22 to receive their share of the settlement,
according to the agreement.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted preliminary approval for the settlement on March 5.  At a
hearing scheduled for May 12, the court will decide whether to
grant final approval.

Compass Health is one of the largest health care providers on the
Central Coast.  Its holdings include seven skilled nursing
facilities -- Arroyo Grande Care Center, Bayside Care Center,
Danish Care Center, Central Coast Nursing Center, Mission View
Health Center, San Luis Transitional Care and Vineyard Hills
Health Center as well as two assisted living facilities -- Casa de
Flores and Wyndham Residence.

Compass Health has denied any wrongdoing.


CORDISH COMPANIES: Faces Class Action Over Hiring White "Rabbits"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
operators of Kansas City's entertainment district hire white
"rabbits" to start altercations with black people to get African-
Americans thrown out of clubs and lighten the complexion of the
Power and Light District, two men claim in a federal class action.

The Power and Light District in downtown Kansas City is an upscale
entertainment district.  The district's dress code has come under
fire from African-Americans, who claim they are unfairly singled
out.

In 2011, four black men filed a class action claiming the
district, which they referred to as the "Power and White"
district, used the dress code to discriminate against them.

In the latest complaint, two African-American men -- Dante' Combs
and Adam Williams -- claim they were victims of a white rabbit --
the term used to describe the hired race baiters.

Combs, a pharmaceutical representative with a college degree,
claims he was standing outside a club in the district waiting for
some friends and a white man walked up to him and knocked his cell
phone out of his hands.  The man proceeded to get in Combs face.
Several security guards quickly responded and kicked Combs out of
the district, but not the white man, he claims in the lawsuit.

Another time, in the summer of 2011, Combs says he was not allowed
inside a club though white patrons were allowed in with little or
no questioning.  After standing in line, watching white people
enter, when he was finally acknowledged by security, Combs was
told his pants were too baggy -- though he was wearing a suit and
tie.

Later in 2011, Combs and Williams were at another bar in the Power
and Light District with a group of friends.  Williams is a medical
sales consultant with a college degree.  At some point in the
evening, two female doctors who knew Williams came up to him and
started talking with him and Combs.

About 30 minutes later, a white man walked up to the doctors and
asked if Combs and Williams were bothering them, the lawsuit
states.  Despite being told they were not, the white man started a
fight with Williams and Combs.  Williams was handcuffed and
detained by security for 90 minutes despite multiple witnesses
claiming he wasn't the instigator, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs claim that the man wasn't detained or even
questioned.

The plaintiffs sued The Cordish Companies, Lounge KC LLC dba
Mosaic Lounge, Entertainment Concepts Investors, First Response
Inc. and Entertainment Consulting International in federal court
Monday.  The defendants run and operate the Power and Light
District.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Linda S. Dickens, told Courthouse News
that she became aware of the rabbits while representing Glen
Cusimano in an employment action filed against the same defendants
this month.

Cusimano, the former security liaison for the entire Power and
Light District, claims he was instructed to employ a "rabbit" - a
white man willing to start arguments with black patrons to get
them kicked out of Power and Light.

Cusimano says in his lawsuit that he was told to find someone who
would accept cash under the table or free drinks to do the job.

The rabbit was supposed to start an argument with black patrons in
front of security guards, Cusimano says in his complaint.  The
security guards would intervene quickly, ejecting both parties
before the confrontation came to blows.

Cusimano said the rabbit would then re-enter Power and Light
through a separate entrance.

Central to the scheme was the quick intervention by security
guards, Cusimano's complaint states.  As long as there was no
physical altercation, the parties could be ejected without the
need for paperwork.

Ironically, Cusimano claims he was set up by a rabbit in an
incident that led to his ouster.

Dickens said Cusimano was set up because of his growing objections
to the use of rabbits.

"I was appalled and absolutely blown away," Dickens told
Courthouse News.

Cusimano knew of just the one rabbit he employed, but Dickens
believes there are others.  She said the incident with Combs
getting his cell phone knocked out of his hands predates the
rabbit Cusimano knew.

Dickens hopes to uncover more of the scheme as discovery in both
cases progresses.

"The defendants have been changing their story consistently for
the last six months," Dickens told Courthouse News.  "Instead of
focusing on the facts, they've launched a smear campaign against
Glen Cusimano."

The new class action also claims the defendants discouraged black
patrons by turning them away for real or perceived dress code
violations, excessively questioning black patrons to try to start
an altercation, failing to serve black patrons at bars and lying
to black patrons about available club reservations.

The defendants also keep "a head count of African Americans
present in any one club or area of the District, so that when the
'target' of limit number is reached, additional African Americans
will be turned away or caused to leave by virtue of a change in
the music genre," the class action complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek punitive damages for racial discrimination,
assault, battery and false imprisonment, and an injunction
prohibiting the defendants from any further acts of racial
discrimination.

The Cordish Companies failed to respond to Courthouse News'
request for comment.


CORONA FARMACIA: Former Cashier Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roman Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Corona Farmacia Inc., Shanaz Begum, Jabeen Ghazala, and Ali
Khan, Case No. 1:14-cv-00799-ERK-RLM (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) compensatory and statutory
damages for retaliatory discharge; (4) liquidated damages; (5)
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (6) attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Defendants employed Mr. Martinez in Queens County, New York,
to work as a non-exempt stock person, cashier, customer attendant,
and cleaner for their pharmacy from December 2, 2005, until
January 20, 2014.

Corona Farmacia is a New York domestic business corporation based
in Corona, New York.  Shanaz Begum and Jabeen Ghazala are owners
and officers, directors, shareholders, managers, and proprietors
of Corona Farmacia.  Ali Kahn is a manager or supervisor of Corona
Farmacia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans 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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aneeba Rehman, Esq.
          68 South Service Road, Suite 100
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 427-0700
          Facsimile: (631) 824-9020
          E-mail: aneeba.r@gmail.com


DONNA KARAN: Accused of Violating FACTA and FCRA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Yehuda Katz, Individually and on behalf of a class v. The Donna
Karan Company, LLC; The Donna Karan Company Store, LLC; Donna
Karan International, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00740-PAC (S.D.N.Y.,
February 4, 2014) is brought to secure redress for the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendants have recklessly and willfully violated FACTA and
failed to protect the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
against identity theft and credit card and debit card fraud by
failing to comply with the truncation requirement, which prohibits
printing more than the last five digits of the credit/debit card
numbers and also prohibits printing the card's expiration date,
the Plaintiff contends.

The Donna Karan Company, LLC is a New York limited liability
company based in New York.  The Donna Karan Company Store, LLC is
a New York limited liability company also based in New York.
Donna Karan International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC
          216 West 104th St., #129
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 760-2400
          Facsimile: (917) 512-6132
          E-mail: shimshonwexler@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP (NY)
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: gmashberg@proskauer.com


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lidoderm Patch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.; Teikoku Seiyaku Co. Ltd.; Actavis,
Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.;
Anda, Inc.; Anda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Valmed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00772-GP (E.D. Pa.,
February 4, 2014) is brought on behalf a class of end-payors, who
purchased, reimbursed or otherwise paid for the lidocaine patch,
5% ("lidocaine patch") that Endo sold under the name "Lidoderm."

Lidoderm is a pain patch that delivers the drug lidocaine
subcutaneously for the treatment of pain associated with post-
herpetic neuralgia.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated antitrust laws through an overarching anticompetitive
scheme to delay illegally the entry onto the market of less-
expensive, generic versions of Lidoderm.

Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare Fund is an employee
welfare benefit plan that maintains its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania.  Endo is a specialty pharmaceutical
company engaged in the research, development, sale and marketing
of prescription pharmaceuticals used primarily to treat and manage
pain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
          Edward H. Skipton, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: Kitchenoff@wka-law.com
                  reuben@wka-law.com
                  Skipton@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          E-mail: sconnolly@cwg-law.com

               - and -

          Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-3500
          E-mail: scohen@cprlaw.com
                  mcoren@cprlaw.com
                  jgoldberg@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Richman, Esq.
          MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN
          123 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (267) 528-0121
          E-mail: srichman@markowitzandrichman.com


EQUAL ENERGY: Faces "Scripture" Merger-Related Suit in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Scripture, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. 1) Equal Energy Ltd., 2) Don Klapko, 3) Michael Doyle,
4) Victor Dusik, 5) Robert Wilkinson, 6) Lee Canaan, 7) Michael
Coffman, 8) Kyle Travis, 9) Petroflow Energy Corporation, and 10)
Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp., Case No. 5:14-cv-00114-C (W.D.
Okla., February 4, 2014) arises out of the Defendants' pursuit of
a sale of Equal Energy to Petroflow at an unfair price, and
through an unfair process that involved the Defendants' alleged
dissemination in bad faith of a false and misleading proxy
statement.

Equal Energy is an Alberta, Canada corporation with principal
executive offices located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  Equal
Energy is an oil and gas exploration and production company with
substantial production and assets centered on the Hunton liquids-
rich natural gas property in Oklahoma.  Upon completion of the
Proposed Transaction, Equal Energy will become an indirect wholly-
owned subsidiary of Petroflow.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of Equal Energy.

Petroflow is a Delaware corporation with principal executive
offices located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Petroflow, a wholly owned
subsidiary of TexOak Petro Holdings LLC, is an oil and natural gas
company involved in the exploration, development, and production
of oil and natural gas in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Illinois.
Petroflow Sub is an Alberta, Canada corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Petroflow.  Upon completion of the Proposed
Transaction, Petro flow Sub will acquire all of the shares of
Equal Energy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren B. Derrybeny, Esq.
          DERRYBERRY & NAIFEH, LLP
          4800 North Lincoln Boulevard
          Oklahoma City, OK 73105
          Telephone: (405) 528-6569
          Facsimile: (405) 528-6462
          E-mail: dderryberry@derrybenylaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Persuades Judge to Dismiss Warranty Claims
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg issued an order granting in part
and denying in part Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint in the case, In Re Ford
Tailgate Litigation Case No. 11-CV-2953-RS (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class action involves 30 named plaintiffs from 25
states who seek to represent a nationwide class of millions of
current and former owners or lessees of Ford vehicles.  Plaintiffs
allege that due to faulty manufacturing and/or design, the Ford
vehicles at issue are defective in that the appliqu' panel on the
rear liftgate of the vehicles is prone to cracking, thereby posing
a safety hazard.  The alleged defect is referred to as the
"Cracked Tailgate Problem."

None of the named plaintiffs alleges the panel on his or her
vehicle exhibited any cracking during the vehicle's warranty
period.  Defendants now move for partial dismissal of plaintiffs'
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' express and
implied warranty claims arising under state law, as well as other
state tort claims are dismissed without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs' Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim is dismissed with
leave to amend, as are the majority of plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims. The motion to dismiss is denied as to certain
of plaintiffs' consumer protection and deceptive trade practices
claims.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two pension plans filed a
federal class action against Forest Laboratories, claiming it
unlawfully promoted and misled consumers and doctors about the
efficacy of Celexa and Lexapro for adolescent depression.


FRANKIE'S TOWING: Sued by Tow Truck Driver Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rowehl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Frankie's Towing and Asset Recovery LLC and Frank
Vigliarolo, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-00784-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y.,
February 4, 2014) is based upon alleged violations committed by
the Defendants of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

At all relevant times, Mr. Rowehl worked as a tow truck driver for
the Defendants in their Medford, New York headquarters.

Frankie's Towing and Asset Recovery LLC is a New York domestic
business corporation based in Medford, Suffolk County, New York.
Frank Vigliarolo is the chief executive officer and principal
owner and operator of Frankie's Towing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Peter John Andrews, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  pja@employmentlawyernewyork.com


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge on March 18 junked a proposed securities class action
accusing FriendFinder Networks Inc. executives of selling their
shares contrary to an agreement over the company's $50 million
initial public offering, ruling that investors upset about a
post-IPO stock drop lacked standing.

Granting a motion to dismiss filed by FFN and its executives, U.S.
District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks denied plaintiffs'
"threadbare assertion" that FFN's alleged active solicitation of
stock -- which the company sold to underwriters -- was enough to
establish its seller status.

Plaintiffs claimed that FFN, which runs adult-oriented websites,
and its executives knew that sales of their shares would defy a
"lock-up" agreement and that an IPO prospectus had misled
investors over the lock-up's time period.

FFN claimed that GIS and Schwartz lacked standing to bring their
claim of a violation of Section 12 of the Security Act because
they bought their shares from the underwriters, not FFN.  The
investors claimed that the issuance of the prospectus was enough
to qualify as solicitation under federal securities laws.

But Judge Middlebrooks held that, under the investors'
interpretation of Section 12, "the issuer would be a 'seller' by
merely issuing the prospectus."

Shareholders who owned more than 5 percent of pre-IPO stock,
including FFN officers and directors, allegedly agreed not to sell
it during a six-month "lock-up" period after the IPO unless they
got prior written consent from the underwriters.

On May 11, 2011, FFN sold 5 million shares of its stock for $10
each with help from underwriters Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. and
Imperial Capital LLC, according to court papers.  Greenfield
Investment Services LLC and David Schwartz purchased stock
directly from FFN, while Greenfield Children's Partnership
allegedly bought shares traceable to the offering.

On the heels of the IPO, FFN's stock price dropped over the course
of several months, court documents said.  Plaintiffs alleged that
the price plunge was due to the number of shares that were being
publicly traded, and that "insider" FFN shares in violation of the
lock-up agreement caused the material increase.

In dismissing an earlier version of plaintiffs' complaint, Judge
Middlebrooks said the IPO prospectus wasn't misleading because it
only advised potential investors that certain shareholders had
agreed to keep their shares for a specific period of time.  The
prospectus didn't include a promise or prediction that those bound
by the agreement wouldn't violate it, the judge decided.

Investors amended their complaint to say that FFN and/or the
underwriters knew of the request to sell restricted shares prior
to the IPO, but Judge Middlebrooks said Tuesday that the new
claims still fell short and that the investors had failed to state
a claim.

"Like in the first amended complaint . . . the issue is not
whether shares were actually sold in violation of the lock-up
agreement," he wrote.  "Rather, the issue is whether the
prospectus contained a material misrepresentation.  Again, this
court concludes that it did not."

Stephen P. Warren of Holland & Knight LLP, which is representing
FFN and the individual defendants, told Law360 on March 18 they
were very pleased the district court agreed that the IPO
prospectus didn't contain any false or misleading statements.

"The court also addressed and correctly decided a novel issue when
it held that SEC Rule 159A does not give shareholders standing to
sue issuers under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 if the
stock is sold through a firm commitment underwriting," he said.

GCP, GIS and Schwartz are represented by Jeffrey C. Block and
Jason M. Leviton of Block & Leviton LLP and Gary S. Menzer of
Menzer & Hill PA.

FFN and the individual defendants -- Marc Bell, Daniel Staton,
Ezra Shashoua, Robert Bell, Barry Florescue, James LaChance, Toby
Lazarus and Jason Smith -- are represented by Tracy Nichols and
Stephen P. Warren of Holland & Knight LLP.  Ladenburg Thalmann and
Imperial Capital are represented by Lewis F. Murphy and Cristina
B. Rodriguez of Squire Sanders (US) LLP.

The case is Greenfield Children's Partnership et al. v.
FriendFinder Networks Inc. et al., case number 9:11-cv-81270, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sutts Strossberg Launches Recall Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Macaluso, writing for The Windsor Star, reports that as
General Motors stepped up its response on March 18 to the growing
recall crisis, a Windsor law firm announced it was launching a
class action against the beleaguered automaker.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP, ran a notice in the Windsor Star aimed at
current owners of GM vehicles recalled because the ignition-switch
may unintentionally turn off.  So far, the initial response has
been "positive," said Bill Sasso, partner at Sutts, Strosberg.
"We've heard from more than 30 people, who have provided us with
information that fits the description in the class proceeding.
Some people have had significant problems with their cars turning
off."

Sutts, Strosberg will be working with London-based McKenzie Lake,
said Sasso, adding that the call to Windsor GM vehicle owners is a
"first step."

"We are looking at a minimum to represent people who have this
problem in Ontario with consideration being given to a broad class
action that would include people with the problem across Canada,"
he said.

The defect has been linked to 23 crashes that resulted in 12
deaths.  Transport Canada is investigating a possible link between
the ignition problem and a fatal car accident in Quebec in June
2013.  Last month, GM recalled more than 1.6 million small cars,
including 235,855 vehicles in Canada because of the ignition
issue.

"We're talking about a recall in connection with problems that are
as much as 13 years old," said Mr. Sasso.  "Ignition switch
problems, that according to the CEO, were not brought to her
attention until January of this year."

Also on March 18, General Motors CEO Mary Barra appointed a new
vehicle safety chief whose first priority will be to quickly
identify and resolve product safety issues.

Jeff Boyer, was named to the newly created position of vice-
president for global vehicle safety, effective immediately.

The move comes as GM faces increased U.S. government scrutiny,
including a possible criminal probe into how it handled defective
ignition switches, which were the subject of a last month's
recall.  On March 17, GM ordered three new separate recalls that
affect cars, commercial vans and sport utility vehicles over
various issues related to airbags, seat belts and brakes.  The
latest recall affects more than 1.5 million vehicles, including
more than 75,000 in Canada. GM said the new recalls aren't related
to ignition switch issue, but were part of a broad product safety
review.

GM officials estimated the company will take a $300 million US
charge in the first quarter related to the latest recalls.  That
defect can cause engines to shut off and lead to crashes.  GM has
said that heavy key rings or jarring can cause the ignition
switches to slip out of position, cutting off power and
deactivating airbags.


GEROVA FINANCIAL: June 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP and Wohl &
Fruchter LLP on March 18 disclosed that the United States District
Court Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of Gerova Financial Group, Ltd. Securities:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
GEROVA FINANCIAL GROUP, LTD. SECURITIES BETWEEN JANUARY 8, 2010
AND FEBRUARY 23, 2011, INCLUSIVE, ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
(NYSE), NYSE ALTERNEXT US EXCHANGE (LATER NAMED THE NYSE AMEX
EXCHANGE), OR BY OTHER MEANS INVOLVING TRANSACTIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES

Excluded from the Class are Settling Defendants, Jason Galanis,
Tore Nag, the officers and directors of Gerova or of any
subsidiary of Gerova, and members of any of their immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will
be held on June 9, 2014, at 4:30 p.m., at the courthouse for the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St.,
New York, New York 10007-1312, for the purpose of determining,
among other things,: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the
Class's claims against the Settling Defendants for 1,372,000.00
should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether
the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be
approved; (3) whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (4)
whether the Class Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of
costs and expenses should be granted; and (5) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants
as set forth in the Global Settlement Agreement and the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated February 4, 2014,
filed with the Court.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Gerova securities
between January 8, 2010 and February 23, 2011, inclusive, on the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), NYSE Alternext US exchange (later
named the NYSE Amex Exchange), or by other means involving
transactions in the United States, your rights may be affected by
this Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have not received
the detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion
For Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing
and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of
charge by contacting the Settlement Administrator, by mail at:

          Gerova Financial Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          P.O. Box 230
          600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063
          Toll-free phone: 866-274-4004
          www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no
later than May 20, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you will be bound
by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you
submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the
Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice,
received no later than May 12, 2014.  Any objections to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses
must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, received no later than May 19, 2014.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Co-Lead Counsel for the Class:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Pomerantz LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-661-1100

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE
CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED: FEBRUARY 6, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


GOOGLE INC: Judge Denies Request to Combine Gmail Privacy Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Bailey, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
Google won a significant court victory on March 18 when a federal
judge denied a request to combine several privacy complaints into
a single class-action lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of millions of
people who have used the popular Gmail service.

While the ruling doesn't settle the underlying dispute, the
decision by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh is a setback for the
plaintiffs in a case that strikes at one of Google's most popular
online services.  Google might have faced massive damages in a
class-action suit, while plaintiffs' attorneys may find it more
difficult to prevail in multiple separate cases.

The lawsuits argue that Google violated privacy and wiretapping
laws by scanning Gmail users' messages in order to show them
advertisements.  They also contend Google also used its technology
to gather information that was compiled in secret profiles of
Google account-holders.

Attorneys made similar claims on behalf of non-Gmail users who
sent messages to people with Gmail accounts, and on behalf of
students at schools that use Gmail.

Google has denied wrongdoing, saying it simply uses automated
programs to scan for keywords that can trigger relevant ads.  The
company also argued that users gave consent because they had ample
notice of the practice through Google's policy statements, news
coverage and other public information.

Koh previously rejected Google's motion to dismiss the claims.
But she ruled on March 18 that it isn't possible to reach a broad
conclusion about whether all the affected email users received
sufficient notice to give consent.  As a result, she said the
question has to be answered for much narrower groups of
individuals, rather than a single class of plaintiffs.


GOOGLE INC: Android Users' Class Action May Advance, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
disgruntled Android users may advance claims that Google collected
and distributed their personal data, a federal judge ruled.

Consolidated last year in San Francisco, the class action claims
that Google "gained and allowed third parties to have unauthorized
access to, and engaged in unauthorized use of" mobile devices that
used the Android operating system.

Applications such as Foursquare, Groupon, Advanced Task Killer,
Angry Birds and Pandora allegedly "collected personal data from
their Android mobile phones and shared this data with" Google.

Users say they were "unaware of and did not knowingly consent to
collection of the data," which included "class members' home and
workplace locations and current whereabouts; several universally
unique device identifiers assigned to plaintiffs' Android mobile
phones; other device-specific data that was useful to Google and
third parties for purposes of 'device-fingerprinting' (i.e., the
creation of a back-up unique identifier to engage in tracking of a
particular device); along with personal information about
plaintiffs such as their gender and age, what functions plaintiffs
performed on apps, search terms entered, and selections of movies,
songs, or restaurants."

Google has said users had to "opt-in" to location tracking,
but the plaintiffs claimed that the company continually stored
location data transmitted to the company each time location
services were enabled -- exposing users to data overage charges
and decreased battery life.

U.S. District Judge White refused to dismiss certain claims
Wednesday, finding that, though Google may not have manufactured
the mobile devices that allegedly suffered impaired-battery
performance, users "alleged sufficient facts to show that they
suffered an injury," which "is fairly traceable to Google's
conduct."

The class failed, however, to show that they incurred a damage or
loss under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), according to
the unpublished ruling.

"In order to pursue a civil action under the CFAA, plaintiffs also
must show economic damage or loss in the amount $5,000," White
wrote. "Plaintiffs allege that a new battery could cost $70.
However, none of the plaintiffs allege that they did purchase new
batteries because of Google's conduct.  The court concludes that
the allegations regarding diminished battery life still are
insufficient to allege that the economic damage or loss - even if
aggregated - would reach the $5,000 threshold required by the
CFAA."

The plaintiffs "rely on allegations that they paid for their data
plans, and that Google 'used or allowed the use of a finite amount
of' their data plans," White added.  "Again, none of the named
plaintiffs alleged that they incurred any overage charges.
Rather, they only allege that they were 'potentially' exposed to
overage charges.  The court concludes that the allegations
regarding 'loss' based on 'data plan utilization' are insufficient
to allege that the economic damage or loss - even if aggregated -
would reach the $5,000 threshold required by the CFAA."

Though Google had wanted to dismiss non-California plaintiffs,
White said the company presented "no argument" as to why Texas and
Alabama law would conflict with California law.  He also preserved
a claim for restitution after finding that the users may be able
to show an ownership interest in Google's profits.

The company fared better, however, in dismissing claims under the
unlawful prong of the California unfair competition, but it failed
to upend the unfair and fraudulent prongs.

White scheduled a case management conference for April 18.  The
parties' joint case management statement must be filed by
April 11.


GRACO INC: Class Actions of Price-Fixing Too Late, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that class action claims of a price-fixing conspiracy involving
manufacturers of foam-insulation equipment came too late, a
federal judge ruled.

The dispute stems from Graco Inc.'s $65 million purchase of Gusmer
Corp., the world's largest manufacturer of fast-set equipment -
i.e. spray guns, heated hoses, and other items used to install
foam insulation - in February 2005.

"This forced buyers, many begrudgingly, to switch to the more
expensive corresponding Graco models," Insulate SB Inc., a
California-based fast-set contractor claimed in Minneapolis.

Two years later, Graco allegedly tried to block a re-entry into
the market by former Gusmer owners - PMC Global Inc., Garraf
Maquinaria S.A., and Gama Machinery USA Inc.

Insulate said Graco and its specialized distributors had agreed
"to charge contractors anticompetitive prices" and keep out
distributors willing to sell competing products.

The Minnesota-based firm allegedly wrote to its distributors in
October 2007 to remind them that they had agreed to help Graco bar
new companies from entering the fast-set market.

Months later, Graco bought the sole competing manufacturer for $35
million, according to the complaint.  Graco then filed theft of
trade secrets and breach of contract claims against PMC, Garraf,
and Gama in New Jersey, alleging they unfairly exploited Graco's
intellectual property.

Though Gama countered with antitrust counterclaims against Graco
in June 2008, they settled on April 17, 2013.  That same day, the
Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust suit against Graco
ordering it to cease and desist from its distributor exclusivity
policies for 10 years.

Insulate then filed its class action in June, naming as defendants
Graco and 33 of its alleged distributors.  It later voluntarily
dismissed 12 from that list.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery dismissed the action as time-
barred March 11, 2014.

"After Graco acquired Gusmer in 2005, Gusmer products became
obsolete, prices for fast-set equipment increased, and choices for
fast-set equipment declined," Montgomery wrote.  "These facts
would have drawn Insulate's attention when it became forced to
'begrudgingly' switch to more expensive fast-set equipment
models."

Gama's counterclaims in the New Jersey litigation also warned
Insulate of Graco's alleged misconduct nearly six years ago, the
ruling states.

Tossing aside the continuing violations claims, Montgomery found
no issue with Graco's February 2012 letter to distributors
"reminding them" not to carry the Gama product line.

"The February 2012 letter merely reflected and reaffirmed the
alleged prior agreement to eliminate new entrants such as Gama
from the fast-set equipment market, and therefore did not restart
the limitations period," Montgomery wrote.

As for the price-fixing, market-allocation and exclusivity-
conspiracy claims, the judge dismissed them on the basis of
Insulate's failure to allege sufficient supportive facts.

"Although the complaint alleges that unidentified 'key
dstributors, as well as other [fast-set equipment] FSE
distributors, know and communicate with each other at industry
conferences and otherwise,' no information is provided about the
conferences, who attended them, or what was discussed," Montgomery
wrote.

The court rejected the parties' motions to stay or expedite
discovery as moot.


HARVEY'S: Judge Approves E. Coli Outbreak Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario judge has approved a
settlement of a class action suit brought after an estimated 235
people were sickened by E. coli bacteria traced to a North Bay,
Ont., restaurant in 2008.

An investigation by the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit
indicated the outbreak at the Harvey's restaurant was most likely
caused by contaminated onions.  The investigation found the risk
of exposure lingered for about a week due to inconsistent cleaning
of the onion dicer.

Justice Patricia Hennessy of the Superior Court of Justice
approved a settlement earlier this month that would see class
members receive between $1,000 and $7,250, depending on how long
their symptoms lasted.  Under the settlement, some claimants who
had symptoms for more than two days can be assessed to receive
out-of-pocket expenses, including lost wages.

The outbreak began on Oct. 11, 2008, after North Bay General
Hospital reported several people in emergency with bloody diarrhea
and cramps and was declared over on Nov. 21, 2008.

The health unit closed the Harvey's/Swiss Chalet restaurant on the
night of Oct. 12, 2008, after initial analysis of food histories
and outbreak questionnaire data identified food purchased from the
Harvey's as a common factor.  During the outbreak, 360 symptomatic
people were reported to public health for investigation and 235
met the outbreak case definitions.

A total of 50 cases were laboratory confirmed for E. coli, three
of which were secondary cases.  No deaths were associated with the
outbreak, but 26 people were hospitalized, and one case of
haemolytic uremic syndrome in a child was reported.


JEFFERIES GROUP: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Leucadia Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferies Group LLC is facing a shareholder lawsuit over its
merger with Leucadia National Corporation, according to the
company's Jan. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

Jefferies Group LLC and its subsidiaries operate as a global full
service, integrated securities and investment banking firm. Our
principal operating subsidiary, Jefferies LLC ("Jefferies"), was
founded in the U.S. in 1962 and the company's first international
operating subsidiary, Jefferies International Limited ("Jefferies
Europe"), was established in the U.K. in 1986. On March 1, 2013,
Jefferies Group, Inc. converted into a limited liability company
(renamed Jefferies Group LLC) and became an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Leucadia National Corporation ("Leucadia") pursuant
to a merger agreement with Leucadia (the "Merger").

Seven putative class action lawsuits have been filed in New York
and Delaware concerning the Merger. The class actions, filed on
behalf of the company's shareholders prior to the Merger, name as
defendants Jefferies Group, Inc., the members of the company's
board of directors of Jefferies Group, Inc., Leucadia and, in
certain of the actions, certain merger-related subsidiaries. The
actions allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Merger by engaging in a flawed process and
agreeing to sell Jefferies Group, Inc. for inadequate
consideration pursuant to an agreement that contains improper deal
protection terms. The actions allege that Jefferies Group, Inc.
and Leucadia aided and abetted the directors' breach of fiduciary
duties. The actions filed in New York have been stayed, the
actions filed in Delaware are proceeding and the claims against
certain of the directors have been dismissed.  The company is
unable to predict the outcome of this litigation.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Illegally Won Thousands of Default Judgments
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Chase Bank illegally won thousands of default judgments in
credit card debt collection lawsuits by robosigning affidavits, a
RICO class action claims.

Lead plaintiff Ruth E. Moya sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. and
affiliates in Federal Court, alleging RICO violations and common
law fraud.  Moya claims Chase has "flooded state courts" for years
with collection proceedings, with its primary goal obtaining
default judgments, so it can garnish wages and seize assets.  She
claims the giant bank secured default judgments by using
"improper, incorrect and fraudulent affidavits" that were executed
by Chase employees "thousands at a time" and notarized "by
notaries who did not witness the execution of the documents."

"Chase could have easily put policies and procedures into place
that complied with its obligations under the law, but instead, in
order to maximize its revenues, Chase engaged in systematic fraud
and made a mockery of our legal system," the complaint states.

An added incentive for default judgments is the ability to sell
the accounts to third-party debt buyers, activating a new, longer
statute of limitations for collection of the alleged debt,
according to the complaint.

Chase's business model did not ensure accuracy of affidavits
"because Chase's ability to maximize its revenue from its debt
collection practices depended on executing affidavits concerning
alleged cardholder debt as quickly as possible and in great
number," the complaint states.

Moya seeks class certification, an injunction, expungement of
default judgments illegally obtained, and punitive damages.

She is represented by David Buckner with Grossman & Roth --
dbu@grossmanroth.com -- of Coral Gables.


KEG INC: Exotic Dancers, Strippers Seek Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaleigh R. Dittus, Courtney A. Snyder, and Joanna L. Tabler, all
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. K.E.G., Inc., d/b/a Heart Breakers Gentlemen's
Club; Shadow Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus
(Columbia); Splash, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus (Columbia);
Elephant, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus (Greenville); KWE Group, LLC;
Gregory Kenwood Gaines a/k/a Ken Wood, and David A. Henson, Case
No. 3:14-cv-00300-JFA (D.S.C., February 4, 2014) is brought as a
collective action for unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation,
for liquidated damages, and for other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of all individuals,
who worked as an exotic dancer or stripper at any of the clubs or
bars owned or operated by the Defendants, namely, Heart Breakers
Gentlemen's Club in Columbia, SC, or Platinum Plus in Columbia or
Greenville, SC.

K.E.G., Inc. is a South Carolina corporation and does business as
"Heart Breakers Gentlemen's Club," which is an adult entertainment
business and bar within Richland County, South Carolina.  Shadow
Management Company, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation and does
business as "Platinum Plus (Columbia)," which is an adult
entertainment business and bar within Richland County, South
Carolina.  Splash, Inc. is a South Carolina corporation and does
business as "Platinum Plus (Columbia)," which is an adult
entertainment business and bar within Richland County, South
Carolina.

Elephant, Inc. is a South Carolina corporation and does business
as "Platinum Plus (Greenville)," which is an adult entertainment
business and bar within Greenville County, South Carolina.  KWE
Group, LLC is a South Carolina limited liability company.  KWE
owns property and conducts business in Richland County, South
Carolina.

Gregory Kenwood Gaines is a resident of Lexington County, South
Carolina.  He is the sole or majority shareholder, member, or
owner of KEG, Shadow, Splash, Elephant, KJ, KWLT, and KWE.  David
A. Henson is a resident of Richland County, South Carolina.  He is
a shareholder or owner of KEG.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Rothstein, Esq.
          ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM, PA
          514 Pettigru Street
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 232-5870
          Facsimile: (864) 241-1386
          E-mail: derothstein@mindspring.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Sara Smolik, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge St., 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com
                  ssmolik@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donald Christopher Lauderdale, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          One Liberty Square
          55 Beattie Place, Suite 800
          Greenville, SC 29601-2122
          Telephone: (864) 232-7000
          Facsimile: (864) 235-1381
          E-mail: lauderdc@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Harry T. Heizer, Jr., Esq.
          HARRY T. HEIZER JR. LAW FIRM
          PO Box 3928
          Irmo, SC 29063
          Telephone: (803) 931-0808
          Facsimile: (803) 931-0810
          E-mail: harryt209@yahoo.com


M & M PETROLEUM: Class Were Not Paid at Proper OT Rate, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Letterman, Mitzi Letterman, and other similarly situated
individuals v. M & M Petroleum Too, Inc. d/b/a Plaza 95 Shell, a
Florida Profit Corporation, and Robert Stevenson, individually,
Case No. 2:14-cv-14052-DMM (S.D. Fla., February 4, 2014) alleges
that the Plaintiffs were not paid at the proper overtime rate for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week, as proscribed by the laws
of the United States and the state of Florida.

M & M Petroleum Too, Inc., doing business as Plaza 95 Shell, is a
Florida Profit Corporation having its main place of business in
Martin County, Florida, where the Plaintiffs worked.  Robert
Stevenson, is a corporate officer of, and exercised operational
control over the activities of M & M.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Brian Earle, Esq.
          John Patrick Carrigan, Esq.
          ROSS EARLE & BONAN
          789 S Federal Highway, Suite 101
          Stuart, FL 34994
          Telephone: (772) 287-1745
          Facsimile: (777) 287-8045
          E-mail: dbe@reblawpa.com
                  jpc@reblawpa.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corporation on March 18 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
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired MagnaChip
securities between January 30, 2013 and March 11, 2014, inclusive.

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

MagnaChip designs and manufactures analog and mixed-signal
semiconductor products for high-volume consumer applications.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning
MagnaChip's operations and financial performance.  Specifically,
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company lacked adequate controls over financial reporting; (2) the
Company was improperly recognizing revenues; (3) the Company's
prior financial statements required restatement; and (4) as a
result, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than May 5, 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.


MAZDA MOTOR: Judge Tosses Remaining Claims in Rx-8 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, Carolina Bolado and Bibeka Shrestha, writing for
Law360, report that a California federal judge on March 17 tossed
the remaining claims in a proposed class action claiming Mazda
Motor of America Inc. refused to repair a defect that could cause
its RX-8 sports car to stall, saying the plaintiff didn't show
that Mazda was liable.

Named plaintiff Meghan Decker, the owner of a 2004 Mazda RX-8 that
on two occasions wouldn't start because of a "crank no start"
condition, sued Mazda for alleged wrongful denial of her claims
for repair costs under an extended warranty.  After nearly three
years of litigation, U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford
granted Mazda's motion to dismiss a breach of express warranty
claim brought on behalf of the putative class, as well as
Ms. Decker's claim for violations of California's Unfair Business
Practices Act.

Judge Guilford held that Ms. Decker hasn't shown that she can
prevail on her breach of warranty claim for either of the two
alleged crank no-start incidents.

"Plaintiff offers insufficient evidence to create a genuine
dispute as to whether she engaged in very short distance driving
before her first claim, which is what causes the defect she
alleges," Judge Guilford said.

The judge added that the second crank no-start claim should be
dismissed as well because Ms. Decker didn't take the car to a
Mazda dealer as required by the warranty extension.

"Because defendant has made an initial showing that summary
judgment is appropriate, the burden shifts to Plaintiff.  But in
her opposition papers, plaintiff doesn't contest that summary
judgment is appropriate as to this incident, or even respond to
defendant's argument," the judge wrote.

The March 17 ruling grants Mazda's bid to find in its favor on all
of Ms. Decker's remaining claims in the suit, dismissing the
breach of warranty and UCL claims after a review of all arguments
in the parties' papers.

In granting Mazda's motion to dismiss Decker's UCL restitution
claim, Judge Guilford said relief is not restitutionary if it
would not replace any money or property that the defendants took
directly from the plaintiff.

"Defendant argues that plaintiff purchased her vehicle at a used
car dealer, and there is no evidence that the money she paid to
this dealer can be traced to funds in defendant's possession," the
judge said.  "In response, plaintiff does not point to any
evidence to the contrary.  Therefore, summary judgment is
appropriate."

According to the original complaint, Mazda knew of a so-called
crank no-start problem as early as April 2004 but actively
concealed the defect from owners and lessees of 2004 to 2008
models of the RX-8.  The suit claimed that the problem, in which
the engine fails to start, occurs in stop-and-go or other short-
distance driving and poses a safety hazard for the driver and
occupants of the RX-8, pedestrians and other motorists.

In May 2008, in response to complaints about the stalling problem,
Mazda extended the warranty for the vehicles from four years and
50,000 miles to eight years and 100,000 miles.  The plaintiffs
argued that Mazda never adequately remedied the defect or advised
owners and lessees of class vehicles of the defect.

The automaker also failed to reimburse car owners and lessees for
expenses incurred trying to fix the problem, according to the
suit.  Although Ms. Decker originally asserted claims for
violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud and
violation of secret warranty law, those claims were trimmed last
year.

Ms. Decker is represented by Stephen M. Harris of Knapp Petersen &
Clarke and Robert L. Starr of the Law Office of Robert L. Starr.

Mazda is represented by John M. Thomas of Dykema Gossett PLLC.

The case is Meghan Decker et al. v. Mazda Motor of America Inc.,
case number 8:11-cv-00873, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces OT Class Action in Alameda County Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that McDonald's forced employees
to work off the clock, altered time cards and stiffed workers for
overtime, three class actions claim in Alameda County Court.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Va. Tech Athletic Director Responds to New Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Tate, writing for WSET, reports that the NCAA is facing a
new class action lawsuit on the eve of their biggest event.  The
suit, brought by four former college athletes, claims the NCAA is
a cartel that makes millions off the backs of student athletes.

The suit names the NCAA and the five major conferences as
defendants including the ACC.  The issue is not a new one in the
sense that there has been a movement to get players paid for
years.  In fact there are several suits currently pending; one
similar to this one and another where a player is suing because
his likeness was used, for profit, in video games.

What makes this different is it is a class action lawsuit
represented by a high profile attorney who specializes in such
issues.

On March 18, Virginia Tech's Athletic Director Whit Babcock, who's
against "pay for play", gave his take on the suit.  "But at the
same time a four or five year education at Virginia Tech is
probably worth, I'm rounding it, $150,000 if you're an out of
state young person and the education and what it does for you for
the rest of your life is pretty strong.  So we'll see where that
goes," said Mr. Babcock.

Mr. Babcock said he felt there are valid issues that need
consideration especially when dealing with merchandise that is
directly related to an athlete.


PATRIZIO & ZHAO: Faces Securities Suit by Keyuan Shareholder
------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Omanoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Patrizio & Zhao LLC; P&K CPAs LLC; Xinggeng (John)
Zhao; and John G. Patrizio, Case No. 2:14-cv-00723-FSH-JBC
(D.N.J., February 4, 2014) is a securities class action brought on
behalf of all persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of non-party Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc.,
during the period between August 16, 2010, to October 7, 2011.

Non-Party Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., is a Nevada corporation,
headquartered in China.  Through its operating subsidiaries,
Keyuan manufactures and sells petrochemical products in China.

Keyuan claimed to earn millions in sales, according to the
complaint.  During the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges,
Keyuan's auditor, P&Z, issued materially misleading "clean"
interim reports for Keyuan's financial statements for the second
and third quarters of 2010.

Patrizio & Zhao LLC is an auditing and accounting firm,
headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.  P&Z merged with the firm
of RK Associates of NJ LLC and as of January 2014 is now known as
P&K CPAs LLC.  P&K CPAs LLC is the successor in interest of
Patrizio & Zhao LLC.

Xinggeng (John) Zhao is a Chinese citizen and resident of
Montville, New Jersey.  He is a certified public accountant and
founding partner of P&Z.  He heads P&Z's China practice and was
the engagement partner on Keyuan's audits and interim reviews.  He
is currently one of three partners of P&K.  John G. Patrizio is a
CPA and the managing partner of P&Z.  Currently, Mr. Patrizio is
listed as the managing partner of P&K.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          236 Tillou Road
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John P. O'Toole, Esq.
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          33 Washington Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 624-0800
          E-mail: otoolej@wemed.com

               - and -

          Thomas F. Quinn
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          200 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 624-0800
          E-mail: thomas.quinn@wilsonelser.com


PFAFF RANCH: Truck Driver Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Hiracheta, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pfaff Ranch Services, LLC and Andrew Pfaff, Case No.
7:14-cv-00011-RAJ (W.D. Tex., February 4, 2014) is brought as a
collective action to recover overtime compensation and all other
available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed class consists of current and former non-exempt truck
drivers or other job title performing substantially similar job
duties as the Plaintiff, who were not paid overtime compensation
at one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour
worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Pfaff Ranch Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Midland, Texas.  Pfaff
Ranch operates as an oilfield services company and does business
under the name "P & P Oilfield Services."  The Company provides,
inter alia, short-haul trucking services, and hauling produced
water from oil wells to salt water disposal facilities.  Andrew
Pfaff is the president of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908-9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Lisson, Esq.
          CARTER, BOYD, LISSON, & HOHENSEE, P.C.
          515 W. Harris Avenue, Suite 100
          San Angelo, TX 76903
          Telephone: (325) 655-4889
          Facsimile: (325) 657-2070
          E-mail: jlisson@carterboyd.com


PIE SALVATORE'S: Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime and Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roque Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. The Pie at Salvatore's, Inc. and Fred Lacagnina,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00762-JBW-RML (E.D.N.Y.,
February 4, 2014) is a civil action for damages and equitable
relief based upon alleged violations committed by the Defendants
of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime and
minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

The Pie at Salvatore's, Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in Hauppauge, New York.  The Company has places of
business in Bayshore, New York, and Port Washington, New York.
Fred Lacagnina is the chief executive officer of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cherice P. Vanderhall, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: cpv@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. faces a shareholder lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On November 19, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company
and certain of the Company's officers and directors, captioned
Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Quality Systems, Inc., Steven T.
Plochocki, Paul A. Holt and Sheldon Razin, No. SACV13-01818-CJC-
JPRx, by the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, a shareholder of
the Company. The complaint is a putative class action filed on
behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the
defendants. The complaint, which is substantially similar to the
litigation described above under the caption "Hussein Litigation,"
generally alleges that statements made to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition and
projected future performance were false and misleading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual
defendants are liable for such statements because they are
controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys'
fees. The Company believes that plaintiff's claims are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.


RATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Judge Dismisses Poker Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
According to Online Poker Report, lawyers for PokerStars are
celebrating a victory in litigation against PokerStars entity
Rational Entertainment Enterprises, Ltd. (REEL) on March 17 after
Chief Judge David R. Herndon of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois granted REEL's motion to
dismiss a class action complaint filed against it by Kelly
Sonnenberg.

In the complaint, Ms. Sonnenberg claimed to represent a class of
"hundreds of thousands -- possibly millions -- of Illinois poker
players" who lost money playing online poker, and sought to
recover damages under Illinois's Loss Recovery Act (LRA), which
permits an award of triple the amount lost at illegal gambling to
be recovered from the winner.

The Court's dismissal of the action likely ends Ms. Sonnenberg's
efforts to do so.

In dismissing the action, the Court focused, among other things,
on the fact that the LRA authorizes recovery only from a "winner"
of gambling losses.

In its motion to dismiss, REEL argued that it was not a "winner"
because of it collected a "rake" from each hand, but did not
otherwise participate in or benefit from the outcome of the hand.
Ms. Sonnenberg argued in response that the rake was enough to make
REEL a "winner" under the statute.

The Court found that PokerStars -- alleged to be "the operator of
an online card room" -- was "more akin to a third party service
provider that provides a forum for others to play the game and
[did] not have a stake in how the game is decided."

The judge also observed that there was no assertion that any of
the PokerStars defendants made or won any bets or wagers, or
participated in the games themselves. Without those allegations,
the Court ruled, REEL could not be considered a "winner" under the
LRA.

While the judge granted Ms. Sonnenberg leave to amend her
complaint, lawyers David Deitch and Rachel Hirsch of Ifrah Law
(who represent PokerStars) believe it is virtually impossible for
Sonnenberg to make any kind of allegation that will meet the
standard the judge has set.

Mr. Deitch expressed the hope "that judges in Kentucky and other
states with similar loss recovery statutes will recognize the
simple but important principle that a 'rake' does not make a
company a 'winner'."

While illegal online poker rooms are largely things of the past in
the United States, this case may also be precedent with respect to
the growing online fantasy sports industry.

Chief Judge Herndon's opinion included a nod to the reasoning of
District Judge Thomas R. Durkin of the Northern District of
Illinois, who dismissed an LRA case against fantasy sports
provider FanDuel last October.


REXNORD CORPORATION: Pays Out Lawyers' Fees in Zurn Fittings Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million in the
settlement of a suit against Rexnord Corporation subsidiaries over
Zurn brass fittings was paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014,
according to the company's Jan. 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 28, 2013.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC ("Zurn Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of
individual and class action lawsuits in various United States
courts. The plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the
alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on
the PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation.  The settlement
is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently.  The settlement received final court approval in
February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is
capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the
seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding
criteria.  The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which was paid
in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.


SAGE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Illegal "Agents Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------------
P. Kenneth Burns, writing for WYPR, reports that Zafar Shah, staff
attorney with the Public Justice Center, says Sage Management goes
"by the book" in rent court, but never reveals "agents fees" it
charges tenants who are late on their rent.  Those fees, which
have left some tenants thousands of dollars in debt, are illegal
in Maryland.

"In landlord/tenant matters before a district judge, a plaintiff
landlord is not going to be able to try to collect additional
agent fees," says Mr. Shah.

The Public Justice Center, with assistance from the law firm of
Goldman and Minton, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
Detrese Dowridge, Trachelle Speaks and Shonda Billings -- Sage
tenants and members of the Right to Housing Alliance -- seeking
more than $75,000 in damages.

Maryland law allows landlords to collect late fees -- capped at
five percent of monthly rent -- and court fees.  The housing
alliance suit alleges that Sage Management illegally charged
"agent fees."  It is open to past and present tenants of Sage
properties going back to 2004, many of whom were charged hundreds
in court and agent fees.

Speaks, one of the plaintiffs, holds a Section 8 voucher from the
Baltimore housing authority.  She has rented an apartment in
Kernan Gardens, on Forest Park Avenue, since 2009.  She fell
behind on her share of the rent, $296, in March 2012.  When she
caught up on her rent a year later, Sage claimed she owed another
$1,300 in back fees.

"I don't know how the fees increased like they did and they kept
on increasing and increasing," she says.  And she says she no one
in the rental office would explain the fees to her.

Ms. Dowridge has lived at Park Lane Apartments in Park Heights,
another Sage property, for the last five years.  She works two
jobs to pay her rent while attending school to become a pharmacy
tech and caring for her son.  She fell behind on her rent twice in
2011, but later got on track.  Nonetheless, last June the company
claimed she still owed more than $2,000 in court and agent fees.

The Right to Housing Alliance says more than 50 tenants sent a
certified letter to Sage officials in January asking the company
to stop "accounting practices [they] believe are predatory and in
violation to [city and state laws]."  The letter also demanded an
audit of all of the books, a refund on the agent fees and mold and
pest remediation at their properties.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Cal. for Infringing Apple's Patents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoai Dang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America,
Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00530-SI (N.D. Cal., February 4, 2014) is a proposed class
action against Samsung for selling to consumers smartphones,
tablets, and other electronic products that illegally infringe on
the patents of others.

During the period from January 27, 2008, to the present, the
Defendants sold millions of the Infringing Products to consumers
by means of unfair competition because the Products are illegally
based on the patents of Samsung's chief rival, Apple Inc., Mr.
Dang contends.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC") is a Korean corporation with
its principal offices in Gyeonggi-do, South Korea.  SEC is South
Korea's largest company and one of Asia's largest electronics
companies.  SEC designs, manufactures, and provides to United
States and world markets a wide range of products, including
consumer electronics, computer components, and a myriad of mobile
and entertainment products.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA") is a New York
corporation headquartered in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.  SEA was
formed in 1977 as a subsidiary of SEC and markets, sells, and
offers for sale a variety of consumer electronics, including TVs,
VCRs, DVD and MP3 players, and video cameras, as well as memory
chips and computer accessories.  SEA also manages the North
American operations of Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC;
Samsung Electronics Canada; and Samsung Electronics Mexico.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ("STA") is a Delaware
limited liability company headquartered in Richardson, Texas.  STA
was founded in 1996 as a subsidiary of SEC and markets, sells, and
offers for sale a variety of personal and business communications
devices in the United States, including cell phones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN AND ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center 80 South, 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


SIMPLEXITY LLC: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoff
---------------------------------------------------
Simplexity, a cellphone company, fired 350 people without adequate
notice, they claim in a federal class action in Wilmington,
Delaware.


SUTHERLAND HEALTHCARE: Data Breach Suit to Undergo Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for GovInfoSecurity.com, reports
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Angeles
County and a vendor that handles patient billing and payment
collections for the county's departments of health services and
public health in the wake of a breach last month affecting 168,500
individuals.

The breach was the result of a Feb. 5 theft of eight unencrypted
desktop computers from the Torrance, Calif. office of Sutherland
Healthcare Services, the billing and collections business.
Sutherland and the county began notifying breach victims of the
incident on March 6, about a month after the theft.

Information contained on the computers included patients' names,
Social Security numbers and billing information.  In addition, the
stolen computers may have also contained the date of birth,
addresses, diagnoses and other medical information for some
patients.

The suit, which alleges violations of various California laws, was
filed by attorneys for one unnamed plaintiff on behalf of the
class of other individuals also impacted by the breach.  That
plaintiff is only identified in the suit as an adult female whose
identity is being protected "due to the privacy breaches alleged,"
say documents filed in the Superior Court of California in Los
Angeles County on March 14.  The case is seeking an unspecified
figure for damages, attorney's fees and appropriate injunctive
relief.

Genie Harrison, lead trial attorney of Genie Harrison Law Firm,
one of the two law firms representing the plaintiffs, tells
Information Security Media Group that the next step in the suit is
for the court to rule on whether the case can proceed as a class
action.

In the meantime, the case will undergo discovery phase to
determine details of the incident, she says.  Those details range
from the physical security that was in place at Sutherland's
offices, why encryption and other safeguards were not implemented,
and L.A. County's oversight of its vendor.

                           Suit Details

Among the multiple complaints in the suit is that Sutherland and
L.A. County failed to notify breach victims in a timely way.
"Victims should've been notified as soon as [the organizations]
knew" of the breach, she says.  Medical facilities in California
have an obligation to notify breach victims within five business
days of detecting a breach, she says, referring to California
Health & Safety Code 1280.15.

The suit also cited violations of a number of other California
statutes, including those related to the Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, fair business practices, and various
consumer and privacy regulations.

Additionally, the one year of free credit monitoring being offered
to affected individuals by Sutherland and L.A. County as part of
their breach response is "woefully inadequate," Mr. Harrison
contends.


TOYOTA MOTORS: Judge Set to Hear Arguments on Attorneys Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a federal judge is
scheduled to hear arguments early next month in an increasingly
nasty fight over $1.7 million in fees five class-action law firms
want for negotiating a settlement over allegedly defective Toyota
Prius headlights.

The judge previously described their fee request as "outrageously
unreasonable," but the law firms, led by Gerard Gibbs of San
Francisco and New York, think they deserve it for negotiating a
settlement worth about $3.8 million.  Toyota offered to extend the
warranty on about 200,000 cars and refunded repair costs for some
owners under the agreement reached in late 2011.

Toyota's challenge represents a rare case of a corporate defendant
arguing against the fees class-action lawyers are seeking to
settle a lawsuit.  In most cases, those lawyers negotiate
agreements under which the defendant won't object to their fee
request, a practice critics say encourages collusive settlements
that enrich plaintiff lawyers at the expense of their supposed
clients.  Sometimes these deals even benefit the defendant.

With less than 12,000 customers filing claims in the Prius case,
U.S. District Judge Manuel Real found that the requested fee would
work out to $272 per claimant, or three quarters of the $364
average payout in the case.  He slashed their fee to $766,000 in
late 2011, likening the plaintiff lawyers to negotiators who are
entitled to no more than a talent agent's 20% cut of the action.

"The amount of fees is unreasonably high, if not on the cusp of
being an outrageously unreasonable fee," the judge wrote.

The lawyers appealed, winning a decision from the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals last December requiring the judge to recalculate
their fee based on California law, which calls for a "lodestar,"
or measure of the work the attorneys put into the case.  In
arguments to presented at an April 7 hearing, Toyota says the
judge should stick with his original estimate, since the law firms
reported hundreds of hours at billing rates as high as $710 an
hour for duplicative and unnecessary work.

"The billing records and attorney declarations . . . are
contradictory and unreliable, and are rife with evidence of
inefficiency, duplication and make-work," Toyota said in the
filing.

The other firms involved in the settlement are Cohen Milstein of
Washington; Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten of Los
Angeles; Initiative Legal Group; and Arias, Ozzello & Gignac.

Following the typical fashion in consumer class actions, all five
law firms hopped on the case after the National Highway Safety
Administration revealed an investigation into customer complaints
about failing High Intensity Discharge headlights.  They filed
similar complaints -- some with almost identical wording -- in
different courts around the country to try and get a piece of the
fees that would come with any settlement.

Gerard Gibbs and Wasserman Comden filed the original case in
federal court in California in May 2009.  Cohen Milstein filed a
copycat lawsuit later in New York, where the case was briefly
transferred before returning to California.  While the case was in
flux, Gerard Gibbs filed another copycat suit in state court in
California to try and keep the litigation there.  All want to be
paid for this work, even though it served their interests, not the
interests of Toyota Prius owners looking to be paid for defective
headlights.

Judge Real examined the actual work done in the case and decided
that it wasn't much.

"This is not a complex case," he said.  While he supported the
settlement -- most judges do, since they clear their docket of
time-consuming and unproductive litigation -- he said "the Court
believes that Plaintiff's degree of success was not because of
Plaintiffs' counsels' effort."  It was Toyota's rapid response to
discovery demands and the work of federal investigators that
mostly brought the case to a close, he said.

"There was no need for five law firms to be involved," he said.

The 9th Circuit rejected his fee ruling, saying the judge should
have referred to California law, which requires the lodestar
method.  That requires the law firms to supply billing records,
however, and Toyota's lawyers went through them with a fine-
toothed comb.  Here's what they found:

The lawyers supposedly spent 520 hours, or 10.8 hours a day, seven
days a week, negotiating the settlement over 48 days in 2010,
racking up $228,686 in fees.

A Cohen Milstein associate billed the class members 72 hours to
prepare and appear at a hearing over the transfer of yet another
copycat lawsuit filed in New Jersey, even though the judge
allotted all of the the parties a collective 5 minutes for
arguments.

The lawyers billed for another 575 hours at $477 an hour after the
settlement had been reached and all adversarial litigation
stopped.

Toyota accused the lawyers of running up excessive bills knowing
they would lose their chance to charge more once the settlement
was approved.

The simple fact is that much of the work that was recorded in the
billing records was for tasks that did not advance the litigation,
for motions and court papers that were not filed, and for
discovery that was never served.  Moreover, rather than curtail
the amount of billings after plaintiffs knew Toyota was agreeable
to settlement, Plaintiffs collectively accelerated the pace of
billing, presumably aware that they would be seeking payment for
such fees once the case settled.


TRANS UNION: Faces Consumer Suit Alleging FCRA & CCRAA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amit Patel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Trans Union, LLC, in its own name and t/a Trans Union Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc. and TransUnion Background Data
Solutions, and Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. in its
own name and t/a TransUnion Background Data Solutions, Case No.
3:14-cv-00522-LB (N.D. Cal., February 4, 2014) is a consumer class
action based upon the Defendants' alleged widespread violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act.

The Defendants operate as a single consumer reporting agency under
the FCRA, as well as a consumer credit reporting agency under the
CCRAA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ingrid M. Evans, Esq.
          Elliot Wong, Esq.
          EVANS LAW FIRM, INC.
          3053 Fillmore St. #236
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 441-8669
          Facsimile: (888) 503-8267
          E-mail: Ingrid@evanslaw.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                 jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN
          Land Title Bldg., 19th Floor
          100 S. Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com


UBS FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Background Check Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, reports that a former
independent contractor for UBS Financial Services Inc. on March 17
hit the company with a putative class action in New Jersey federal
court, alleging its employee consumer report practices violate the
Fair Credit Reporting Act for failing to provide copies of
background checks and including illegal language in related
consent forms.

Plaintiff Kimberly Plasters, who was fired for failing a
background check, said in her complaint that UBS Financial
Services, a U.S.-based wealth management unit of Swiss global
financial services company UBS AG, "systematically violates at
least two sections of the FCRA."

Ms. Plasters alleges that UBS fails to provide unsuccessful job
applicants who are the subjects of background checks a copy of the
report used to make hiring decisions.  She also alleges that UBS
does not provide a summary of rights under the FCRA and that it
does not allow sufficient time for the applicant to contest or
correct errors in the reports.  She also claims that the
background check notification and authorization form that UBS
requires current and prospective employees to sign violates a
section of the FCRA because it does not "consist solely of the
disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes."

The lawsuit stems from Ms. Plasters' experience following a
termination after failing a background check in 2013.  She began
working at UBS on Aug. 12, 2013, when information technology
staffing agency Peak Systems Inc. placed her as an independent
contractor, according to the complaint.  Peak had notified her of
the opportunity a week earlier and said it could run as long as 18
months.

Two weeks after Ms. Plasters started, UBS requested she complete a
form that authorized a third party, Carco Group Inc., to procure a
consumer report investigating her background and credit history,
according to the complaint.  After another two weeks, a Carco
representative notified Plasters she failed the background check
and would be removed immediately from the UBS project.  She
contacted UBS for a copy of the report but never received a
response, according to the complaint.

Ms. Plasters claims UBS' policy is that it does not provide notice
to prospective or current employees or independent contractors, or
copies of any consumers reports with adverse information, prior to
taking adverse actions against them.

The suit seeks certification of a Rule 23 class, punitive damages
and statutory damages between $100 to $1,000 per violation per
class member, among other things. The class could consist of
thousands of members because UBS has hundreds of offices
nationwide and uses common screening practices across those
offices, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by James A. Francis, John Soumilas
and David A. Searles of Francis & Mailman PC.

The case is Kimberly Plasters v. UBS Financial Services Inc., case
number 2:14-cv-01659, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


UNITED NATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Haiti Cholera Epidemic
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action with
1,480 named plaintiffs blames the United Nations for the cholera
epidemic that killed 9,000 people and infected 700,000 more after
the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

Lead plaintiff Marie LaVenture sued March 11, 2014, on behalf of
her parents, who died, "and those additional 1,479 plaintiffs or
deceased parties whose representatives are plaintiffs" in Federal
Court.  Another woman filed similar claims in October.

The class seeks damages at least equal to the $2.2 billion it
estimates it will cost Haiti to eliminate the cholera that was
brought by the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti.

Cholera is one of the most deadly communicable diseases in the
world, though it can be prevented, and cured, by rehydration with
clean water.  Unfortunately, in Haiti, there was no clean water
after U.N. workers brought the disease and spread it by their
negligent disposal of toxic human waste, according to the
complaint.

The United Nations lists "diarrheal diseases" as the world's top
killer among infectious diseases.  It estimates that 1.9 million
people a year die of such diseases.  Cholera has not much been a
target for drug companies because communities that have no access
to clean water generally cannot afford drugs.

In the lawsuit, LaVenture claims that studies "by the United
Nations itself, showed definitively that the outbreak was caused
by an Asian strain of cholera imported to Haiti by a Nepalese
peacekeeping force.  Although Nepal was in the midst of a cholera
outbreak, none of the Nepalese peacekeepers were tested for
cholera before being sent to Haiti."

The 68-page lawsuit reads like a Stephen King horror story.  Here
is how it begins: "This class action arises out of an epidemic of
cholera that broke out in Haiti in October 2010.  At the time of
this filing, the epidemic has killed at least 9,000 people and
counting, and has sickened more than 700,000 others and counting
in Haiti since 2010, and has resulted in cholera cases in at least
the United States, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Puerto Rico and
Cuba.  Mexico now has a sustained outbreak of cholera that has
spread from Haiti.  The epidemic still kills approximately 1,000
Haitians each year and sickens many thousands more.  The cholera
was inflicted on Haiti in October 2010, after an absence of more
than 150 years.  Forensic studies, including one by the United
Nations itself, showed definitively that the outbreak was caused
by an Asian strain of cholera imported to Haiti by a Nepalese
peacekeeping force.  Although Nepal was in the midst of a cholera
outbreak, none of the Nepalese peacekeepers were tested for
cholera before being sent to Haiti.  In addition to seeking
damages for deaths and illnesses, this complaint seeks a
declaratory judgment that the UN is not immune from liability for
the deaths it caused, and that the UN must abide by the claims
process it agreed to set up to compensate for injuries it caused
in Haiti."

After citing a study from the Centers for Disease Control,
the complaint continues: "The Haitian cholera outbreak resulted
from the negligent, reckless, and tortious conduct of the
defendants: the United Nations ('UN'); its subsidiary, the United
Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti ('MINUSTAH'); and its
officers.  The United Nations disposed of cholera-infested human
wastes in open pits next to Haiti's Artibonite River, Haiti's
longest river and primary water source for tens of thousands of
Haitians to use for drinking water.  Proper disposal was discussed
by the UN, but it ignored its own findings and dumped the wastes
in a manner that was guaranteed to harm human beings.

"The cholera outbreak is directly attributable to the negligence,
gross negligence, recklessness and deliberate indifference for the
health and lives of Haiti's citizens by the United Nations ('UN')
and its subsidiary, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in
Haiti ('MINUSTAH').  Until MINUSTAH's actions incited the cholera
outbreak, Haiti had not reported a single case of cholera for over
150 years."

LaVenture et al. seek class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages, "including $2.2 billion that the Haitian
government requires to eradicate cholera."

Their lead counsel is Stanley Alpert, of New York City.

Co-counsel includes James Haggerty, of New York City; Tim Howard,
of Tallahassee, Fla.; and Richard Daynard, of Boston.


UNITED STATES: FISA Reverses Ruling on Destroying Records
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court reversed its
ruling that the National Security Agency must destroy telephone-
metadata records after five years, because the order conflicts
with a federal judge's decision to preserve such material for
discovery purposes.

Judge Reggie Walton, a federal judge in Washington who heads the
once-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, ruled
March 14, 2014, that "the government's contention that FISA's
minimization requirements are superseded by the common-law duty to
preserve evidence is simply unpersuasive."  He noted that a
federal judge had never entered a preservation order for the NSA's
metadata, and called the possibility of such an order "far-
fetched."

Just one business day later, however, the federal judge overseeing
Jewel v. NSA, a class action challenge to the NSA's Terrorist
Surveillance Program, followed up with a restraining order
preventing the destruction of metadata.

Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mark Rumold who represents
plaintiffs in Jewel, told Courthouse News March 11, 2014, that
"the FISC's order was premised on the fact that there was no
evidentiary preservation order already ordered.  That was a false
premise."

Rumold said the government has been under court order to preserve
evidence related to the civil litigation since 2006.

Walton granted the NSA temporary relief from his March 7 order on
March 12, 2014.

"These conflicting directives from federal courts put the
government in an untenable position and are likely to lead to
uncertainty and confusion among all concerned about the status of
BR metadata that was acquired more than five years ago," the new
order states.

Walton declined, however, to adopt the government's suggested
condition that would require plaintiffs to seek the approval of
the FISC before accessing any bulk records, or BR, metadata for
civil litigation purposes.

"It is appropriate for the district court, rather than the FISC,
to determine what BR metadata is relevant to that litigation,"
Walton wrote.


UNITED STATES: Opponents Want Proof Phone Records Are Preserved
---------------------------------------------------------------
By Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that opponents of the National Security Agency's telephone
surveillance program want reaffirmation of the agency's obligation
to preserve telephone metadata, after conflicting court orders
left the data's fate in limbo.

Judge Reggie Walton, a federal judge in Washington who heads the
once-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, ordered the
NSA on March 7, 2014, to destroy metadata records more than five
years old to protect citizens' privacy.  He noted that a federal
judge had never entered a preservation order for the NSA's
metadata, and called the possibility of such an order "far-
fetched."

Just one business day later, however, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey
White, the federal judge overseeing Jewel v. NSA and First
Unitarian v. NSA, two class action challenges to the NSA's
Terrorist Surveillance Program, followed up with a restraining
order preventing the destruction of metadata.

Walton granted the NSA temporary relief from his order March 11,
2014, pending further order from the district court.

First Unitarian plaintiffs said March 6, 2014, that they never
asked for an order preserving the NSA's telephone-records
collection because the parties in the related case, Jewel v. NSA,
already obtained one.

"Plaintiffs believed that it would be duplicative and unnecessary
to immediately seek an additional evidence preservation order in
First Unitarian," especially as the government has not yet
answered the complaint, attorney Cindy Cohn of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation wrote in the brief.

The government's arguments before the FISC, however, allegedly
reveal that it took a narrow view of its duty to preserve
evidence.

"The government's unduly limited interpretation of its
preservation duties in Jewel raises the very concerning specter
that the government has not sufficiently preserved telephone
records evidence, and possibly has failed to preserve evidence
going to other claims as well, contrary to this court's
preservation order," Cohn wrote.  "This is especially problematic
since the government has asserted, in support of its dismissal
motion, that plaintiffs lack sufficient evidence that their
specific communications records were collected."

The brief asks White to reaffirm the Jewel preservation order,
enter a preservation order in First Unitarian Church similar to
that in Jewel, and order the government to disclose whether it has
destroyed any evidence potentially relevant to the lawsuits.

Also March 6, 2014, a group of computer scientists represented by
EFF filed an amicus brief in the American Civil Liberties Union's
lawsuit over the NSA's mass data collection.

The brief, signed by 17 professors at America's top universities,
emphasized that the collection of metadata is a serious privacy
concern.

"The call records collected by the government are not just
metadata -- they are intimate portraits of the lives of millions
of Americans," according to the brief (emphasis in original).

The professors told the court: "The massive quantity of data the
government has collected provides a window into the thoughts,
beliefs, traits, habits, and associations of millions of
Americans.  The court should reject any contrary suggestion.

"Given the detailed portrait that can be drawn from metadata alone
-- and given the especially revealing nature of large quantities
of metadata -- the collection of this sensitive information
requires the highest protection of law and the Constitution."


UNITEK GLOBAL: June 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 19 announced the
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorney's Fees and Expenses and Final Approval Hearing involving
UniTek Global Services, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-02119-JHS

TO:      ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF UNITEK GLOBAL SERVICES, INC. BETWEEN
MAY 18, 2011 AND APRIL 12, 2013, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED
THEREBY.

Please read this Notice carefully.  Your rights will be affected
by the Settlement of a class action lawsuit pending in this Court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that the above-captioned
action has been certified as a class action for purposes of
settlement only and that a settlement for One Million Five Hundred
and Fifty Thousand Dollars($1,550,000) has been proposed.  A
hearing will be held before the Honorable Joel H. Slomsky in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797, Room 5614, at 2:30 p.m., on June 13,
2014 to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the
releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated January 16, 2014 should be granted; (3)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.   If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Final Approval Hearing and Proof
of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re UniTek
Global Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA
19063, (866) 274-4004.  Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim
can also be downloaded from the Claims Administrator's website,
www.strategicclaims.net .

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of
Claim postmarked no later than July 11, 2014.  If you are a Class
Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments
entered by the Court in this litigation.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and/or the
request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.  Any objections must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than May 23, 2014, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you are a Class Member,
you also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class.
Requests for exclusion must be submitted to the Claims
Administrator such that they are received no later than May 23,
2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of the
Notice and Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY  11747

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services,
at the address listed above.

By Order of the Court


WALLABY YOGURT: Class May Pursue Suit Over Evaporated Cane Juice
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick denied a motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint in the case styled, FRANK MORGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WALLABY YOGURT COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
13-cv-00296-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Frank Morgan and Janet Hood bring this putative class
action on behalf of either a nationwide class or a statewide class
of California consumers who, since January 22, 2009, purchased any
yogurt product produced by defendant Wallaby Yogurt Company, Inc.,
labeled with the ingredient "evaporated cane juice."  Wallaby
moves to dismiss because, among other reasons, there is nothing
illegal about the use of "evaporated cane juice" on yogurt
products and no reasonable consumer would be misled by that term.
Because the plaintiffs have asserted a plausible claim, the motion
to dismiss is denied and the plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive
relief is struck, the Court said.


                             *********

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  * * *