CAR_Public/140331.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 31, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 63

                             Headlines


29 PRIME INC: Illegally Calls Class w/o Prior Consent, Suit Says
ABILENE MOTOR: Removed "Gravestock" Suit to C.D. California
ALPHA RECOVERY: Faces "Grossman" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
ANAREN INC: Settles Suits Over Proposed Merger
BALLY'S PARK: NJ Employees Win Wage & Hour Class Action

BDK QUALITY: Violates FLSA & Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Suit Says
BP PLC: Lawyers Accused of Accessing Confidential Claims
BRIAN K. DITTO: Fails to Pay Overtime, Security Installer Claims
COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action in Ill. Over Deceptive Advertising
COCONUT JOE'S: Class Seeks to Recover Back Wages and Overtime Pay

COMERICA BANK: Sued for Illegally Calling Class Members' Phones
CONSTELLIUM N.V.: Says Unit Has Rights to Modify Retiree Benefits
DUKE ENERGY: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Improper Rebates
EXPEDIA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Bedford Park Suit
FIRST MERCURY: Wins Dismissal of Defender Security's Suit

FEDEX GROUND: Court Okays $5.8MM Revised Accord in "Scovil" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action in Calif.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action in Ala. Over Ignition Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Safety Regulators to Face Review Over Recall
GENERAL MOTORS: CEO Responds to Ignition Switch Recall Questions

GILLETTE COMPANY: May 22 Fairness Hearing in "Poertner" Suit
GOLDEN GATE: July 8 Fairness Hearing in "Gray" Suit Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Facebook Exec Rebuffs Plea for No-Poach Deal
GREEN TREE: Accused of Illegally Contacting Class in Pennsylvania
GREYSTONE ALLIANCE: "Hooker" Plaintiffs May File 3rd Amended Suit

HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Atty. Fees & Cost Awarded in "DeMira" Suit
IKEA: Recalls Millions of Canopies for Cribs & Children's Beds
IMS TRADING: Dog Treats Class Action Moved to NJ Federal Court
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action in N.J.
JEH JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in "Gayle" Class Action

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Overturns $1.2BB Risperdal Suit Judgment
KEY ENERGY: Removed "Grillo" Suit to C.D. California
LOS ANGELES, CA: "Youssefyeh" Suit Removed to C.D. California
MICHIGAN: Judge Strikes Down Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
NOVARTIS AG: Named as Defendant in Suit v. Bisphosphonate Makers

NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Faces Antitrust Actions & FTC Investigation
NOVARTIS AG: Faces Four Lawsuits for Excedrin Pricing
NU SKIN: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action in Utah
OLDFORD GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in "Sonnenberg" Case
ONTARIO, CANADA: Faces New Suit Over Foster Children Abuse

PARKERS FARM: Recalls Products Over Listeria Contamination
PENN CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PFIZER INC: Judge Tosses "Plumlee" Suit Over Zoloft Drug
RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Practices Act
SHARP DEAL: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims

STATE FARM: Removed "Winstead" Suit to Montana District Court
SUJA LIFE: Misrepresents Juice Products as "Raw", Consumer Says
SWIFT ENERGY: Faces "Petrovich" OPA Violations Suit in Louisiana
SYNNEX CORP: $12.3-Mil Settlement Increased 2013 Other Income
TACO BURRITO: District Court Terminates "Cisneros" Suit

UNITIL CORP: Lunenburg Suit On Hold Pending "Bellermann" Ruling
VIP CONCIERGE: "Cheek" Suit Dismissed After Settlement Approval
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 174,000 Dolls Over Burn Risk
WESTERN WATERPROOFING: Removed "Diggs" Suit to S.D. California
YAHOO! INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Suit Over Automatic Texts


                             *********


29 PRIME INC: Illegally Calls Class w/o Prior Consent, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shasta Marlowe and Gregory Chick, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 29 Prime, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00550-EDL (N.D. Cal., February 5,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs received numerous telephone
calls from or on behalf of the Defendant on their cellular
telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that they did not provide prior express
consent to receive pre-recorded telephone calls on their phones
from or on behalf of the Defendant.

29 Prime, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place
of business in Irvine, California.  29 Prime touts itself as "the
nation's leading company dedicated to providing online marketing
services and search engine optimization (SEO) to small and
midsize businesses through the United States and Canada."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com
                  mreiten@tmdwlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com


ABILENE MOTOR: Removed "Gravestock" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Larry Gravestock v. Abilene Motor
Express, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-02013-00694515, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for Orange County to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00170-JVS-RNB to
the proceeding.

The case arises from labor disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn C. Westrick, Esq.
          Karen L. Majovski, Esq.
          Timothy Patrick Hennessy, Esq.
          KAWAHITO SHRAGA & WESTRICK LLP
          1990 South Bundy Drive, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 746-5300
          Facsimile: (310) 593-2520
          E-mail: swestrick@kswlawyers.com
                  kmajovski@kswlawyers.com
                  thennessy@kswlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anna Kim, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          1127 South Victoria Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90019
          Telephone: (213) 344-6440
          E-mail: anna.kim@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          John L. Barber, Esq.
          Tracy Wei Costantino, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Tracy.Costantino@lewisbrisbois.com


ALPHA RECOVERY: Faces "Grossman" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zev Grossman, individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Alpha Recovery Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-00804-CBA-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


ANAREN INC: Settles Suits Over Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------
Anaren Inc., on January 28, 2014, entered into a proposed
Settlement Agreement relating to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, by and among the Company, ANVC Holding Corp., and ANVC
Merger Corp., according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January
28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Agreement and Plan of Merger, is dated as of November 4,
2013, by and among Anaren, Inc., ANVC Holding Corp., a Delaware
corporation, and ANVC Merger Corp., a New York corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of ANVC Holding Corp. The Merger
Agreement provides, subject to the terms and conditions thereof,
for the merger of ANVC Merger Corp. with and into the Company,
with the Company surviving the merger (the "Merger").

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement, filed by Anaren
on December 20, 2013, with respect to the special meeting of
Anaren shareholders scheduled to be held on February 6, 2014 in
connection with the Merger (the "Special Meeting"), two putative
class action lawsuits were filed by purported shareholders of
Anaren. Each lawsuit has been filed in New York State Supreme
Court, Onondaga County.

The first such suit was filed on November 20, 2013 under the
caption Joan Litwin v. Anaren, Inc., et al., Index No. 2013 EF
341 (referred to as the "First Action"). The complaint in the
First Action alleges, among other things, that the directors of
the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders, purportedly by agreeing to allegedly inadequate
merger consideration and to provisions in the Merger Agreement
purportedly precluding competing offers to acquire the Company.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an order of the court
preliminarily enjoining consummation of the Merger Agreement.

The second such suit was filed on December 5, 2013 under the
caption New World Investors v. Anaren, Inc., et al., Index No.
2013 EF 355 (referred to as the "Second Action"). The complaint
in the Second Action alleges, among other things, that the
preliminary proxy statement failed to disclose certain
purportedly material information. It also asserts that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders by causing the Company to enter into the
Merger Agreement following a purportedly unfair and inadequate
process for purportedly inadequate merger consideration. The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order of the court
preliminarily enjoining consummation of the Merger Agreement. The
First Action and the Second Action (together the "Action") have
been consolidated by stipulation of the parties.

On January 28, 2014, the Company and the other defendants in the
Action entered into a Settlement Agreement with the plaintiffs
(the "Settlement Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, without agreeing or admitting that any of
the claims in the Action have merit or that any supplemental
disclosure is required under any applicable statute, rule,
regulation or law, the Company agreed to make certain
supplemental and amended disclosures to the Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Supplemental Disclosures"). The Settlement
Agreement further provides, among other things, that (a) the
parties will submit the Settlement Agreement to the New York
State Supreme Court in Onondaga County (the "Court") for review
and approval; (b) the Action will be dismissed with prejudice;
(c) plaintiffs and a settlement class of Anaren shareholders will
release all claims that had been or could have been asserted
against the defendants arising out of or relating to the Merger
and Merger Agreement; and (d) the settlement is conditioned on
the approval of the Court.

There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the
Settlement Agreement.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be received
by the Company's shareholders in the Merger or the timing of the
Special Meeting.

The Company and the other defendants are entering into the
contemplated Settlement Agreement, without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to put the claims that
were or could have been asserted to rest.  Subject to Court
approval of the settlement, the Company will cause to be paid to
the plaintiffs' counsel any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded
by the Court in an amount not to exceed $850,000 in the
aggregate. The Company will bear the entirety of this payment.
Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K, the Settlement
Agreement or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an
admission to any allegations in the Action, or of the legal
necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
Supplemental Disclosures.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to make
the Supplemental Disclosures. Important information concerning
the proposed Merger is set forth in the Definitive Proxy
Statement. The Definitive Proxy Statement is amended and
supplemented by, and should be read as part of, and in
conjunction with, the information set forth in this Current
Report on Form 8-K. To the extent this information differs from
or updates information contained in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, this information is more current. Capitalized terms
used in this Current Report on Form 8-K but not otherwise defined
herein have the meanings ascribed to those terms in the
Definitive Proxy Statement.

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/qmtiRv

Anaren, Inc. is a provider of microelectronics, and microwave
components and assemblies for the wireless and space and defense
electronics markets. The Company operates in two segments:
Wireless Group and Space & Defense Group. The Company's Anaren
Integrated Radio (AIR) module product line provides low power RF
monitoring solutions deployable in a range of end market
applications. The Company's Wireless Group product includes
Passive Surface Mount Components, Resistive Products, Ceramic
Substrate Products and Anaren Integrated Radio (AIR) Modules. Its
Space & Defense Group product includes Radar Countermeasure
Subsystems, Beamformers, Switch Matrices, Radar Feed Networks,
Analog Hybrid Modules, Mixed Signal Printed Circuit Boards and
Low Temperature Co-fired Ceramic (LTCC) products. Effective
February 18, 2014, Veritas Capital Fund IV LP, a unit of Veritas
Capital Partners LP, acquired the entire share capital of Anaren
Inc.


BALLY'S PARK: NJ Employees Win Wage & Hour Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2014, Pogust Braslow & Millrood secured an important
victory for plaintiff's' attorneys handling wage and hour cases
or any kind of class action cases, announced Harris Pogust,
founding partner of the Philadelphia firm representing the
plaintiffs.

In Clark v. Bally's Park Place, Civil Action No. 10-6725 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, U.S.
District Judge Joseph Rodriguez certified, under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23, a class of employees who work at Bally's Casino in Atlantic
City as dealers in the Table Games Department.

As the March 12 Opinion summarizes, the 668 dealers allege that
Bally's Casino required them to attend pre-shift meetings (known
as "Buzz Sessions") but did not pay them for this time, in
violation of New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants' position, as stated by Judge Rodriguez, was that
attendance at the Buzz Sessions was not mandatory and that a
class action should not be certified because the plaintiffs'
individual circumstances were not sufficiently similar.

The arguments of Plaintiffs' counsel, led by partner Andrew J.
Sciolla, were persuasive, the Judge finding "that class
certification is a superior method of adjudicating the claims
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)."

"Significant obstacles to class certification were spawned by the
Supreme Court's opinion in Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426
(2013), an antitrust action where the damage calculations were
complex" said Mr. Pogust, "but we believe the ruling in the
Bally's case could help other cases in which the alleged damages
for each individual class member would be relatively small
compared to the cost of bringing a case and where employees may
fear termination or retaliation for lodging an individual claim."

The case will now proceed as a class action on behalf of all 668
dealers within the Table Games Department at Bally's Atlantic
City, Bally's Park Place, and the Showboat Atlantic City Hotel
and Casino.

                            About PBM

Pogust Braslow & Millrood is a plaintiff's law firm near
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, focusing on employment claims,
consumer class actions, malpractice and other forms of personal
injury.  They may be reached at 1-888-348-6787.


BDK QUALITY: Violates FLSA & Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. BDK Quality Services, Inc.
and Bernard R. Kummer, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00811 (N.D.
Ill., February 5, 2014) seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and
other similarly situated employees earned minimum wage, and
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

BDK Quality Services, Inc. is an Illinois corporation.  Bernard
R. Kummer is the President of BDK.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel E. Beederman, Esq.
          Seth Daniel Matus, Esq.
          SCHOENBERG, FISHER, NEWMAN & ROSENBERG, LTD.
          222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 648-2300
          Facsimile: (312) 648-1212
          E-mail: daniel.beederman@sfnr.com
                  seth.matus@sfnr.com


BP PLC: Lawyers Accused of Accessing Confidential Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that lawyers in the $9.2 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement are
accusing BP PLC of accessing confidential information about
individuals and businesses that have filed claims for oil spill
damages.

The dispute is the latest centered on the class action settlement
for economic damages associated with the 2010 spill.  BP, in
court filings and in the press, has asserted that the settlement
has been misinterpreted so that businesses with no spill damages
have been paid under the claims process.

BP has used confidential claimant information to publish details
of specific claims in advertisements in major newspapers and to
assist former FBI director Louis Freeh, who as special master,
has been investigating potential fraud in the claims process,
wrote co-lead class counsel Stephen Herman, a partner at Herman,
Herman & Katz in New Orleans, and James P. Roy, managing member
of Domengeaux Wright Roy & Edwards of Lafayette, La., in a Feb.
24 motion.

Under a provision of the settlement, they wrote, neither BP nor
class counsel are permitted to access confidential information
about claims being processed unless they are pursuing or
defending an administrative appeal.

"BP has, in various different ways, and armed with full and
unfettered access to confidential Claim-specific pre-
Determination information, repeatedly and continuously attempted
to exert its influence and control over the Settlement Program,
its Vendors, its staff, and the claims administration process,"
they wrote.  "In some of these communications, BP has walked the
line -- and in the case of Emeril's has clearly crossed the line
-- in maintaining the confidentiality of Claim-specific
information, as required by the Court's Confidentiality Orders,"
they wrote.

They referred to a BP ad that questioned the legitimacy of an
$8 million claim award to an unnamed celebrity chef, later
identified as Emeril Lagasse.

BP opposed the move in a March 18 court filing.

"Class Counsel's motion is baseless," wrote BP attorney Kevin
Downey -- kdowney@wc.com -- a partner at Washington's Williams &
Connolly.  He drew a distinction between "claims-related data,"
which is available, and "claim files," which must remain
confidential until the claims administrator has made a final
determination on whether to grant or deny payments.

"Class Counsel take the incredible position that the parties to a
multi-billion-dollar settlement agreement have no right to view
data regarding claims filed with the Program until the claims are
resolved," he wrote.


BRIAN K. DITTO: Fails to Pay Overtime, Security Installer Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Gordon, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated
v. Brian K. Ditto, LLC d/b/a Lone Star Security and Security
Wrks, LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-00070-JDL (E.D. Tex., February 5,
2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendants as a
security installer whose primary responsibility was to install
alarm systems in people's homes.  The Plaintiff contends that he
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid
overtime for doing so.

Brian K. Ditto, LLC, doing business as Lone Star Security, is a
Texas limited liability company.  Security Wrks, LLC is a Texas
limited liability company.  The Defendants are involved in the
business of installing residential burglar alarms for ADT and
Tyco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Meredith Matthews, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jamey Lee Voge, Esq.
          STUBER COOPER VOGE, PLLC
          2600 Network Blvd., Suite 305
          Frisco, TX 75034
          Telephone: (214) 472-2770
          Facsimile: (214) 472-2790
          E-mail: jvoge@scvlaw.net


COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action in Ill. Over Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Coca-Cola is being sued in federal
court over the advertising and labeling of its soft drinks.

The lawsuit was filed on March 18 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois after an Inverness, Ill., man
claimed Coca-Cola deceptively advertised and labeled its soft
drinks as natural and healthy when they actually contain
artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives.

Ronald Sowizrol claims the Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola
Refreshments U.S.A. Inc. violated federal and state laws by
fraudulently and negligently saying on its two-liter bottles and
other packages that its products have "no artificial flavors. no
preservatives added. since 1886."

"This statement, as well as the entire premise of the Pemberton
campaign, was false and misleading," the complaint states.  "In
fact, Coca-Cola contains phosphoric acid.  Phosphoric acid is
both an artificial flavoring and a chemical preservative."

Coca-Cola also falsely represented that Coca-Cola was still made
with the "original formula" devised by John Pemberton in 1886,
according to the suit.

"In fact, the composition of Coca-Cola has repeatedly changed
over time," the complaint stated.  "These changes have included,
among other things, an increase in the amount of unhealthy
ingredients like sugar and corn syrup and the addition of
artificial ingredients like phosphoric acid."

Coca-Cola knowingly and intentionally sold misbranded products to
consumers with the intent to deceive, according to the suit.  Mr.
Sowizrol claims he purchased Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Coke
and Sprite in 2-liter bottles, 20-ounce bottles and individual
and various packages of 12-ounce cans and that all containers of
Coca-Cola failed to state that any ingredients are used as
artificial flavoring or as a chemical preservative.  Had the
plaintiff known that Coca-Cola was misbranded, he would not have
purchased Coca-Cola products, according to the suit.

Mr. Sowizrol claims as a result of the defendants' unlawful
misrepresentations, he and millions of others in Illinois and
throughout the United States purchased Coca-Cola and were injured
as a result of the defendants' actions.  The defendants have
violated the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by misbranding
Coca-Cola products, according to the suit.  Mr. Sowizrol claims
Coca-Cola has been unjustly enriched by its unlawful and
deceptive actions.

Mr. Sowizrol is seeking for an order certifying the case as a
class action and for him and his counsel to represent the class;
for an order awarding damages, restitution or disgorgement to the
plaintiff and the class; for an order requiring the defendants to
immediately cease and desist from selling Coca-Cola in violation
of the law; and for punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment
interest.  He is being represented by Robert A. Clifford --
rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- and Shannon Marie McNulty --
SMM@CliffordLaw.com -- of Clifford Law Offices.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Milton I. Shadur.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number: 1:14-cv-01914


COCONUT JOE'S: Class Seeks to Recover Back Wages and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Stover, 81 Scotts Cove Drive, Edgewater, MD 21037; and
Robert Clay, 9016 Michael Way, Owings, MD 20736, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Coconut Joe's Bar
& Grill, Inc., 48 South River Road, Edgewater, MD 21037, Case No.
Case No. 1:14-cv-00357-RDB (D. Md., February 5, 2014) is brought
to recover unpaid back wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages,
treble damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Coconut Joe's Bar & Grill, Inc. is a Maryland corporation doing
business in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.  The Company's primary
business is serving food to customers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Rubin, Esq.
          RUBIN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, PC
          11 North Washington Street, Suite 520
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (301) 760-7914
          Facsimile: (301) 838-0322
          E-mail: jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Zijian Guan, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: Jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com


COMERICA BANK: Sued for Illegally Calling Class Members' Phones
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Berman, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. Comerica Bank, Case No. 3:14-cv-00280-BEN-WVG (S.D.
Cal., February 5, 2014) arises from the alleged illegal actions
of Comerica Bank in negligently and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff through telephone calls on his cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Comerica is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas,
Texas, with locations in Arizona, California, Florida and
Michigan, as well as several other states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          Kas Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 299-2091
          Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
          E-mail: doug@djcampion.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 338-6500
          Facsimile: (619) 234-3815
          E-mail: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com


CONSTELLIUM N.V.: Says Unit Has Rights to Modify Retiree Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellium N.V. asserted that its subsidiary -- Constellium
Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC -- had a legal and contractual
right to make the applicable modifications to its retiree health
benefits, according to the Company's Form F-1 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2014.

On February 20, 2013, five retirees of Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union filed a
class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products-
Ravenswood LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,
alleging that Ravenswood improperly modified retiree health
benefits. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Constellium
Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC was obligated to provide retirees
with health benefits throughout their retirement at no cost, and
that Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC improperly
capped, through changes that went into effect in January 2013,
the amount it would pay annually toward those benefits. In 2013,
the caps will result in additional costs of $5 per month for
approximately 1,800 retiree health plan participants. The parties
are currently engaged in discovery, which will end in January
2014 and dispositive motions are due in February 2014. The
Company believes  that these claims are unfounded, and that
Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC had a legal and
contractual right to make the applicable modifications.

Constellium N.V., formerly Constellium Holdco BV, is a
Netherlands-based company, which is engaged in the manufacture of
aluminum products and solutions. The Company is a supplier of
such sectors as: aerospace, automotive and packaging. Constellium
Holdco BV offers plates, sheet and coil, precision casting,
cockpit carriers for vehicles, vehicle safety components,
profiles, as well as tubes and bars, among others. Its main
customers include: Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Audi, BMW, Citroen,
Renault, Mercedes Benz, Jaguar and others. The Company is active
domestically and abroad, including North America, Europe and
Asia.


DUKE ENERGY: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Improper Rebates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Monk, writing for 9WCPO, reports that a federal judge in
Columbus has certified a class action lawsuit against Duke Energy
Corp. in a 2008 case that accused the utility of giving improper
rebates to its largest customers.  Plaintiff attorneys claim the
case could produce more than $1 billion in damages against Duke.
The utility maintains the lawsuit has no merit.

The case involves at least $73 million in rebates paid to 24 of
Duke's biggest customers between 2005 and 2008.  Plaintiff
attorneys claim the rebates were unlawful kickbacks to customers
who dropped their opposition to rate hikes.  That allowed Duke's
predecessor, Cinergy Corp., to secure regulatory approval for its
2004 "rate stabilization plan," which included rate increases for
residential and business customers.

Duke has defended the rebates as legitimate option contracts
designed to keep its largest customers loyal as Ohio welcomed new
energy providers to compete against Duke and other utilities.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Bedford Park Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXPEDIA, INC.
(WA), et al., Defendants, NO. 13 C 5633, (N.D. Ill.), the Village
of Bedford Park and several Illinois municipalities sued Expedia,
Inc. and several other Internet travel companies in state court
on behalf of a class. Defendants removed the case to federal
court on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d) & 1453.  Plaintiffs' claims arise from
defendants' rental of hotel rooms through their Internet portals
directly to consumers, for which plaintiffs claim defendants
should have remitted taxes to the municipalities.  Defendants
have now moved to dismiss seven of the ten claims in plaintiffs'
complaint for failure to state a claim.

In a March 13, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/ObVaOzfrom Leagle.com, District
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the defendants' motion,
dismissing Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 for failure to state a
claim.

Village of Bedford Park, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L.
Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and
Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K
Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard & Still.

City of Warrenville, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

City of Oakbrook Terrace, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas Justin Halleran,
Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law
Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard & Still.

Of Oak Lawn Village, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

Village of Orland Hills, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

City of Rockford, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson
& Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L.
Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and
Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K
Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard & Still.

Vlg of WillowbrookPlaintiff, represented by Michael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C.

Vlg of Willowbrook, Plaintiff, represented by Dominick L Lanzito,
Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC.

Vlg of WillowbrookPlaintiff, represented by Donald J. Storino,
Storino, Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm,
P.c., Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady,
Peterson Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

Village of Arlington Heights, Plaintiff, represented by Michael
Sean Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito,
Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino,
Storino, Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm,
P.c., Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady,
Peterson Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

Village of Burr Ridge, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

City of Des Plaines, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

Village of Lombard, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson
& Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L.
Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and
Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K
Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard & Still.

Village of Orland Park, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

Village of Tinley Park, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

Village of Schaumburg, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Donald J. Storino, Storino,
Ramello & Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c.,
Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson
Johnson and Murray, Randolph K. Herndon, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird, Ballard &
Still.

Expedia, Inc. (WA), Defendant, represented by Mark P. Rotatori,
Jones Day, Meghan Eileen Sweeney, Jones Day & Nicole C. Henning,
Jones Day.

Hotels.Com L.P., Defendant, represented by Mark P. Rotatori,
Jones Day, Meghan Eileen Sweeney, Jones Day & Nicole C. Henning,
Jones Day.

Hotwire, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark P. Rotatori, Jones
Day, Meghan Eileen Sweeney, Jones Day & Nicole C. Henning, Jones
Day.

Egencia, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark P. Rotatori, Jones
Day, Meghan Eileen Sweeney, Jones Day & Nicole C. Henning, Jones
Day.

Trip Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Brooke
Herrington, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jeffrey A Rossman,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP & Mark Jacob Altschul, McDermott,
Will & Emery LLP.

Orbitz LLC, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Brooke
Herrington, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jeffrey A Rossman,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP & Mark Jacob Altschul, McDermott,
Will & Emery LLP.

Internetwork Publishing Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jeffrey
A Rossman, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP & Mark Jacob Altschul,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP.

Priceline.com Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Albert Lee
Hogan, III, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH.

Travelweb, LLC, Defendant, represented by Albert Lee Hogan, III,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH.

Travelocity.com LP, Defendant, represented by Brian Stagner,
Kelly Hart & Hallmann, Brian S. Stagner, Kelly Hart & Hallman
Llp, Derek Lee Montgomery, Kelly Hart & Hallman Llp, Luke
DeGrand, DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C. & Tracey L. Wolfe, DeGrand &
Wolfe, P.C.

Site59.com LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian Stagner, Kelly
Hart & Hallmann, Brian S. Stagner, Kelly Hart & Hallman Llp,
Derek Lee Montgomery, Kelly Hart & Hallman Llp, Luke DeGrand,
DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C. & Tracey L. Wolfe, DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C.


FIRST MERCURY: Wins Dismissal of Defender Security's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sarah Evans Barker dismissed the case captioned
DEFENDER SECURITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. FIRST MERCURY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 1:13-CV-00245-SEB-DKL, (S.D. Ind.), in an
order issued March 14, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/X5TJzgfrom Leagle.com.

Defender's Complaint alleges that it is entitled to a defense and
indemnity from First Mercury in connection with a class action
lawsuit filed against it in the Central District of California by
lead plaintiff Kami Brown, alleging various violations of the
California Penal Code.

First Mercury sought dismissal of Defender's Complaint arguing
that the Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable cause of
action because the allegations contained in the Brown Complaint
do not fall within the insurance policy issued to Defender by
First Mercury.

Judge Evans concluded that Ms. Brown's claim is excluded under
the insurance policy and that First Mercury has no duty to defend
Defender in the California case.

DEFENDER SECURITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by Charles P.
Edwards -- charles.edwards@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP,
James J. Leonard II -- jim.leonard@btlaw.com -- BARNES THORNBURG
LLP & Kara Cleary -- kara.cleary@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG
LLP.

FIRST MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Gregg -- mrg@merlolaw.com -- MERLO KANOFSKY & GREGG
LTD & Rachel H. Krayer -- rhkg@merlolaw.com -- MERLO KANOFSKY &
GREGG LTD.


FEDEX GROUND: Court Okays $5.8MM Revised Accord in "Scovil" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge D. Brock Hornby approved a revised settlement
agreement in WAYNE SCOVIL, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, Defendant, NO.
1:10-CV-515-DBH, (D. Me.).   The Court also approved attorney
fees under both federal and state law and under both Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23 and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Drivers for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FXG) in Maine have
sued FXG.  They complain that FXG failed to pay them overtime and
made improper pay deductions under Maine law, and that it
committed overtime violations under federal law, namely, the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The Maine law claims are an opt-out
class action; the FLSA claim is an opt-in collective action.

After the parties initially proposed the settlement and the Court
conducted a preliminary hearing on it, class counsel unexpectedly
informed the Court "that the parties are not able to reach a
settlement at this time.  Plaintiffs will await the Court's
ruling on the pending [summary judgment] motions."

Next, FXG asked for a status conference, and the Court conducted
such a conference.

The settlement agreement was later revised.

A fairness hearing was held February 24, 2014.

According to the Court, although the parties have avoided putting
the total value of the settlement in their papers, simple
arithmetic reveals that after rounding it totals approximately
$5.8 million including attorney fees, and that was confirmed at
the fairness hearing.

A full-text copy of the March 14, 2014 Decision and Order may be
accessed for free at http://is.gd/nqXnl7from Leagle.com.

Judge Hornby said by April 4, 2014, the parties must prepare an
agreed-to final judgment for entry on the Court's docket. It
shall provide that, without affecting the finality of the
judgment in any way, the Maine District Court retains and
reserves jurisdiction over all matters relating to the
administration, consummation, enforcement and interpretation of
the Settlement Agreement including, but not limited to, any
allocation and distribution of the settlement proceeds to Class
Members. Class counsel must report to the Court and opposing
counsel by July 7, 2014, on the success of the distribution,
whether any funds remain and, if so, how much.

WAYNE SCOVIL, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE --
dff@fontainelaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD
L. LICHTEN -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN,
P.C., SARA SMOLIK -- ssmolik@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C. & SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN -- sliss@llrlaw.com --
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

CHRISTY PARSONS, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE,
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN &
LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. &
SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

KELLEY NYLUND, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C., SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. &
SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

CLARENCE MCMULLEN, JR, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F.
FONTAINE, LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN,
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C. & SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN,
P.C.

BRENT BAILEY, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C., SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. &
SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

HENRY SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C., SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. &
SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

DUANE HUMPHREY, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C., SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. &
SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

WILLIAM PREBLE, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C., SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. &
SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

JAMES A MAFFEI, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C. & SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

ANTHONY J ESPOSITO, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE,
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN &
LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. & SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

JAMES R CURTIS, JR, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE,
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN &
LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. & SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

CHAD STRATTON, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C. & SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

STEVEN NEGM, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C. & SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

PETER KARAJIN, Plaintiff, represented by HAROLD L. LICHTEN,
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

KEITH HALLETT, Plaintiff, represented by HAROLD L. LICHTEN,
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

BRIAN KIROUAC, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE & HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C.

MARK D ANDREWS, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE & HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C.

DONALD DELANEY, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE & HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C.

JOSEPH PHILBROOK, JR, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F.
FONTAINE, LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE & HAROLD L. LICHTEN,
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

JAMES ESTABROOKS, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE,
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE & HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN &
LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

CHERYL A SLIVINSKI, as Administrator of the Estate of Herbert
Harding, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW OFFICE
OF DONALD F. FONTAINE & HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C.

HENRY PERCY MAYNARD, JR, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F.
FONTAINE, LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE & HAROLD L. LICHTEN,
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD F. FONTAINE, LAW
OFFICE OF DONALD F. FONTAINE, HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-
RIORDAN, P.C., SARA SMOLIK, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. &
SHANNON E. LISS-RIORDAN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC, Defendant, represented by
CAROLINE H. COCHENOUR -- ccochenour@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN
PROCTOR, ERIC J. UHL -- euhl@laborlawyers.com -- FISHER &
PHILLIPS, LLP, JAMES P. ABELY -- jabely@goodwinproctor.com --
GOODWIN PROCTOR, JAMES C. REHNQUIST --
jrehnquist@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN PROCTOR & LAURA B.
NAJEMY-- lnajemy@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN PROCTOR.

MARK R VAILLANCOURT, Objector, Pro Se.

LANCE LAVOIE, Objector, Pro Se.

WAYNE SCOVIL, Objector, Pro Se.

BRENT BAILEY, Objector, Pro Se.

CLARENCE MCMULLEN, Objector, Pro Se.

JENNIFER DOWNING, Objector, Pro Se.

HENRY P MAYNARD, JR, Objector, Pro Se.

BOB BELL, Objector, Pro Se.

KELLEY NYLUND, Objector, Pro Se.

ANTHONY ESPOSITO, Objector, Pro Se.

CHARLES HAMEL, Objector, Pro Se.

MICHAEL BROWN, Objector, Pro Se.

BRIAN MARIS, Objector, Pro Se.


GENERAL MOTORS: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
As General Motors braces for bruising investigations by Congress
and federal regulators over its decade-long failure to correct
faulty ignitions switches on several of its major car brands, GM
now also faces a private class action filed by a group of GM
consumers from nine states seeking economic recovery on behalf of
a nationwide class for purchasing and/or leasing vehicles they
allege the company knew were defective.

The suit accuses the auto giant of fraudulently concealing
material facts regarding the scope and extent of problems with
its key system, which have been linked to at least 31 crashes and
13 fatalities nationally.  The company is in the midst of a
massive recall involving some 1.6 million vehicles carrying the
defective switches.

The suit, filed on March 24 in the U.S. District Court for
Northern California in San Francisco, contends that GM knew its
key system posed an "increase[ed] risk of injury or fatality" as
far back as 2001 but failed to take proper steps to correct the
defects, which could cause certain Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Saturn
cars to shut down without warning while being driven.   In
addition to rendering the cars' power steering and brakes
inoperable, the ignition failures caused the safety airbags to
stop functioning, putting drivers at extreme risk in a collision.
GM has publicly admitted that its keys could inadvertently slip
out of the "run" position with the car's engine on.

The action was brought by 13 GM customers who bought and leased
its cars in a number of states, including California, Arkansas,
Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas and Vermont.  More
plaintiffs are expected to join the suit, which covers a variety
of GM cars for model years ranging from 2003-2010.

The plaintiffs argue that GM was fully aware that the problems
extended beyond just the ignition switch mechanism that has been
the focus of the recall.  According to their complaint, the
company's engineering documents show that the defects also
included the placement of the switch in the steering column and a
lack of adequate protection from normal, incidental contact by
drivers.  "To fully remedy the problem and render the defective
vehicles safe and of economic value to their owners again,
additional design elements beyond a new ignition switch are
needed," the complaint states.

"The fact that GM has, to date, issued a partial recall knowing
the insufficiency underscores GM's ongoing fraudulent concealment
and misrepresentation of the nature and extent of the defects,"
the complaint continues.

Separate from ongoing personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits
against GM, the latest action is asking the court to compel the
company to undertake a full repair and overhaul of the affected
key systems so that all defective vehicles can have their value
restored.  Consumers are also seeking monetary compensation for
the diminished value of their cars.

"It is tremendously disappointing that General Motors, which was
bailed out by U.S. consumers during the financial crisis, has
been carrying on the most egregious and far-reaching cover-up in
automotive history because it didn't want to assume the costs of
fixing cars it knew to be dangerously defective," said
Adam Levitt, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs
group.  Mr. Levitt is a director of prominent litigation firm
Grant & Eisenhofer, where he heads the firm's Consumer Practice
group, and is currently leading its litigation on behalf of Ford
Motor customers seeking redress from Ford vehicles that were
subject to incidents of sudden, unintended acceleration.

According to the complaint, GM could have placed a simple
protective shield around its key system to keep it in place and
prevent it from disengaging, thereby disabling the cars.  "We
intend to show that despite the option of a straightforward fix,
GM chose to dismiss the solution because of the added costs
involved in undertaking a voluntary recall," Mr. Levitt said.

He noted the irony of GM's current advertising campaign,
encouraging drivers to "Find New Roads" in their personal
journeys.  "We hope GM's ad slogan also refers to the roads of
truth and corporate accountability, which this affair reveals
have been the roads less traveled by the company for a long
time."

In addition to Grant & Eisenhofer, plaintiffs are represented by
noted litigation firms Baron & Budd PC of Dallas and The Cooper
Firm of Marietta, Georgia.  Cooper's principal partner Lance
Cooper is recognized as the attorney who first uncovered GM's key
system problem, as well as the company's years-long effort to
hide it.

Other major firms comprising the litigation team include
Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Goza, P.C.; The DiCello Law
Firm; Conley Griggs Partin LLP ; Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC ;
Bucci Bailey & Javins L.C.; and Siprut P.C.

Among the lawyers participating in the action are Edward D.
"Chip" Robertson, Jr ., who served as Chief Justice of the
Missouri Supreme Court, along with Sharon L. Potter , a former
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia.

"We have an incredibly strong national trial team, supported by
several highly respected experts with extensive experience in
large-scale automotive cases," noted Mr. Levitt of Grant &
Eisenhofer.  "We also believe we're bringing a set of facts to
our complaint that are unique with respect to GM's conduct
regarding its defective key system and its subsequent cover-up."

The lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, covers owners
and lease-holders of the following GM vehicles -- dates indicate
model years:  Chevrolet Cobalt (2005-2010); Chevrolet HHR (2006-
07); Pontiac Solstice (2006-07); Pontiac G5 (2005-07); Saturn Ion
(2003-07); and Saturn Sky (2007).

Grant & Eisenhofer -- http://www.gelaw.com-- represents
plaintiffs in a wide range of complex financial litigation. G&E's
clients include institutional investors, whistleblowers and other
stakeholders in bankruptcy litigation, securities class actions,
derivative lawsuits, consumer class actions, antitrust suits, and
cases involving the False Claims Act.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action in Ala. Over Ignition Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a lawsuit filed on behalf of a woman who died last year pins
the blame on an ignition switch defect that was the subject of
General Motors Co.'s recent recalls.

Aubrey Williams, 32, was killed in a Dec. 4 accident after
visiting her child's school, said Jere Beasley --
jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com -- founding shareholder at Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Ala., who
filed the suit on March 24 in Lauderdale County, Ala., Circuit
Court.  She lost control of her 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt on an
Alabama highway, crossed into the opposing lane and collided into
an oncoming 18-wheeler, said Beasley, who represents Williams'
father, Steve Smith, the plaintiff.  Mr. Beasley blamed Williams'
death on the ignition switch's failure, which caused a complete
loss of power in the vehicle.

"The ignition defect caused the systems to shut down, which
include steering and brakes and the air bags, and she veered over
into the path of the 18-wheeler," Mr. Beasley said.  "She died
instantly."

Since February, GM has recalled more than 1.6 million vehicles
worldwide for defective ignition switches that might cause
engines to stall and prevent air bags from deploying in crashes.
The defects have been linked to at least a dozen deaths.

The 2006 Cobalt is one of the vehicles subject to the recall.
The suit, which asserts general negligence claims and products
liability under Alabama law, also names Delphi Automotive PLC and
two of its subsidiaries that made and sold parts to GM; Long-
Lewis Ford of the Shoals Inc., the dealership in Muscle Shoals,
Ala., that sold the used vehicle to Williams; and Champion
Chevrolet Inc., which performed maintenance on the vehicle about
one year before the accident.

GM spokesman Greg Martin declined to comment about specific
lawsuits.  "GM's first focus is on ensuring the safety and peace
of mind of our customers involved in the recall and fixing their
vehicles," he wrote in an emailed statement to The National Law
Journal.

GM already faces several class actions filed on behalf of
consumers.

On March 24, the latest class action, filed in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, claims GM's
recalls have failed to fix the problems.

"It is tremendously disappointing that General Motors, which was
bailed out by U.S. consumers during the financial crisis, has
been carrying on the most egregious and far-reaching cover-up in
automotive history because it didn't want to assume the costs of
fixing cars it knew to be dangerously defective," said plaintiffs
lawyer Adam Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- a director of
Wilmington, Del.'s Grant & Eisenhofer, in a prepared statement.

The class action claims that GM's recall is insufficient because
the entire key system should have been redesigned.

Mr. Levitt, who leads the firm's consumer practice out of
Chicago, has teamed up with several other attorneys, including
Lance Cooper of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Ga., whose discovery
in a case he filed on behalf of a woman who died in 2010 due to
an alleged ignition switch defect has been cited by attorneys to
show GM knew about the problems long before the recalls.  Mr.
Cooper's case settled last September.

On March 21, another class action was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and a federal
securities class action was filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased GM stock from Nov. 17, 2010, to March 10, 2014.


GENERAL MOTORS: Safety Regulators to Face Review Over Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bennett and Sharon Terlep, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx
on March 21 called for a review of whether safety regulators
acted quickly enough on complaints of potentially deadly defects
in certain General Motors Co. cars that were recalled years later
over ignition-switch problems.

The move comes ahead of congressional hearings scheduled to begin
April 1 at which the auto maker and National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration officials could face tough questions about
why neither responded more aggressively to complaints about the
cars and clues that faulty ignition systems were behind fatal
crashes in which air bags didn't deploy.

Mr. Foxx, in a memorandum to Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel
III, said he isn't aware of any evidence the NHTSA failed to act
properly given the data it had at the time.  Mr. Foxx said
earlier this month that NHTSA might have acted sooner if GM had
provided data in a more timely way.  The department is
investigating whether the auto maker complied with federal rules
requiring it to submit data on safety defects within five days.

On March 18, the auto maker was to turn over documents on the
troubled recall to NHTSA investigators.  A week later GM Chief
Executive Mary Barra was to appear before a congressional panel
also probing its actions, and two days after that GM must furnish
responses to the safety regulator's detailed questions about the
people involved and their handling of the matter.

Pressures on GM for information come in the early stages of an
internal investigation into who knew of the switch failures and
what executives did or didn't do.  Ms. Barra said the company's
inquiry could take several months.

The April 1 congressional hearing will put a spotlight on
Ms. Barra's handling of a major crisis just weeks into her tenure
as CEO.  The 33-year company veteran took over the No. 1 U.S.
auto maker in January.  Lawmakers and regulators are expected to
press Ms. Barra to explain how GM's recall process works, and who
was responsible for decisions on product safety, engineering and
recalls.

Auto-safety regulator NHTSA has made clear that it wants GM to
name those involved in analyzing and responding to complaints
that first appeared in 2004 as GM was preparing to launch the
switch with its 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt.

The switches can turn off unexpectedly while the vehicle is being
driven, shutting off power steering and air bags.  They have been
linked to 12 deaths in the U.S. in which air bags failed to
deploy.

The decision not to address the switch in 2004 came at a key time
for the auto maker.  The Cobalt and Saturn Ion, another small car
that used the same switch, were then heading to market to battle
Japanese compact cars.  The Cobalt was key to GM's attempt to
stop losing money and market share in compact cars in North
America.

GM has admitted that employees it hasn't named chose in part for
cost reasons not to redesign the Cobalt switch before its launch.
Investigators likely would ask Ms. Barra for a more detailed
explanation.

In 2005 and 2006, GM told dealers, in documents called "technical
service bulletins," that they should warn Cobalt owners not to
use heavy key chains.  This warning was reported by automotive
media at the time.  But GM didn't order a formal recall.

The process GM followed to determine whether a recall was
necessary is one that intentionally excluded the company's top
leaders.  Two former executives said senior leaders were shielded
from recall decisions to protect them from potential criminal
liability should the company face a lawsuit.  One executive
described the committee in charge of handling recalls as "a
fairly large, multifunctional group comprised of service,
engineering, manufacturing, purchasing, and a lot of legal
representation."

Jim Queen was GM's global engineering chief from 2005 until 2009.
His wife, Lori Queen, was the engineer in charge of developing
small vehicles including the Cobalt.  Mr. Queen, reached at his
home, said he doesn't recall ever hearing about the switch issue.

Mark LaNeve, who headed GM sales, service and marketing from 2004
to 2009, said he learned of recalls only after it was determined
elsewhere in the company to take action.

Ms. Barra has said "something went wrong" in GM's system, and
vowed to change it.  On March 18, she named Jeff Boyer, a 40-year
GM veteran, to fill the role of vice president of global vehicle
safety. Mr. Boyer will report directly to John Calabrese, GM's
vice president of vehicle engineering.  Mr. Calabrese was
appointed to his role in 2011 when an internal investigative team
was probing the faulty switch.

That team was led by GM engineering executive Jim Federico, who
oversaw all its compact vehicles, according to court documents
from a lawsuit involving a failure switch.  Court records from a
lawsuit deposition show that Mr. Federico served on the team for
about a year but it unknown if he reported the situation to his
superiors.  Mr. Federico couldn't be reached for comment.

When he left the team, his duties were passed to GM's current
director of product investigations Gay Kent.  GM settled the suit
before Mr. Federico could be deposed, according to plaintiff's
attorney Lance Cooper who handled the lawsuit.  Ms. Kent couldn't
be reached for comment.

"I have confidence in the vehicle engineering organization and I
have confidence in the entire product development organization,"
Ms. Barra said on March 18.  "We are doing an investigation and
we will go where the facts take us.  To speculate right now
doesn't serve any one well."

                           *     *     *

The Associated Press reports that Congress is increasingly
putting the pressure on General Motors and the government's auto
safety agency over a delayed recall of small cars.  On March 25,
Democratic Sens. Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Richard
Blumenthal of Connecticut proposed requiring automakers to make
information on accident deaths more accessible to consumers. Last
month, GM recalled 1.6 million small cars with a defective
ignition switch that is linked to at least 31 accidents 12
deaths.

On March 24, Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., wrote a letter asking the
acting head of the safety agency to explain why the cars weren't
investigated.

Two congressional committees are investigating the recall delay.
GM has acknowledged it took too long to notify owners of the
ignition switch problem.  The safety agency reviewed the cars
twice but declined to launch an investigation.


GENERAL MOTORS: CEO Responds to Ignition Switch Recall Questions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bennett, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
General Motors Co. Chief Executive Mary Barra on March 26
released five videos responding personally to questions about the
auto maker's ignition switch recall in a virtual dress rehearsal
for appearances before two congressional committees next week.

Ms. Barra answered such questions as where consumers can get
their cars fixed and whether the models covered in the recall are
safe to drive.

"The simple answer is yes" the cars are safe to drive, Ms. Barra
said of recalled Chevrolet, Saturn and other vehicles.  "GM
engineers have done extensive analysis to make sure if only you
have the key or only the key on a ring, the vehicle is safe to
drive.  In fact, when they presented this to me, the very first
question I asked is would you let your family, your spouse, your
children drive these vehicles in this condition and they said
yes."

The safe-to-drive question has grown in importance after two
Texas law firms asked federal courts to direct GM to issue a
"park it" warning to all drivers of Cobalts and other vehicles
covered in the recall.  Currently, the company is offering rental
cars to consumers concerned with their safety and who don't want
to drive their vehicles until the problem is fixed.  Repairs are
expected to start until after April 7.

The leader of the largest U.S. auto maker is scheduled to testify
on Tuesday and Wednesday before two congressional committees on
why it took nearly a decade to recall 1.6 million vehicles to
replace faulty ignition switches.  The switches can slip from the
"on" to the "accessory" position, cutting power to the steering,
brakes and air bags.  Twelve deaths have been tied to air bag
failures linked to the faulty switches.

Lawmakers leading the congressional probes have said they want to
know why it took GM nearly a decade after employees realized the
problems with the ignition switches to recall the vehicles, and
who in GM's hierarchy made key decisions.  They also are
questioning why the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration failed to spot the defects sooner.

Another question Ms. Barra could face is whether the auto maker
will use its bankruptcy stay to partially shield it from claims.
Bankruptcy law dictates GM isn't on the hook for product
liabilities occurring before July 2009 when it filed for Chapter
11 restructuring.  One Wall Street analyst now says it is likely
GM could set up a trust of between $2 billion and $3 billion pay
the old claim and the government fines.

"While we expect GM eventually to settle with plaintiff lawyers
and prosecutors for $2 billion and $3 billion, we think it is
highly unlikely that the GM bankruptcy case will be reopened,"
Barclays analyst Brian Johnson said in a research note.  He said,
"there is at least some possibility that GM could announce the
outlines of a settlement trust before the testimony -- which
would go a long way to mitigating the pressure from the
plaintiffs' bar."

Ms. Barra, who took over at GM in January, has struck a cautious
and conciliatory tone in her comments on the recall situation --
including her remarks in the videos.  She has apologized to
customers, and acknowledged that it took too long for GM to
recall the cars.

Ms. Barra will be under pressure to go into more detail than she
has to date about the company's decisions in an arena that
historically has been tough on CEOs.

In February 2010, Toyota Motor Corp. Chief Executive Akio Toyoda
was called to Capitol Hill to explain Toyota's handling of a
series of recalls related to incidents of sudden acceleration. He
got a grilling and angry lectures from lawmakers.  Toyota earlier
this month agreed to pay a $1.2 billion fine to settle federal
criminal charges that it committed fraud by trying to hide
vehicle defects from regulators.

In November 2008, the chief executives of the Detroit auto makers
flew to Capitol Hill looking to make the case for a government
bailout of GM and Chrysler Group LLC.

But lawmakers blasted them for arriving in corporate jets to
plead for taxpayer funded bailouts. GM and Chrysler executives
drove to Washington, D.C., in company cars for a subsequent
hearing.

"It is a kangaroo court and she has to be prepared with facts,"
said Jason Vines, who led Ford Motor Co.'s public relations team
when then CEO Jacques Nasser testified in 2000 regarding the
Ford-Firestone tire recall that led to the last major overhaul of
U.S. vehicle safety rules, the Tread Act.

Mr. Vines sat behind his boss during his testimony.  Ford
provided Mr. Nasser with a briefing book of dates and facts, Mr.
Vines said.  "This is not the SAT where guessing is encouraged,"
he said.

Separately, Nissan Motor Co. said on March 26 it is recalling
about 990,000 cars, sport-utility vehicles and minivans in the
U.S. because the front passenger air bags may not inflate in a
crash.  The recall affects Altima, Leaf, Pathfinder and Sentra
models from the 2013 and 2014 model years, and the NV200 Taxi van
and Infiniti JX35 SUV from 2013. Also covered is the Infiniti
QX50 SUV from 2014.

The company told the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that the vehicles' computer software may not
detect an adult in the passenger seat.  If that happens, the air
bags won't inflate.  Nissan will notify owners and dealers will
update the software free.  The recall is expected to start in
mid-April.

The auto maker said it first spotted the problem in February 2013
and issued a fix.  But the problem reappeared in June through
September as the auto maker monitored the issue.  NHTSA also
contacted Nissan with several complaints about the sensor.
Nissan continued to investigate until it determined that a safety
defect did exist leading to the recall notice.


GILLETTE COMPANY: May 22 Fairness Hearing in "Poertner" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory A. Presnell of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida is overseeing the class action and
the Settlement in the case styled, Joshua Poertner v. The
Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 6:12-
CV-00803-GAP-DAP. A similar lawsuit is pending in federal court
in California. That lawsuit is also being resolved by the
Settlement.

The lawsuits claim that the Defendants participated in misleading
and deceptive advertising and marketing of Duracell Ultra
Batteries.  The lawsuits further claim that their advertising
statements including the statements "Up to 30% Longer in Toys*
*vs. Ultra Digital" and "Our Longest Lasting," mislead consumers
into purchasing the Duracell Ultra Batteries.  The Defendants
deny all of the claims in the lawsuits and deny any wrongdoing.
The Defendants continue to stand by Duracell products and their
advertising.

The Settlement Class includes all Persons in the United States
(including U.S. territories and Puerto Rico) who purchased AA or
AAA Duracell brand Ultra Advanced and/or Ultra Power batteries at
Retail any time after June 2009. For Settlement purposes: (a)
Persons include any individual, corporation, trust, partnership,
limited liability company, or other legal entity; and (b) Retail
covers purchases of Duracell Ultra Batteries at any physical or
online retail store or outlet of any kind whatsoever, any
physical or online club membership wholesaler or warehouse club
store (such as Costco, Sam's Club, BJ's or FedMart), any direct
purchase arrangement utilizing a third party seller, or any other
purchase arrangement or purchase transaction whatsoever whereby
batteries are sold to an end user of batteries. The settlement
does not include purchases of Duracell CopperTop batteries or any
other Duracell batteries or products.

Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form will receive a $3-$12
payment. Payments will vary based on the number of packs of
batteries purchased and whether you have proof of purchase. In
addition, Defendants have agreed to stop packaging and displaying
Duracell Ultra Batteries in the United States using the
advertising statements at issue in these lawsuits. The Defendants
will also stop using these statements on their North America
website, www.duracell.com. In addition to Class Member benefits,
Defendants have also agreed to make a $6,000,000 payment in the
form of Duracell products (at retail value) that will be provided
over a five year period to certain charitable organizations,
including those that use consumer batteries and related products
on a regular basis.

Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form with proof of
purchase, such as a register receipt or documentation showing the
purchase and price paid for the batteries, may claim $3 per pack
of Duracell Ultra Batteries for up to four packs (a total of up
to $12). Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form without
proof of purchase may claim $3 per pack of Duracell Ultra
Batteries for up to two packs (a total of up to $6). Payments
will be made per household/address. Only one payment will be
provided to each household/address regardless of the number of
people living or located at that address.

Class Members who wish to file a claim must complete this form
online or by mail postmarked no later than April 10, 2014 in
order to be considered for benefits.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on May 22, 2014 to decide
whether to approve the Settlement. Settlement payments will be
paid if and when the Court grants approval to the Settlement and
any appeals are resolved.

The Court appointed E. Clayton Lowe of The Lowe Law Firm, LLC,
Dennis Pantazis and Joshua R. Gale of Wiggins, Childs, Quinn &
Pantazis, LLC, Peter A. Grammas of the Law Office of Peter A.
Grammas, and Robert C. Schubert and Noah M. Schubert of Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP to represent you and other Settlement Class
Members. Together, these lawyers are called Class Counsel. You
will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be
represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own
expense.

Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses of up to $5,680,000. They will also ask for a payment of
$1,500 to be paid to the Class Representative, Joshua Poertner.
The Court may award less than these amounts. All of these
amounts, as well as the costs associated with administering the
Settlement will be paid separately by the Defendants and will not
reduce the amount of benefits available to Settlement Class
Members.

Class Counsel may be reached at:

     E. Clayton Lowe, Esq.
     THE LOWE LAW FIRM, LLC
     301 19th Street North, Suite 525
     Birmingham, AL 35203

Defense Counsel may be reached at:

     Darren K. Cottriel, Esq.
     JONES DAY
     3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
     Irvine, CA 92612

The Claims Administrator is:

     KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS
     Poertner Claims Administrator
     PO Box 43224
     Providence, RI 02940-3224


GOLDEN GATE: July 8 Fairness Hearing in "Gray" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granted preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in LORI GRAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-00511, (N.D. Cal.).

The Settlement Class that is preliminarily certified consists of
all persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who have
visited or will visit park sites owned and/or maintained by the
Golden Gate National Recreational Area. For the purpose of class
certification, persons with mobility disabilities are those who
use wheelchairs, scooters, crutches, walkers, canes, or similar
devices to assist their navigation. For the purpose of class
certification, persons with vision disabilities are those who due
to a vision impairment use canes or service animals for
navigation and/or require large print, color contrast, or other
low vision accommodations. This Settlement Class replaces the
class certified in Gray I.

Existing certified Class Counsel in the Gray I litigation are
preliminarily approved as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class
and the named Plaintiffs in the Gray I and Gray II litigation are
preliminarily approved as class representatives for the
Settlement Class.

A Fairness Hearing will be held by the Court on July 8, 2014, at
9:30 a.m., in United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
California 94102, to consider and determine whether the proposed
settlement of the Litigation on the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement should be approved as fair, just,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class.

A copy of the March 13, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/7GEAqOfrom Leagle.com

Lori Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis --
lparadis@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights Advocates, Christine
Chuang -- cchuang@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights Advocates &
Stuart John Seaborn -- sseaborn@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights
Advocates.

Peter Mendoza, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis,
Disability Rights Advocates, Christine Chuang, Disability Rights
Advocates & Stuart John Seaborn, Disability Rights Advocates.

Ann Sieck, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis,
Disability Rights Advocates, Christine Chuang, Disability Rights
Advocates & Stuart John Seaborn, Disability Rights Advocates.

Marc Sutton, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis,
Disability Rights Advocates, Christine Chuang, Disability Rights
Advocates & Stuart John Seaborn, Disability Rights Advocates.

California Council of the Blind, Plaintiff, represented by
Laurence Wayne Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates, Christine
Chuang, Disability Rights Advocates & Stuart John Seaborn,
Disability Rights Advocates.

Golden Gate National Recreational Area, Defendant, represented by
Brian G Kennedy, USDJ - Civil Division & Jonathan Gordon Cooper,
Department of Justice.

National Park Service, Defendant, represented by Brian G Kennedy,
USDJ - Civil Division & Jonathan Gordon Cooper, Department of
Justice.


GOOGLE INC: Facebook Exec Rebuffs Plea for No-Poach Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Facebook
executive Sheryl Sandberg says she turned down entreaties to
enter a no-poach pact with Google similar to those at issue in a
massive class action targeting several of Silicon Valley's
largest tech companies.

Ms. Sandberg, who left Google Inc. in 2008 to become Facebook's
chief operating officer, said in a sworn statement that two
senior Google executives subsequently approached her with
concerns about Facebook's hiring of Google employees.  However,
she declined to limit recruitment or hiring of Google employees
and hasn't authorized any such agreement since, according to the
declaration.

Plaintiffs attorneys submitted Ms. Sandberg's declaration last
year on behalf of 60,000 skilled workers who accuse Google, Adobe
Systems Inc., Apple Inc. and Intel Corp. of conspiring not to
hire each other's employees as a way to illegally keep down
wages.  The document remained sealed until March 21, when it was
refiled publicly in response to a court order.

Google's overtures to Ms. Sandberg came from top executives,
including Jonathan Rosenberg, a former senior vice president of
product management, and Omid Kordestani, then Google's senior
vice president for sales, according to her statement.  Her lack
of interest may have spared Facebook from getting drawn into a
costly legal entanglement; Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. and Pixar
Animation Studios Inc. have already settled with plaintiffs for
$20 million.

Ms. Sandberg's declaration flies in the face of defense arguments
that nonsolicitation agreements were necessary components of
collaborations between tech companies, said plaintiffs attorney
Joseph Saveri, who heads the plaintiffs team along with Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

"It doesn't look like there's any collaboration at the time
between Google and Facebook," he said.  "And I think that's a
useful thing."

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California, who is presiding over the sweeping class action in
San Jose federal court, did not consider Ms. Sandberg's
declaration when she granted class certification in October,
though her order referenced escalating tensions between Google
and Facebook over recruiting.

Google's recruiting director discovered in March 2008 that
Facebook had been cold-calling Google engineers and proposed
contacting Ms. Sandberg to "ask her to put a stop" to the
recruiting effort and "to consider establishing a mutual 'Do Not
Call' agreement," according to records cited in Judge Koh's
order.  Later, after losing one of many employees to Facebook, a
Google executive sent an email asking, "Who should contact Sheryl
[Sandberg] (or [Facebook Founder] Mark [Zuckerberg]) to get a
cease-fire? We have to get a truce."

After Facebook rebuffed Google's overtures, the Mountain View
search giant raised employee salaries 10 percent and gave out
$1,000 cash bonuses -- a retention strategy known as the Big
Bang.
On March 27, Judge Koh is scheduled to hear arguments on a motion
for summary judgment filed by the defense.  She also will
consider two Daubert motions from the defense -- one of which
would exclude expert witness Edward Leamer, whose research found
plaintiffs were harmed by the defendants' alleged no-poach
agreements. Defense lawyers seek to exclude Mr. Leamer on the
grounds that he changed his threshold for statistical
significance midway through court proceedings, rendering his
findings meaningless.  Without
Mr. Leamer's findings, the defense argues, counsel for the
plaintiffs cannot prove their clients suffered damages as a
result of the defendants' actions.

Google's lawyers at Keker & Van Nest could not be reached Monday.

Ms. Sandberg -- who rocketed to national fame with her 2013 book,
"Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead" -- is represented by
a team from Cooley, including partners Michael Rhodes, John Dwyer
and Beatriz Mejia.  Though it's not clear yet whether Ms.
Sandberg will testify if the case goes to trial, her declaration
has added another big name to a legal drama already captivating
the Valley.
"Certainly Sheryl is a very important person in the tech
community, and I think in the professional community in general,"
said plaintiffs attorney Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser.  "So
what she says, people listen to."


GREEN TREE: Accused of Illegally Contacting Class in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Hartley-Culp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, and Federal
National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00200-JMM (M.D. Pa., February 5, 2014) is brought for damages,
injunctive relief, and other remedies, resulting from the alleged
illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Green Tree is a corporation incorporated and based in Florida.
Fannie Mae is a corporation headquartered in Washington, District
of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumer.com


GREYSTONE ALLIANCE: "Hooker" Plaintiffs May File 3rd Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In RODGER HOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GREYSTONE ALLIANCE, LLC, and TURNING
POINT CAPITAL, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-12369, (E.D. Mich.),
District Judge Terrence G. Berg issued an order on March 14,
2014, granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file third amended
complaint, and denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to
certify class.  A copy of the ruling may be accessed for free at
http://is.gd/j7PSZ2from Leagle.com.

Hooker seeks to bring a class action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act against Defendants Turning Point
Capital, Inc., and Greystone Alliance, LLC.  Plaintiff had
originally sued Defendant Turning Point Capital, Inc., on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, in a complaint
filed on May 29, 2013.  In June 2013, Plaintiff learned that
Turning Point merged with Greystone Alliance.  After this merger,
Plaintiff learned that Turning Point ceased to exist and
Greystone and Turning Point began operating under the name of
Greystone Alliance, LLC.

On or about August 7, 2013, in light of the merger between
Turning Point and Greystone, Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint, naming Greystone as the sole Defendant.  After the
first amended complaint was filed, Plaintiff discovered
additional information relative to the merger between Greystone
and Turning Point. Specifically, pursuant to a protective order
entered in this case, Greystone disclosed to Plaintiff a copy of
a Contribution Agreement between Turning Point and Greystone.
Greystone entered into the Contribution Agreement on June 8, 2013
with Turning Point, Progeny RMB ("Progeny"), John C. Manley Jr.,
and Robert P. Manley, both of whom are individuals and
shareholders of Progeny. Under the Contribution Agreement,
Progeny was the sole shareholder of Turning Point; and, John C.
Manley Jr., and Robert P. Manley were the sole shareholders of
Progeny. Turning Point contributed certain assets to Greystone,
in exchange for the ownership interest in Greystone issued to
Progeny and, in turn, Progeny's shareholders. The Contribution
Agreement contained mutual indemnification clauses, pursuant to
which Turning Point, Progeny, and Progeny's shareholders agreed
to defend and indemnify Greystone from all claims arising from or
relating to Turning Point's, Progeny's, and Progeny's
shareholders' conduct prior to the closing date of the
Contribution Agreement, while at the same time Greystone agreed
to defend and indemnify Turning Point, Progeny, and Progeny's
shareholders from all claims arising from or relating to
Greystone's conduct prior to the closing date of the Contribution
Agreement.

Based on this information, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint, seeking to add Turning Point,
Progeny, John C. Manley Jr., and Robert P. Manley as Defendants.
On December 31, 2013, Greystone filed a response in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion.  On January 8, 2014, after receiving
Greystone's response brief, Plaintiff withdrew his motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint.  Based on a review of
the Contribution Agreement between Greystone and Turning Point,
it now appears to Plaintiff that Turning Point could still be
liable for the alleged injury sustained by Plaintiff, and all
others similarly situated, and thus is an appropriate party to
the present matter.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a third amended complaint,
to amend his complaint to re-name Turning Point Capital as a
Defendant in this matter, in addition to Greystone.  The
allegations included in Plaintiff's proposed third amended
complaint: (i) clarify factual circumstances previously pleaded;
(ii) expound upon legal theories previously delineated; and (iii)
assert claims that arise from the same set of operative facts as
those previously set forth.

The Court said granting Plaintiff leave to amend to file a third
amended complaint is appropriate.  There is no undue delay, lack
of notice, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies or
undue prejudice to the Defendants, ruled Judge Berg.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's proposed third amended complaint is
accepted for filing and the Defendants are directed to file
responsive pleadings to the third amended complaint within the
time limits set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a), he said.

"As to Plaintiff's motion to certify class, since this motion is
premised upon the allegations set forth in the original
complaint, that motion is denied, without prejudice," concluded
Judge Berg. "Plaintiff is directed to re-file a new motion to
certify class, based upon the allegations contained in the third
amended complaint, which are materially different from the
allegations contained in the original complaint."

Rodger Hooker, Plaintiff, represented by Larry P. Smith --
lsmith@smithmarco.com -- SmithMarco, P.C., Patrick G. Gagniuk --
pgagniuk@hotmail.com -- Patrick G. Gagniuk, P.L.L.C. & David M.
Marco -- dmarco@smithmarco.com -- SmithMarco, P.C.

Greystone Alliance, LLC., Defendant, represented by Brendan H.
Little -- blittle@lippes.com -- Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman
LLP & Charity A. Olson -- colson@olsonlawpc.com -- Olson Law
Group.


HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Atty. Fees & Cost Awarded in "DeMira" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class counsel in ELSY GARCIA DE MIRA, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEARTLAND
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, LLC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-04092 LHK, (N.D. Cal.), moved for an
award of attorneys' fees in the sum of $436,050 and for costs in
the sum of $18,000 came. The Defendant did not oppose the Motion.

District Judge Lucy H. Koh, in an order entered March 13, 2014,
granted the Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the sum of $406,980
and costs in the sum of $18,000.

Judge Koh agrees with Class Counsel that an upward departure from
the 25% benchmark is warranted in light of: (1) the significant
risks of litigation; (2) the monetary and nonmonetary results
achieved for the class; (3) the fact that there is no reverter;
(4) the skill required in conduct this litigation properly; and
(5) the contingent nature of Class Counsel's fee arrangement.
However, Class Counsel's 30% request is at the high end of this
usual range, he added.

"The Court finds that an attorney's fee award that is 28% of the
common fund is appropriate," Judge Koh concluded.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/iQBV1Wfrom
Leagle.com.

Elsy Garcia DeMira, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Ira Spiro --
ira@spiromoore.com -- Spiro Law Corp., Denise Lissette Diaz --
denise@diaz-law.com --  Spiro Law Corp., Jennifer Lynn Connor --
jennifer@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro Law Corp., Justin F. Marquez -
- justin@spiromoore.com -- Spiro Law Corp. & Sahag Majarian, II -
- sahagii@aol.com -- Law Office of Sahag Majarian II.

HCR Manorcare, Defendant, represented by Arthur M. Eidelhoch --
aeidelhoch@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.

HCR Manorcare Medical Services of Florida, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Manor Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur M. Eidelhoch,
Littler Mendelson, P.C.

HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Galen Matthew
Lichtenstein -- glichtenstein@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C. & Shannon Marie Gibson -- sgibson@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP.


IKEA: Recalls Millions of Canopies for Cribs & Children's Beds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Niclas Rolander, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that furniture maker IKEA on March 20 recalled millions of
canopies for cribs and children's beds, saying it has identified
a potential risk of strangulation, as children have become
entangled.  The Swedish company has received 11 reports of
children who have become entangled, and advises all customers to
stop using canopies for small children and return them to IKEA
for a full refund.  A total of 2.7 million canopies have been
sold world-wide since the first version was launched in 1996,
IKEA spokeswoman Ylva Magnusson said.


IMS TRADING: Dog Treats Class Action Moved to NJ Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit -- which alleges breach of express warranty,
violations of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment
and products liability offenses -- claims IMS Trading Corp., aka
IMS Pet Industries, falsely assured consumers through its product
packaging that the treats were healthy.  The putative class and
subclass includes thousands of consumers who up to six years
before the filing of the lawsuit purchased IMS dog treats and
individuals whose dogs got sick or died as a result of the
allegedly unhealthy and dangerous treats.

The suit was originally filed in New Jersey state court in
mid-January, but has been removed to federal court because there
are more than 100 members in the proposed class, at least some of
them have different citizenship from IMS and the claims exceed $5
million, according to the March 20 notice of removal submitted by
IMS attorneys.

"This case is being properly removed to the [U.S.] district court
for the district of New Jersey . . . because defendant has
satisfied the procedural requirements for removal and said court
has subject matter jurisdiction over this action," the filing
said.

Lead plaintiff Marie Dopico, who owns several small dogs, claims
they almost died after she fed them Cadet duck jerky dog treats
she bought in October from a ShopRite grocery store in New
Jersey. She allegedly had to pay veterinary expenses and other
costs to treat the dogs and save their lives.

The proposed action, which also encompasses unnamed companies
involved in the manufacture and sale of the dog treats, claims
that other consumers in New Jersey and the U.S. suffered similar
damages as a result of defendants' conduct.

Packaging for IMS' dog treats allegedly says they contain no
artificial colors, additives, fillers or by-products, and that
they are "healthy and natural treats with only the finest
ingredients."  The company's website makes the same false
representations, according to court filings.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as recently as
November 2011, issued warnings that dogs can get sick after
eating treats containing duck jerky made in China, Ms. Dopico's
complaint said.  The agency has said that more than 3,600 dogs in
the U.S. have become ill after eating Chinese jerky treats.

IMS' website allegedly buried a reference to the FDA warnings in
its "frequently asked questions" section, and the accused
products' packaging didn't warn of any danger from feeding them
to dogs.  The suit accuses the company of hiding the warnings in
order to increase or maintain sales.

Ms. Dopico wants treble compensatory damages under the New Jersey
consumer fraud laws, according to court filings.  The suit also
seeks punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees, and
litigation expenses and costs.

In late January, a California federal judge denied certification
to nationwide classes of consumers who bought allegedly tainted
Chinese-manufactured chicken jerky dog treats from Globalinx Pet
LLC, ruling that various state laws governed their claims.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corp. have been accused
of selling contaminated Chinese dog treats, and Menu Foods Inc.,
Nestle Purina PetCare Co., Iams Co. and other pet food makers
were involved in a massive recall of contaminated dog and cat
food in 2007.

Ms. Dopico is represented by Michael J. Epstein of The Epstein
Law Firm PA and Bruce Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel
Rice LLP.

IMS is represented by Michael J. Marone -- MMARONE@MDMC-LAW.COM
-- of McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP.

The case is Marie Dopico et al. v. IMS Trading Corp. et al., case
number 3:14-cv-01724, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on March 25 disclosed that it has filed a
class action against InterCloud Systems, Inc. and certain stock
promoters on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between November 5, 2013 and March 17, 2014,
both dates inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages ICLD
shareholders suffered from the defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws.

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

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

According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period various
articles were published enthusiastically touting InterCloud's
stock.  The articles were written by, among others, John Mylant
and "Kingmaker," who purported to run a volatility trading group.
Mr. Mylant and Kingmaker's favorable InterCloud articles stated
that they had not been paid by InterCloud.  As a result of the
promotional articles, InterCloud's stock price rose from $2.55 on
November 14, 2013 to a peak of $18.13 on January 15, 2014, two
days after a glowing article written by "Kingmaker."  On
December 13, 2013, InterCloud sold debentures with a face value
of $11,625,000.

The complaint further alleges that on March 13, 2014, an article
on Seeking Alpha disclosed that John Mylant was a paid promoter
who worked closely with the companies that employed him to
publish favorable articles while falsely stating that he was
independent of the companies he promoted.  And on March 17, after
trading hours, journalist Roddy Boyd asserted that notorious
stock promotion firm, the DreamTeam Group, works with authors
like
Mr. Mylant to create misleading press campaigns touting the
companies that hire it, and had been employed to tout
InterCloud's stock price.

The suit claims that as a result of this adverse information, on
March 13 and 18, InterCloud's stock price fell, damaging
investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
May 26, 2014.  If you wish to join the litigation or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

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


JEH JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in "Gayle" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In GARFIELD O. GAYLE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. JEH JOHNSON,1 et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2806 (FLW), (D. N.J.), putative
class representatives Garfield O. Gayle, Neville Sukhu, and
Sheldon Francois filed on August 5, 2013, their third amended
class-action complaint (TAC) against various federal and state
government defendants, alleging violations of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act (INA) and the due process clause of the United
States Constitution.  Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that they
and other similarly situated individuals in the District of New
Jersey have been subjected to unauthorized and/or
unconstitutional mandatory immigration detention -- i.e.,
detention without any bond hearing to determine their
dangerousness or risk of flight -- under 8 U.S.C. Section
1226(c), by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (DHS/ICE).

Plaintiffs have filed several amended pleadings raising both
individual habeas claims on behalf of Named Plaintiffs, and
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a
putative class of aliens similarly situated to Plaintiffs.  Named
Plaintiffs' individual claims for a bond hearing are moot.  The
only claims in the TAC currently pending and subject to the
Government's most recent motion to dismiss are the class-claims
in the first cause of action for violation of the due process
clause of the Fifth Amendment and the second cause of action for
violation of the INA.

In a March 14, 2014 Opinion entered by District Judge Freda L.
Wolfson, a copy of which may be accessed for free at
http://is.gd/ypqWsrfrom Leagle.com, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the Government's motion to dismiss.
Specifically, the Government's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief in Counts One and
Two of the TAC was granted to the extent that Plaintiffs are
seeking to mandate a Joseph hearing -- the hearing provided to
aliens challenging whether they are "properly included" in the
mandatory detention statute -- for any mandatorily detained alien
under Section 1226(c) who has a "substantial challenge" to his or
her removal based upon discretionary relief only. For that
reason, Plaintiff Francois is dismissed for lack of standing. The
Government's motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Gayle's
and Sukhu's challenges to the constitutional and statutory
adequacy of the Joseph hearing and its related procedures.

NEVILLE SUKHU, Petitioner, represented by BENJAMIN YASTER --
BYaster@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC & LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG --
LLustberg@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC.

BRIAN ELWOOD, in his/her official capacity as Warden, Respondent,
represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY,
GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J.
STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent, represented by
GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J.
STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

SCOTT A. WEBER, Respondent, represented by GISELA A. WESTWATER,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JOHN T. MORTON, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, CRAIG WILLIAM KUHN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ERIC HOLDER, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JUAN OSUNA, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JOHN TSOUKARIS, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

CHRISTOPHER SHANAHAN, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.

RAY SIMONSE, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ROBERT BIGGOTT, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JOSEPH TRABUCCO, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.

Warden ROY L. HENDRICKS, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.

OSCAR AVILES, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

NEVILLE SUKHU, Petitioner, represented by BENJAMIN YASTER,
GIBBONS PC & LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG, GIBBONS, PC.

BRIAN ELWOOD, in his/her official capacity as Warden, Respondent,
represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY,
GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J.
STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent, represented by
GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J.
STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

SCOTT A. WEBER, Respondent, represented by GISELA A. WESTWATER,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JOHN T. MORTON, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, CRAIG WILLIAM KUHN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ERIC HOLDER, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JUAN OSUNA, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JOHN TSOUKARIS, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

CHRISTOPHER SHANAHAN, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.

RAY SIMONSE, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ROBERT BIGGOTT, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

JOSEPH TRABUCCO, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.

Warden ROY L. HENDRICKS, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.

OSCAR AVILES, Respondent, represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, GISELA A. WESTWATER, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Overturns $1.2BB Risperdal Suit Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Arkansas Supreme Court on
March 20 overturned a $1.2 billion judgment against Johnson &
Johnson in a lawsuit challenging the drug maker's marketing of
the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

The court ruled that the state improperly sued under a law that
applies to health-care facilities, not pharmaceutical companies.
The ruling comes in an appeal of lawsuit filed by Arkansas
against the drugmaker and subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The
state says the companies didn't properly communicate the drug's
risks and marketed it for off-label use, calling the practices
fraudulent.

Johnson & Johnson said there was no fraud and Arkansas's Medicaid
program wasn't harmed.

Risperdal and similar antipsychotic drugs have been linked to
increased risk of strokes and death in elderly patients, along
with seizures, weight gain and diabetes.  Risperdal was
introduced in 1994 as a "second-generation" antipsychotic drug,
and it earned Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars in sales
before generic versions became available. The drug is used to
treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and irritability in autism
patients.

Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel sued the companies in
2007, arguing that they downplayed and concealed risks of the
drugs and lied to doctors for years about its side effects. The
case is among numerous lawsuits making similar claims.

Mr. McDaniel said on March 20 that he still believes the
Legislature intended the Medicaid fraud law to be applied as he
used it in the Risperdal lawsuit.

"I am disappointed that the Court viewed the law differently.
Nevertheless, I will keep working to protect consumers against
fraud and the kinds of irresponsible and greedy actions shown by
Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals in their marketing
of the drug Risperdal," McDaniel said in a statement released by
his office.

Mr. McDaniel didn't say whether he would continue to pursue a
legal challenge against Johnson & Johnson.

An Arkansas jury found the New Jersey-based companies liable in
2012.  Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox then ordered the
companies to pay $5,000 for each of the 240,000 Risperdal
prescriptions for which Arkansas' Medicaid program paid during a
3 1/2-year span.

The lawsuit accused the companies of deceptive trade practices
and Medicaid fraud and sought repayment for millions paid out by
the state's Medicaid program for unnecessary prescriptions. The
original lawsuit identified more than 597,000 prescriptions over
a 13-year period, but that number was whittled down after
challenges from the drug companies during pretrial proceedings.

Judge Fox also fined the companies $2,500 for each of the more
than 4,500 letters that Janssen sent to Arkansas doctors that the
state said downplayed Risperdal's side effects.  That totaled
about $11 million.

After the state won the judgment, among the largest in state
history, attorneys general in 35 other states joined Mr. McDaniel
in asking Arkansas's highest court to uphold the ruling.

During oral arguments before the state Supreme Court in February,
the companies' attorney argued that there was no fraud or
improper reimbursements for Medicaid patients who were prescribed
the drug.

In a separate action brought by the U.S. Department of Justice,
Johnson & Johnson agreed in November to pay more than $2.2
billion to federal and state governments and in penalties to
resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company promoted
powerful psychiatric drugs, including Risperdal, for unapproved
uses in children, seniors and disabled patients.  The agreement
was the third-largest settlement with a drug maker in U.S.
history.

Johnson & Johnson and Janssen also are awaiting a ruling by the
South Carolina Supreme Court, where the companies have an appeal
pending of a $327 million judgment in a similar case.  A $330
million verdict against both companies in Louisiana was
overturned in January.


KEY ENERGY: Removed "Grillo" Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Paul Grillo v. Key Energy Services LLC, et
al., Case No. 1438943, has been removed from the Superior Court
of California for the County of Santa Barbara to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00881-ABC-AGR to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges labor law violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
                  mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Santos V. Gomez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          2901 Park Avenue, Suite B16
          Soquel, CA 95073
          Telephone: (831) 471-8780
          Facsimile: (831) 471-8774
          E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          Maria D. O'Leary, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 399-7001
          E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                  moleary@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Mills, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jmills@morganlewis.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: "Youssefyeh" Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Liza Youssefyeh v. The City of
Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC524979, was removed from the
Superior Court State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00883-SJO-MRW to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Christopher Buhrow, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          14646 North Kierland Boulevard, Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON APC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Caleb L. H. Marker, Esq.
          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          RIDOUT LYON AND OTTOSON LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 216-7380
          Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
          E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com
                  c.ridout@rlollp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gerald M. Sato, Esq.
          Ronald S. Whitaker, Esq.
          LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          City Hall East
          200 North Main Street, Room 916
          Los Angeles, CA 90012-4131
          Telephone: (213) 473-6875
          Facsimile: (213) 473-6818
          E-mail: gerald.sato@lacity.org


MICHIGAN: Judge Strikes Down Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
-----------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that a federal
judge in Michigan on March 21 struck down the state's ban on same
sex marriage.  U.S. District Senior Judge Bernard Friedman,
echoing recent decisions by federal judges in Texas, Virginia,
Oklahoma and Utah, found the ban violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A same-sex couple challenged a state constitutional amendment
approved by voters in 2004 banning same sex marriages.  The
couple brought the case because, without the ability to legally
marry, they could not jointly adopt their children under Michigan
law, according to court filings.

Judge Friedman said his decision "affirms the enduring principle
that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most
recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail."

"No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the
personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure
that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children
and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex
couples," the judge wrote.

Judge Friedman is the fifth federal judge since December to
strike down a state ban on same sex marriages, following similar
decisions in Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma and Texas.  A federal judge
in Kentucky ruled in February that the state's ban on recognizing
out of-state same sex marriages was unconstitutional, although
that decision was recently stayed.

The Michigan attorney general's office immediately appealed
Friedman's decision to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

On April 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit will
review a trial judge's decision striking Utah's ban on same-sex
marriage.  The court a week later will review another judge's
ruling that voided Oklahoma's prohibition.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will hear oral argument on May 13
over whether to uphold a ruling that declared Virginia's ban on
gay marriage unconstitutional.

The Texas attorney general's office appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but there are no arguments
scheduled.

Unlike other judges, Friedman did not appear to stay his ruling
while the state appeals.  The Sixth Circuit could decide to put
the case on hold while it hears the appeal.  Judge Friedman was
appointed to the court in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan.  He
served as chief judge from 2004 to 2009, when he took senior
status.

A lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Ann Arbor, Mich., solo
practitioner Carole Stanyar, was not immediately available for
comment.  Other lead plaintiffs lawyers included Kenneth Mogill
of Mogill, Posner & Cohen in Lake Orion, Mich., Dana Nessel of
Nessel and Kessel Law in Detroit, and Robert Sedler, a professor
at Wayne State University Law School.

A spokesperson for the Michigan attorney general's office could
not immediately be reached.

Same sex marriage supporters praised the decision.  "The momentum
toward LGBT equality is accelerating as yet another federal court
finds that denying same-sex couples the fairness and dignity of
marriage is unconstitutional," Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan
executive director, said in a statement.  The ACLU of Michigan
was part of an amicus brief filed by groups supporting the
plaintiffs.


NOVARTIS AG: Named as Defendant in Suit v. Bisphosphonate Makers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG disclosed in its Form S-1 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2014, that
there are three Canadian putative class actions brought against
numerous bisphosphonate manufacturers including NPC, Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. and Novartis International AG in
Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. All cases are being vigorously
defended.

Novartis AG provides healthcare solutions. The Company is a
multinational group of companies specializing in the research,
development, manufacturing and marketing of a range of healthcare
products led by pharmaceuticals. Its portfolio includes
medicines, eye care, cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals,
preventive vaccines and diagnostic tools, over-the-counter and
animal health products. It has five segments: Pharmaceuticals,
which include patent-protected prescription medicines; Alcon,
which include surgical, ophthalmic pharmaceutical and vision care
products; Sandoz, which include generic pharmaceuticals; vaccines
and diagnostics, which include human vaccines and blood-testing
diagnostics, and consumer health, which include over-the-counter
medicines (OTC) and Animal Health. In February 2014, it acquired
CoStim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Faces Antitrust Actions & FTC Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG's Sandoz Division faces 13 class action complaints
asserting among others things, violations of federal and state
antitrust laws relating to the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its
generic equivalents, according to the Company's Form S-1 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2014.

Since July 22, 2013, 13 class action complaints have been filed
against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its
generic equivalents, including Sandoz Inc. The cases are
currently pending in the USDC for the EDPA, the DMA and the
District of Arizona. The plaintiffs purport to represent direct
and indirect purchasers of Solodyn(R) branded products and assert
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, including
allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis
with each of the other defendants, including Sandoz Inc., of
patent litigation relating to generic Solodyn(R). Plaintiffs
seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and
equitable relief. The conduct challenged in these cases is also
the subject of a pending investigation by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) in which Sandoz Inc. has cooperated in providing
documents and other information in response to a CID. Sandoz
intends to vigorously defend this litigation.

Novartis AG provides healthcare solutions. The Company is a
multinational group of companies specializing in the research,
development, manufacturing and marketing of a range of healthcare
products led by pharmaceuticals. Its portfolio includes
medicines, eye care, cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals,
preventive vaccines and diagnostic tools, over-the-counter and
animal health products. It has five segments: Pharmaceuticals,
which include patent-protected prescription medicines; Alcon,
which include surgical, ophthalmic pharmaceutical and vision care
products; Sandoz, which include generic pharmaceuticals; vaccines
and diagnostics, which include human vaccines and blood-testing
diagnostics, and consumer health, which include over-the-counter
medicines (OTC) and Animal Health. In February 2014, it acquired
CoStim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


NOVARTIS AG: Faces Four Lawsuits for Excedrin Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG disclosed that four putative class actions were
brought in December 2013 and January 2014, claiming that it was a
deceptive practice to sell Excedrin Migraine at a higher price
than Excedrin Extra Strength, according to the Company's Form S-1
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January
29, 2014.

Novartis companies have been the subject of various consumer
lawsuits that are brought as proposed class actions but in which
class certification has not been decided. For example, four
putative class actions were brought in December 2013 and January
2014 against Novartis and its consumer health unit, in California
Superior Court, in the USDC for the DNJ, in the USDC for the
Eastern District of New York and in the USDC for the Northern
District of California, generally claiming that it was a
deceptive practice to sell Excedrin Migraine at a higher price
than Excedrin Extra Strength when the two have the same active
ingredients, even though the products have different labels and
clearly disclose their active ingredients. Between November 2012
and December 2013, four putative consumer fraud class action
litigations were commenced in the Southern District of Illinois,
the Eastern District of Missouri and the Southern District of
Florida claiming that Alcon (and in two cases Sandoz) and many
other manufacturers defendants' eye drop products were
deceptively designed so that the drop dosage is more than
necessary to be absorbed in the eye or there is too much solution
in each bottle for the course of the treatment, leading to
wastage and higher costs to patient consumers. These cases are
being vigorously defended, both on the merits and with respect to
class certification.

Novartis AG provides healthcare solutions. The Company is a
multinational group of companies specializing in the research,
development, manufacturing and marketing of a range of healthcare
products led by pharmaceuticals. Its portfolio includes
medicines, eye care, cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals,
preventive vaccines and diagnostic tools, over-the-counter and
animal health products. It has five segments: Pharmaceuticals,
which include patent-protected prescription medicines; Alcon,
which include surgical, ophthalmic pharmaceutical and vision care
products; Sandoz, which include generic pharmaceuticals; vaccines
and diagnostics, which include human vaccines and blood-testing
diagnostics, and consumer health, which include over-the-counter
medicines (OTC) and Animal Health. In February 2014, it acquired
CoStim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


NU SKIN: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action in Utah
----------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on March 24 filed a class action lawsuit on
March 24, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who,
between October 25, 2011 and January 16, 2014, inclusive,
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Nu Skin
Enterprises, Inc.

If you purchased or acquired Nu Skin securities during the Class
Period as defined above, you are a member of the "Class" and may
be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah no later than March 24, 2014.  A lead plaintiff
is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the
Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in
that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain counsel
of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-
0709, or via email at ravan@labaton.com

If you are a member of the Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

Nu Skin, founded in 1984, develops and markets skin products and
nutritional supplements through a global network of distributors.
As a direct sales company, Nu Skin sells its products at a
wholesale price to its distributors, who may then retain any
sales margin that they receive upon reselling the products.  Nu
Skin operates in more than 50 countries, including China, which
has been among the Company's fastest growing regions.  Like many
jurisdictions, China prohibits the operation of "pyramid
schemes," or operations that present themselves as direct selling
networks but offer members no substantive business opportunities
other than recruiting new distributors.

The complaint charges Nu Skin and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that, during
the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements
and concealed material information about Nu Skin's business,
operational, and compliance policies, specifically that: (1) the
Company's operations in China involved pyramid selling schemes in
violation of Chinese law and regulations; and (2) as a result,
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

The market slowly learned of Nu Skin's improper practices in
China through several disclosures.  First, on August 7, 2012,
Citron Research published a report claiming that Nu Skin's
operations in China were a pyramid scheme based on multi-level
marketing, a sales strategy prohibited in China.  Then, on
February 14, 2013, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission published
more than 200 pages of documents pursuant to a request under the
Freedom of Information Act for consumer complaints regarding Nu
Skin from the previous five years.  Nearly a year later, the
truth was more fully revealed when, on January 15, 2014, a
leading Chinese newspaper reported that the Company operates an
illegal pyramid scheme in China.  A day later, China's State
Administration of Industry and Commerce announced that it was
investigating Nu Skin, and the Company disclosed that it was
under investigation. Finally, on January 17, 2014, a second
Chinese agency, the Ministry of Commerce, reported that it would
probe the Company.  In reaction to each of these disclosures, Nu
Skin's stock price fell precipitously.

The plaintiff is represented by Labaton Sucharow LLP --
http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest
pension funds in the United States and internationally with
collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
With nearly 60 full-time attorneys, the Firm's litigation
reputation is built on its in-house team of investigators,
financial analysts, and forensic accountants.  Offices are
located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.


OLDFORD GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in "Sonnenberg" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
KELLY SONNENBERG, Plaintiff, v. OLDFORD GROUP, LTD., and RATIONAL
ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, LTD., Defendants, NO. 13-0344-DRH,
(S.D. Ill.), alleges that defendants knowingly and intentionally
accepted gambling losses through an illegal gambling enterprise
known as "PokerStars" in violation of 720 ILCS 5/28-8.
Sonnenberg's First Amended complaint contains eight counts for
violations of the 720 ILCS 5/28-1 and 720 ILCS 5/28-8 against
each of the named defendants. This action purports to be a class
action for "hundreds of thousands -- possibly millions -- of
Illinois poker players who lost money to PokerStars and whose
close relatives are entitled to tripled recovery of said losses
in accordance with 720 ILCS 5/28-8."

Rational Entertainment Enterprises, Ltd., has filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint.

In a Memorandum and Order dated March 14, 2014, Chief District
Judge David R. Herndon granted in part REEL's motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed without prejudice Count V of the First
Amended Complaint against REEL.  The Court denied as moot the
motions for oral argument.  The Court allowed Sonnenberg up to
and including April 12, 2014 to file an amended complaint that
comports with the Memorandum and Order, the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.

A copy of the March 14, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/e9IHy9from Leagle.com

Kelly Sonnenberg, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Lloyd M. Cueto, Esq.
   Christopher F. Cueto, Esq.
   Michael J. Gras, Esq.
   LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER CUETO, LTD
   7110 W Main St
   Belleville, IL 62223
   Telephone: (618)277-1554

Oldford Group, LTD, Defendant, represented by A. Jeff Ifrah --
jeff@ifrahlaw.com -- Ifrah PLLC, David B. Deitch --
ddeitch@ifrahlaw.com -- Ifrah PLLC, Laura E. Craft-Schrick  --
lschrick@mmrltd.com -- Mathis, Marifian & Richter,Ltd., Rachel
Hirsch -- rhirsch@ifrahlaw.com -- Ifrah PLLC & William J. Niehoff
-- wniehoff@mmrltd.com -- Mathis, Marifian & Richter,Ltd..

Rational Entertainment Enterprises, LTD, Defendant, represented
by William J. Niehoff, Mathis, Marifian & Richter,Ltd., A. Jeff
Ifrah, Ifrah PLLC, David B. Deitch, Ifrah PLLC, Laura E. Craft-
Schrick, Mathis, Marifian & Richter, Ltd. & Rachel Hirsch, Ifrah
PLLC.


ONTARIO, CANADA: Faces New Suit Over Foster Children Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Wright, writing for CTV Barrie, reports that Ontario
province is facing a new lawsuit from people who say the
government failed to protect them, launched by two former foster
children.  So far nearly 300 people have come forward saying they
were abused while living in foster care.  And the suit says this
abuse happened in every part of the province and is still taking
place to this day.

Ms. Grann lived in fear for most of her childhood.  She was
abused while living in foster care and along with Holly Pappassay
has filed a $110-million class action lawsuit against the
provincial government.

Jonathan Ptak is the co-lead counsel on this case and says the
lawsuit centers on victim compensation.  He says children living
in foster care were never told about the criminal injuries
compensation board, a fund that victims of abuse can apply to for
financial compensation.  The suit also says the province never
told the children in their care they could file personal injury
claims against their abusers. Mr. Ptak says hundreds, perhaps
thousands of children have missed out on this financial help,
money that could have helped in their recovery.

The class action includes all children who have been crown wards
since 1966, the year the province took responsibility for
children removed from their parents' custody. Of course not every
foster child is abused.  For those who have had experiences
similar to Ms. Grann and Ms. Pappassay's, the goal of the lawsuit
is to help.  None of these allegations against the province has
been proven in court.

CTV reached out to the government on March 25 and they said they
cannot comment on pending litigation.  In terms of a timeline,
this case needs be certified as a class action by a judge and
that process could take several months.

In the meantime Koskie Minsky, the law firm taking the lead on
this, is asking anyone who suffered abuse while living in foster
care to come forward.


PARKERS FARM: Recalls Products Over Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Minnesota company is
recalling some of its peanut butter, cheese, salsa and spreads
that are distributed nationwide after authorities discovered some
samples of the products contained listeria.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture said on March 22 that
there have been no reports of illness and that Coon Rapids-based
Parkers Farm Acquisition is cooperating with the investigation.

The company has issued a voluntary recall of several products
with various sell-by dates. Consumers who bought these products
are urged to return them to the store or throw them away.  The
products are distributed nationwide under the Parkers Farm,
Parkers, Happy Farms, Central Markets, Hy-Top, Amish Classic, Say
Cheez, Win Schuler and Bucky Badger labels.  These items were
sold at several stores, including Hy-Vee, Cub, Rainbow, Byerly's,
Lunds, Target, Whole Foods, Price Chopper, Nash Finch, Costco,
ALDI, Wal-Mart and Brookshire stores.

Listeria is a bacterium that is especially dangerous to pregnant
women, newborn babies and those with compromised immune systems.
It rarely causes serious illness in healthy people and can be
treated with antibiotics. Symptoms include fever, muscle aches,
nausea and diarrhea.


PENN CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------
David Maslow, individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Penn Credit Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00806-JG-
CLP (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2014) accuses the Company of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


PFIZER INC: Judge Tosses "Plumlee" Suit Over Zoloft Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging Zoloft is a defective
drug because it offers little more efficacy than a placebo, or so
it is alleged, was recently tossed by a federal judge due to a
time-barring issue and other legal implications. However all is
not lost; the presiding magistrate left the door open a crack for
a possible continuation of the complaint, with some revisions.

In Plumlee v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-00414, in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California, plaintiff
Laura Plumlee took Zoloft manufacturer Pfizer to task for
marketing a drug that was alleged to be ineffective, with
questionable efficacy, due to a claim that most clinical trials
found that Zoloft was no more effective than a placebo, or so
Plumlee claimed.  Her lawsuit alleges that Pfizer purposely
omitted, in Zoloft labeling, any studies that showed Zoloft to be
ineffective, while favoring studies that showed Zoloft was,
indeed, more effective than a placebo.  Plumlee also alleged that
Pfizer's marketing and advertising was also misleading in touting
Zoloft, an antidepressant, as effective.

However, Plumlee's claim was dismissed not on her argument of
effectiveness, but due to time barring.  It has been reported
that Plumlee brought her defective drug lawsuit under two
statutes observed by the state of California: that of the Unfair
Competition Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False
Advertising Law.

Was plaintiff's claim time-barred?

The two aforementioned statutes, under California law, carry
limitations of four years and three years, respectively.  In her
ruling dismissing the plaintiff's claim, US District Judge Lucy
Koh ruled that Plumlee's complaint went beyond the limitation
boundaries, given the plaintiff's claim that she last used Zoloft
in 2008 but waited until January 2013 to bring her lawsuit.

Plumlee challenged that such limitations were tolled until 2012,
the point at which Plumlee first discovered that Zoloft had been
misrepresented.  The judge, however, held that Plumlee's claim to
discovering Zoloft's inadequacies in "early 2012" was too general
a frame of time.  Judge Koh also was not satisfied with the
detail supporting the time and surrounding circumstances of her
discovery.

To that end, the judge pointed to the existence of various
scientific articles -- cited by the plaintiff -- that had been
published long before Plumlee brought her drug defects lawsuit,
and thus did not accept the plaintiff's claim.

However, the judge left the door open.

All is not lost for this Zoloft defective medical products action

In dismissing the plaintiff's claim, Judge Koh is allowing
Plumlee to amend her complaint going forward.  It is telling, as
well, that the California judge ruled that Pfizer has the freedom
to access certain aspects of the plaintiff's medical history.
Plumlee had sought to block Pfizer's access to her medical
records.  A previous magistrate's ruling that allowed Pfizer
access was supported by Judge Koh on grounds that Plumlee had
waived any privilege of protecting her medical history when she
argued that the statutes of limitations were tolled due to her
learning of Zoloft's alleged deficiencies only in early 2012.

Plumlee, according to various reports, had sought to represent a
proposed class of plaintiffs who may have used Zoloft from the
point at which it was introduced to market in 1991, through to
present day.  However, the judge suggested that Plumlee may not
be typical of the class, given that she claims to have used
Zoloft for a period of three years even though it did not appear
to be working for her.  Records also demonstrated that the lead
plaintiff relied more upon Zoloft marketing and advertising, than
the advice of her doctor.

Pundits suggest that in leaving the door open, the judge feels
the proposed class-action lawsuit may have merit, in spite of
deficiencies exhibited by Plumlee's claim.  The potential, thus,
is for Plumlee to amend her claim that satisfies time-barred
limitations and other deficiencies as articulated by the
presiding judge.  Could the proposed class-action lawsuit proceed
with a different lead plaintiff?

Harmful drugs are often shown to carry risks, in spite of the
position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that holds
that a drug's benefits outweigh the risks for the class or
constituency of patients to which the drug is targeted.  In the
same vein, however, drug defects can also include deficiencies
that suggest a drug is not worth the financial outlay, either by
an individual or group, in exchange for potentially limited
effectiveness.

The lawsuit alleges Zoloft does not live up to its promises.  The
proposed class action, alleging defective medical products
(Zoloft, as ineffective), could continue with amendments -- but
perhaps not in its present form.


RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Practices Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Hartley-Culp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Receivable Solutions Specialist, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00199-MEM (M.D. Pa., February 5, 2014) arises from
the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

Receivable Solutions Specialist, Inc. is a company engaged, by
use of the mails and telephone, in the business of collecting
debts.  The Defendant regularly attempts to collect debts alleged
to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumer.com


SHARP DEAL: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Muniz and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Sharp Deal Auto Repair, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20460-
KMW (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2014) alleges that the Defendant
willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sharp Deal Auto Repair, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Leslie W. Langbein, Esq.
          LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN
          8181 NW 154 Street, Suite 105
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016
          Telephone: (305) 556-3663
          Facsimile: (305) 556-3647
          E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net


STATE FARM: Removed "Winstead" Suit to Montana District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Winstead, et al. v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. DV-13-00789A, was
removed from the 18th Judicial District Court, Gallatin County,
Montana, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana
(Butte).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
00006-SEH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related dispute.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Patrick Buckley, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LAW OFFICE
          125 West Mendenhall
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 587-3346
          Facsimile: (406) 587-0475
          E-mail: dbuckley@danbuckleylaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence A. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 2608
          Great Falls, MT 59403
          Telephone: (406) 727-8466
          Facsimile: (406) 771-8812
          E-mail: laalaw@me.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradley J. Luck, Esq.
          Kathleen L. DeSoto, Esq.
          GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP
          350 Ryman Street
          PO Box 7909
          Missoula, MT 59807-7909
          Telephone: (406) 523-2500
          Facsimile: (406) 523-2595
          E-mail: bjluck@garlington.com
                  kldesoto@garlington.com


SUJA LIFE: Misrepresents Juice Products as "Raw", Consumer Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Heikkila, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Suja Life, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00556-WHO
(N.D. Cal., February 5, 2014) relates to the Defendant's alleged
false claims that its fruit and vegetable juice products, Suja
Classic and Suja Fresh Start, are "Raw."

Ms. Heikkila contends that the Juice Products are not "Raw," as
they undergo a treatment process known as High Pressure
Processing, which neutralizes the benefits of the live enzymes,
probiotics, vitamins, proteins, and nutrients that would
otherwise be retained in raw and unpasteurized juice.

Suja Life, LLC is a Delaware company with a principal place of
business in San Diego, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com
                  apersinger@bursor.com

               - and -

          Joshua Dov Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          15 Morris Lane
          Great Neck, NY 11024
          Telephone: (347) 635-4160
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: josh@spencersheehan.com
                  spencer@spencersheehan.com


SWIFT ENERGY: Faces "Petrovich" OPA Violations Suit in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kuzma Petrovich, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC
and Swift Energy Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00276-CJB-MBN (E.D.
La., February 5, 2014) alleges violations of the Oil Pollution
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 W. Seventh St.
          P. O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186
          E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
                  mattmoreland@cox.net
                  schristina@cox.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Evans Martin McLeod, Esq.
          David Inge Clay, II, Esq.
          Meredith W. Blanque, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
          Canal Place
          365 Canal St., Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130-6534
          Telephone: (504) 566-1311
          Facsimile: (504) 568-9130
          E-mail: marty.mcleod@phelps.com
                  turk.clay@phelps.com
                  meredith.blanque@phelps.com


SYNNEX CORP: $12.3-Mil Settlement Increased 2013 Other Income
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2013, Synnex
Corporation disclosed that the increase in its other income in
fiscal year 2013 as compared to fiscal year 2012 was primarily
due to $12.3 million received from a class action legal
settlement, partially offset by lower earnings on the Company's
deferred compensation investments.

Synnex Corporation provides services to resellers, retailers and
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), in multiple regions
around the world. The Company's business process services are
wholesale distribution and business process outsourcing (BPO).
The Company operates in two segments: distribution services and
global business services (GBS). Its distribution services segment
distributes information technology (IT) systems, peripherals,
system components, software, networking equipment, CE, and
complementary products and also offers data center server and
storage solutions. It also provides contract assembly services
within its distribution services segment. Its GBS segment offers
a range of BPO services to technical support, renewals
management, lead management, direct sales, customer service, back
office processing customers. It acquired IBM's customer
relationship management (CRM) business, on January 31, 2014.


TACO BURRITO: District Court Terminates "Cisneros" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James B. Zagel terminated the case captioned
JOSE E. CISNEROS, Plaintiff, v. TACO BURRITO KING 4, INC., TACO
BURRITO KING 5, INC., TACO BURRITO KING 7, INC., TACO BURRITO
KING 12, INC., TACO BURRITO KING 14, INC., and URIEL LAMAS,
Defendants, NO. 13 CV 6968, (N.D. Ill.).

Mr. Cisneros filed his complaint against Defendants on September
27, 2013, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. 201 et seq. and the Illinois Minimum Wage law, 820 ILCS
105/12(a) and seeking overtime wages. The Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

"While Plaintiff's attorneys' may have intended to include
Plaintiff's claim into a larger class action, they, first and
foremost, have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of
Plaintiff -- not a potential class of plaintiffs," held Judge
Zagel.  "That remains true even when Plaintiff's best interests
are satisfied by a complete offer of settlement, removing
controversy from the case and possibly preventing an action from
moving forward as a class action."  For this reason, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Court's March 14, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/tWfNILfrom Leagle.com.

Jose E. Cisneros, Plaintiff, represented by Carlos Gerardo
Becerra, Becerra Law Group, LLC & Perla Marlene Gonzalez, Becerra
Law Group, Llc.

Taco Burrito King 4 Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Adams Murphy -- jemurphy@wesselssherman.com -- Wessels Sherman
Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C. & Ryan Michael Helgeson --
ryhelgeson@wesselssherman.com -- Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka
Laverty Seneczko P.C.

Taco Burrito King 5 Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Adams Murphy, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.
& Ryan Michael Helgeson, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty
Seneczko P.C.

Taco Burrito King 7 Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Adams Murphy, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty
Seneczko P.C. & Ryan Michael Helgeson, Wessels Sherman Joerg
Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.

Taco Burrito King 12, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Adams Murphy, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.
& Ryan Michael Helgeson, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty
Seneczko P.C.

Taco Burrito King 14, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Adams Murphy, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.
& Ryan Michael Helgeson, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty
Seneczko P.C.

Uriel Lamas, individually, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Adams Murphy, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.
& Ryan Michael Helgeson, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty
Seneczko P.C.


UNITIL CORP: Lunenburg Suit On Hold Pending "Bellermann" Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, Unitil
Corporation disclosed that parties to a class action lawsuit have
agreed to put on hold the complaint pending the decision of the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Bellermann.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Unitil Corporation's (the "Company") Massachusetts based
utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in
Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned
Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch.
93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices
related to the December 2008 ice storm.

On September 4, 2009, the Court issued its order on the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying
it in part. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs
in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the
case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its
decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a
class action. As a result of this decision, the lawsuit would now
proceed with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages;
however, the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC").  The SJC has
accepted the matter for review.

The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in
Massachusetts Worcester County Superior Court arising out of the
December 2008 ice storm. The parties to this action have agreed
to put this matter on hold pending the decision of the Supreme
Judicial Court in Bellermann. The Company continues to believe
these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself
vigorously.

Unitil Corporation (Unitil) is a public utility holding company.
Unitil's is engaged in distribution of electricity and natural
gas throughout its service territories in the states of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine. The Company has three wholly
owned distribution utilities: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. (Unitil
Energy), which provides electric service in the southeastern
seacoast and state capital regions of New Hampshire, including
the capital city of Concord; Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light
Company (Fitchburg), which provides both electric and natural gas
service in the greater Fitchburg area of north central
Massachusetts, and Northern Utilities, Inc. (Northern Utilities),
which provides natural gas service in southeastern New Hampshire
and portions of southern and central Maine, including the city of
Portland, in northern New England. Unitil operates its business
in four segments: utility electric operations, utility gas
operations, other, and non-regulated.


VIP CONCIERGE: "Cheek" Suit Dismissed After Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order and final
judgment dismissing with prejudice following approval of the
settlement in the case TYRAN L. CHEEK and JOHNATHAN GONZALAEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIP CONCIERGE INC., CHAIM EICHLER and
ABRAHAM GREENHUT, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, NO. 1:12-CV-
4445 (JMA), (E.D. N.Y.).  A copy of the March 14, 2014 Order may
be accessed for free at http://is.gd/HnVpXXfrom Leagle.com.

The Court certified, for the purposes of the settlement only, the
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, defined as:

All persons who are or were employed by defendants in the job
title of "Concierge" at any time from September 5, 2006 to the
entry of a Final Order and Judgment in this Lawsuit who worked
more than forty (40) hours during at least one workweek. Any
employee hired after June 19, 2013 is excluded from the class;

The Court approved the settlement, and directed implementation of
all its terms and provisions, including from the Maximum
Settlement Amount the payment of legal fees and expenses as Class
Counsel to Plaintiffs' attorneys in the total amount of
$18,460.87.

The Court dismissed with prejudice and without costs the Lawsuit
and all claims asserted therein.

Tyran L. Cheek, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Lauren Gottlieb --
danalgottlieb@aol.com -- Gottlieb & Associates, Douglas Brian
Lipsky -- dl@bronsonlipsky.com -- Bronson Lipsky LLP & Jeffrey M.
Gottlieb -- nyjg@aol.com -- Gottlieb & Associates.

Johnathan Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Lauren
Gottlieb, Gottlieb & Associates, Douglas Brian Lipsky, Bronson
Lipsky LLP & Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Gottlieb & Associates.

Orville Cochrone, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Brian Lipsky,
Bronson Lipsky LLP.

VIP Concierge Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert D. Lipman --
lipman@lipmanplesur.com -- Lipman & Plesur, LLP.

Chaim Eichler, Defendant, represented by Robert D. Lipman, Lipman
& Plesur, LLP.

Abraham Greenhut, jointly and severally, Defendant, represented
by Robert D. Lipman, Lipman & Plesur, LLP.

VIP Concierge Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Robert D.
Lipman, Lipman & Plesur, LLP.

Abraham Greenhut, jointly and severally, Counter Claimant,
represented by Robert D. Lipman, Lipman & Plesur, LLP.

Chaim Eichler, Counter Claimant, represented by Robert D. Lipman,
Lipman & Plesur, LLP.

Tyran L. Cheek, Counter Defendant, represented by Dana Lauren
Gottlieb, Gottlieb & Associates, Douglas Brian Lipsky, Bronson
Lipsky LLP & Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Gottlieb & Associates.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 174,000 Dolls Over Burn Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is
recalling 174,000 dolls because the toy can overheat and
potentially burn consumers.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on March 25 that
the "My Sweet Love / My Sweet Baby Cuddle Care Baby Doll" has a
circuit board in its chest that can overheat, causing the surface
of the doll to get hot and burn someone.

Wal-Mart has received 12 reports of incidents, including two
burns or blisters to the thumb.  Consumers should stop using the
product, remove the batteries and return them to any Wal-Mart
store for a refund.

The electronic baby doll, made by Tak Ngai Electronic Toys Co. of
China, was sold exclusively at Wal-Mart stores from 2012 through
2014 for $20.  It comes in pink floral clothing and a matching
knit hat.  The 16-inch doll is packaged with a toy medical check-
up kit.  The doll babbles when she gets "sick" and her cheeks
turn red and she starts coughing.  Using the medical kit pieces
cause the symptoms to stop.

The doll is identified by UPC 6-04576-16800-5 and a date code,
found on a label sewn to the bottom of the doll, which begins
with WM.


WESTERN WATERPROOFING: Removed "Diggs" Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Diggs v. Western Waterproofing
Company, Inc., et al., Case No. ECU08022, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Imperial to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
00279-CAB-BGS to the proceeding.

The Complaint purports to bring class-wide claims against the
Defendant, alleging claims based upon the Plaintiff's employment
relationship with the Defendant.  The Complaint alleges class-
wide claims for, among other things, failure to pay all overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Aparicio, Esq.
          Judith Droz Keyes, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 276-6500
          Facsimile: (415) 276-6599
          E-mail: MichaelAparicio@dwt.com
                  jkeyes@dwt.com
                  maparicio@dwt.com


YAHOO! INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Suit Over Automatic Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer,
reports that Yahoo's system for automatically texting its users
when their email accounts have received a new message doesn't
violate the federal law that protects consumers from unsolicited
calls, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Senior Judge Michael M. Baylson of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Yahoo in a
proposed class action brought by Bill Dominguez, who was given a
recycled phone number when he bought a cellular telephone.  The
person who had the number before him had signed up for Yahoo's
program that alerts its users to new email messages through a
text message.  Mr. Dominguez would get the texts although he had
never consented to the program.

The crux of the decision turned on the technical properties of
Yahoo's alert system and the definition of an automatic telephone
dialing system, which is prohibited for use as an automated
telemarketing tool under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).  That is the federal law under which Mr. Dominguez
brought his suit.

Judge Baylson framed his opinion this way: "Surely, one of the
unwelcome consequences of the digital age are unsolicited
messages, telephone calls, and emails.  However, this phenomenon
is not new.  Unwelcome circumstances have faced characters in
literature and opera for centuries.  Victims of circumstance are
often portrayed by Shakespeare -- Hamlet, Othello, Shylock; and
in opera, Verdi's Don Carlos, who without fault, loses his
fiancee, Elisabeth of Valois, to his own father, King Philip of
Spain, who marries Elisabeth to ensure peace with France."

"In this case, plaintiff Bill Dominguez is also a victim of
circumstance," Judge Baylson said.

Yahoo didn't contest that Mr. Dominguez got unsolicited text
messages because the person who had his number before him had
signed up for the alert service, but it did argue that its system
isn't an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS).
The law defines an ATDS as a system that has the capacity to
store or produce phone numbers using a random or sequential
generator and then dial the numbers, according to the opinion.

Yahoo argued that its program doesn't use a random or sequential
number generator.

Mr. Dominguez, however, "argues that courts must look to the
system's capacities, not the way in which it is actually used,
and argues that the capacities of Yahoo's system fall within the
statutory definition," according to the opinion.

He offered to the court a purported expert, Randall Snyder, who
failed to convince the judge that Yahoo's system would qualify as
an ATDS that is barred by the law.  Mr. Snyder has been an expert
in 65 cases about cellular technology, including 41 cases about
text messaging and 33 cases brought under the TCPA and related
regulations, Judge Baylson said in a footnote.

Yahoo undercut Mr. Snyder's legitimacy by telling the court that
his opinions "are driven by his own personal interest," according
to the opinion, since his wife is a named plaintiff in a class
action suit over one unsolicited text message sent to his son due
to a recycled phone number.

And, "Yahoo argues that Mr. Snyder lacks credibility because he
is personally interested in fighting against 'spam' text messages
and earns 80-90 percent of his income from testifying in TCPA
cases," according to the opinion.

Yahoo offered the court its senior product manager for anti-spam
and delivery of Yahoo mail, Ajay Gopalkrishna, who said that the
alert system didn't have the capacity to store or produce phone
numbers to call through a random or sequential system.

"Yahoo asserts that its service could not randomly or
sequentially generate telephone numbers, but only sent messages
to a user that had authorized them and only when that user
received an email," Judge Baylson said.  "Plaintiff has not
offered evidence to dispute Yahoo's assertion."

Beyond that, Judge Baylson was skeptical of Mr. Snyder's
expertise, saying in a footnote, "Mr. Snyder's declaration
reflects a misunderstanding of the statutory requirements, which
require more than simply that the system store telephone numbers
and send messages to those numbers without human intervention."

Judge Baylson also said that the plaintiff's citation of a U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opinion that quoted from
Snyder's report was "deceptive" since the court quoted him only
to recount his opinion, which was disputed.

"The court did not adopt Mr. Snyder's views," Judge Baylson 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  * * *