CAR_Public/140401.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 1, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 64

                             Headlines


23ANDME INC: Faces Suit Alleging Misrepresentation of DNA Kits
ADVANCED MICRO: Faces "Hatamian" Lawsuit in N.D. California
ASSOCIATION LAW: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
AXA EQUITABLE: Faces Suit Over Death Benefits Payable to Heirs
BALTIMORE, MD: Union Mulls Action v. School System Over PIPs

BANK OF AMERICA: NECA-IBEW Appeal Denial of Bid to Amend Suit
BEAM INC: Defendant in 11 Complaints Over Suntory Merger
BMW: Seeks Dismissal of Sunroof Class Action
BRE PROPERTIES: Facing 3 Suits Over Merger With Essex
CABLE WIRING: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Cable Splicer Says

CATERPILLAR INC: Wants Judges to Consolidate Engine Class Actions
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
CLASSIC SOFT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
COMSCORE INC: Privacy Lawsuit Trial Expected in 2nd Quarter 2014
ENVIVIO INC: Scott+Scott, Attorneys File Securities Class Action

FARMERS INSURANCE: PLC Adjusters Seek to Recover Overtime Wages
FORD MOTOR: Ohio Court Granted New Trial in Truck Dealers Suit
FORD MOTOR: Court Requests Briefing on Apartheid Lawsuit
FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Ohio High Court Remanded "Agrawal" Complaint
GENERAL MOTORS: Bartimus Frickleton Files Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces New Class Action Over Ignition Switches
HERBALIFE LTD: Fails to Dismiss State Claims in "Bostick" Suit
HITACHI LTD: Court Narrows Sharp's Claims in CRT Antitrust Suit
HR PLUS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Virginia Suit Claims
INGRAM MICRO: Court Approved $6,500 Award From LCD Display Suit

JACKSONVILLE CITY, FL: Removed "Blackstone" Suit to M.D. Florida
JONES GROUP: New Claims Added in "Ettedgui" & "Smith" Class Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Illegally Suspending Credit Limits
KINDER MORGAN: Defendant in Suit Over Breach of Partnership Deal
KIRBY INLAND: Faces Class Action Over Oil Spill

KMART CORP: Removed "Romero" Class Suit to C.D. California
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Court Narrows Tech Data and Sharp Claims
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Court Tosses Bid For Atty. Fee Award
MITSUBISHI: Bid to Dismiss Sharp Complaint Granted in Part
NEW YORK: Court Orders Closure of Ex-Cop's Suit vs. NYPD

OCEANEERING INT'L: Offshore Worker Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
OLD REPUBLIC: Obtains Final Approval of "Neff" Suit Settlement
PACIFIC BELL: Loses Appeal From $17MM Judgment in "Ammari" Suit
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Severance Pay
PECH HUGHES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

PENN CREDIT: Illegally Contacts Class Members' Phones, Suit Says
PENNSYLVANIA: Loses Bid for Summary Relief in Tax Suit
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Received $1.3-Mil of Insurance Recoveries
PNC BANK: Accused of Manipulating Force-Placed Insurance Market
SCIBERRAS INTERNAL: Sued Over Unpaid Wage & Retaliatory Discharge

STANFORD HOSPITAL: To Settle Class Action for More Than $4.1MM
STATE FARM: Denial of Class Decertification Bid Recommended
SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
TARGET CORP: Faces "Smith" Suit in California Over Data Breach
TAYLOR CAPITAL: Settles Sullivan & Panozzo Actions Over MB Merger

THOMSON SA: Bid to Dismiss Sharp et al Suits Has Partial OK
THORATEC CORP: Defendant in Securities Class Action Lawsuit
TKO RENTALS: Welder Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Massive Data Breach at Target
TSD INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Kitchen Staff Says

TUTM ENTERTAINMENT: Drew's Sued Over Inferior Recordings
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: "Hawthorne" Claim in Overdraft Fees Suit Tossed
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Entered MOU to Settle Spokane County Suits
VILLAGE OF PINECREST, FL: Event Coordinator Seeks Overtime Wage
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Settled Employee Retirement Security Act Suit

YUM! BRANDS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Price Inflation Complaint
YUM! BRANDS: Notice in Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions Distributed
YUM! BRANDS: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss "Rodriguez" Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Plaintiffs in "Moeller" Suit Seek Injunction
YUM! BRANDS: Pizza Hut Denies Liability in "Smith" Complaint


                             *********


23ANDME INC: Faces Suit Alleging Misrepresentation of DNA Kits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Guthrie, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00168-NBF (W.D. Pa.,
February 6, 2014) arises from 23andMe's design, manufacture,
marketing, advertising, selling, warranting and servicing of its
DNA Saliva Collection Kit/Personal Genome Service, which violate
Pennsylvania's unfair competition and false advertising laws, and
constitute breaches of implied and express warranties.

23andMe's DNA Kit is an at-home genetic test that was sold
directly to consumers through its Web site and other retailers.
23andMe claimed its Kits could accurately and reliably help
consumers know more about their health.

23andMe, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business in
Pennsylvania and headquartered in Mountain View, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: bsweet@dscslaw.com
                  ekilpela@dscslaw.com


ADVANCED MICRO: Faces "Hatamian" Lawsuit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K filed on
February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013, that on
January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 was filed against us in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims against AMD
and certain individual officers for alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff
seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired our common stock during the period October
27, 2011 through October 28, 2012. The complaint seeks damages
allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements
and/or material omissions by us and the individual officers
regarding our 32nm technology and "Llano" product, which
statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly
operated to inflate artificially the price paid for our common
stock during the period. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Based upon
information presently known to management, the Company believes
that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results
of operations.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) is a global semiconductor
company with facilities around the world.  The Company offers x86
microprocessors, as standalone devices or as incorporated as an
accelerated processing unit (APU), for the commercial and
consumer markets, embedded microprocessors for commercial,
commercial client and consumer markets and chipsets for desktop
and mobile devices, including mobile personal computers, or PCs,
and tablets, professional workstations and servers and graphics,
video and multimedia products for desktop and mobile devices,
including mobile PCs and tablets, home media PCs and professional
workstations, servers and technology for game consoles.


ASSOCIATION LAW: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yoel Rodriguez and Crisly Diaz Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Association Law Group, P.L.,
a Florida professional limited company, Case No. 2:14-cv-14053-
JEM (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5321
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Cody German, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT KISSANE PA
          9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 350-5300
          E-mail: Cody.German@csklegal.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Faces Suit Over Death Benefits Payable to Heirs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juanita B. Grissom, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00768-JPO (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2014) seeks legal
and equitable relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and thousands of
other retirement-age persons, who were issued certain variable
rate annuities by the Defendant and whom the Defendant allegedly
cheated out of tens of millions of dollars' worth of death
benefits payable to their heirs.

The Plaintiff is an 87-year-old widow and a citizen of the state
of Louisiana.

AXA Equitable is a New York corporation based in New York City.
AXA provides numerous financial products to consumers, including
life insurance policies, annuities, individual retirement
accounts, 401(k) plans, mutual funds, and brokerage accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Albert M. Myers, Esq.
          Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: al.myers@ksfcounsel.com
                  melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barry Robert Ostrager, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP (NY)
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: bostrager@stblaw.com


BALTIMORE, MD: Union Mulls Action v. School System Over PIPs
------------------------------------------------------------
Erica L. Green, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that the
Baltimore City administrators union is preparing to file a class-
action grievance against the school system in response to Interim
CEO Tisha Edwards' plan that has 61 principals facing
disciplinary action if they don't do more to prevent students
from missing 20 or more days of school this year.

Union President Jimmy Gittings and the executive board of the
Public School Administrators and Supervisors Association (PSASA)
addressed Ms. Edwards and members of the city school board at a
meeting on March 25.  What started as a protest of using
performance improvement plans (PIPs) to improve year-end
attendance numbers, ended with a personal and emotional back-and-
forth between Mr. Gittings and Ms. Edwards on the issue of who
should be responsible for getting students to school.

"We are all very concerned about the unfair and arbitrary
decision to put 61 principals on PIPs for chronic [absenteeism],"
said Mr. Gittings, who was joined by dozens of administrators in
the audience.

A city councilwoman introduced a resolution asking the school
board to reconsider using the PIPs and launch a citywide campaign
to improve attendance.

Mr. Gittings told the board that principals were invested in
helping to get students to school, but that the district failed
to take into consideration several barriers that administrators
face.  For example, he pointed out that Pre-K students who aren't
obligated to come to school are counted in schools' attendance
numbers for elementary grades, and high school grades include
students who only legally have to attend school until they are 16
years old.

Mr. Gittings also pointed to the fact that principals had support
staff, like social workers, who work on attendance issues that
have been let go because of budget cuts from the district.  He
went on to list ways that the district office has failed to
support principals, such as flawed student record systems,
unanswered emails, and unclear policies and inconsistent
communication about attendance.  He also said he took issue with
the fact that the use of the PIPs -- which can affect year-end
evaluations and pay raises -- comes with only three months left
in the school year.  He added that the union was preparing to
file a class-action grievance for the 61 principals affected.

Ms. Edwards fired back at Mr. Gittings saying that "we are all on
PIPs, because we have not done what we needed to do for children
in this city."  She said that she was also accountable for
children not getting to school.  This year is the fourth year in
a row the district is on track to have about 25 percent of its
students miss 10 percent of the school year.

Ms. Edwards ordered central office staff, including principals'
supervisors, to stand up at the board meeting if they were
informed they too were going to be held accountable for
attendance.  "No one in this district is absolved of taking
responsibility," she said.

Ms. Edwards also took issue with Mr. Gittings' stance had
previously said that parents are ultimately responsible for
getting their children to school.  She said the district also
holds parents responsible, and that the district has referred
more than 500 parents to truancy court.  "I have more parents in
truancy court than I have principals on PIPs," Ms. Edwards said.
She added: "Just because its hard doesn't mean we're not
responsible."

She called the PIPs public contracts for principals that are
intended to show students that "someone respects them enough to
ask them 'why aren't' you coming to school?'  She went on to call
out a principal who had a student from their school in the media
recently saying that she didn't attend school because she didn't
feel safe.

While that principal wasn't leading the school at the time the
student was referring to, Ms. Edwards used the example to point
out that the school's climate had nothing to do with her parents.
Ms. Edwards told Mr. Gittings that if he didn't want the district
to use PIPs, he should negotiate them out of the PSASA contract.
She said the district has offered that option in the past, but he
chose not to take it.

The two engaged in a back-and-forth about being truthful and
taking conversations out of context before being interrupted by
David Stone, vice chair of the school board, who was running the
meeting.  Mr. Stone encouraged the two to talk -- Ms. Edwards
said she met with the union for three hours on the PIPs matter --
to clarify any misunderstandings about the goal of PIPs.

"In a school system of 85,000 students where 22,000 are not
coming to school . . .  it's all hands on deck," Mr. Stone said.
"This school board is very committed to assuring students come to
school.  I'm happy to hear that the principals are as committed
to this as we are."

He said the board was informed that the PIPs were not about the
chronic absenteeism rates themselves, but rather principals not
doing what they were supposed to in terms of taking accurate
attendance and giving chronically absent students district-
mandated support.

That summary drew groans from the audience of principals.

The discussion ended with Student Commissioner Cody Dorsey
speaking up to say that he believed attendance was everyone's
responsibility, from the parent to the principal.

"There's a missing link of communication between the schools and
the parents," Mr. Dorsey said.

He added that he had spoken with principals to gather more
information about why the PIPs were so contested.

"The issue is not the PIP, the issue is the timing," Mr. Dorsey
said.  "We have a leadership transition in place, and these PIPs
play a role in the evaluation process."

Mr. Dorsey's comments were cut off, but not before some
principals in the audience clapped and voiced their agreement.


BANK OF AMERICA: NECA-IBEW Appeal Denial of Bid to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund and Denis Montgomery,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, has
taken an appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the
Second Circuit from the Judgment entered January 9, 2014, denying
their motion for leave to file a Proposed Second Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Charles Michael Plavi, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark Leland Knutson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238?1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238?5425
          E-mail: cmp@classactionlaw.com
                  fk@classactionlaw.com
                  mlk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Klafter, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN &LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Ste 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934?9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934?9220
          E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq.
          William J. Sushon, Esq.
          B. Andrew Bednark, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Seven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326?2061
          E-mail: jrosenberg@omm.com
                  wsushon@omm.com
                  abednark@ornm.com

               - and -

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, New York 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com
                  scott.musoff@skadden.com

The appellate case is Montgomery, et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation, et al., Case No. 14-402, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The original case is
Montgomery, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-440, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


BEAM INC: Defendant in 11 Complaints Over Suntory Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Beam Inc., is currently aware of 11 complaints alleging that the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction with Suntory Holdings Limited, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

Following the announcement on January 12, 2014, regarding the
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Suntory Holdings Limited,
various putative class action complaints were filed against Beam,
its board of directors and Suntory Holdings and Sub. Beam is
currently aware of eleven such complaints filed in Delaware
Chancery Court and Cook County, Illinois Chancery Court and the
Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Lake County,
Illinois. These complaints allege generally that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted others'
breaches of fiduciary duties, in connection with the proposed
transaction with Suntory Holdings by, among other things,
authorizing the transaction for what plaintiffs claim to be
inadequate consideration and pursuant to what plaintiffs claim to
be an inadequate process. The relief sought by the various
complaints includes, among other things, enjoining the proposed
transaction, rescinding it to the extent it has already been
implemented, and directing defendants to account for damages
sustained by the putative class. Defendants believe the claims
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the
suits. The Company cannot yet conclude if it is reasonably
possible that a loss will occur nor can it estimate a range of
potential outcomes.

Beam Inc. (Beam) is a premium spirits company that makes and
sells branded distilled spirits products in markets worldwide.
The Company's principal products include bourbon whiskey,
tequila, Scotch whisky, Canadian whisky, vodka, cognac, rum,
cordials, and ready-to-drink pre-mixed cocktails.


BMW: Seeks Dismissal of Sunroof Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that though the
judge in the U.S. Northern District Court of California recently
gave plaintiffs the opportunity to file a second-amended
complaint, in two new filings, BMW's attorneys claim the case
should be dismissed for "lack of standing" and have asked the
judge to strike the class allegations.  The plaintiffs allege
their vehicles suffered water damage after the drainage tubes
installed to pull water away from the sunroofs did not properly
work.

Plaintiffs' Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson successfully argued
that their case should include California residents who have
"owned or leased any BMW X5 series vehicles, X3 series vehicles
and 5 series vehicles."  In an earlier ruling, the judge decided
that their allegations are "sufficient" to represent a class
action at the pleading stage of their case.

"As true for all of their claims and allegations, this court
already has provided ample opportunity for amendment.
Plaintiffs' refusal to change their allegations show that
plaintiffs' claims now should be dismissed," BMW's attorneys
write in court documents.

BMW's attorneys argue the alleged defects are not safety related
and that only the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) has the power to order a recall.

"The comprehensiveness of the Safety Act and breadth of authority
vested in NHTSA shows that a recall ordered by this court would
'prevent or frustrate' Congress' objectives," the automaker's
attorneys claim.

They ask the court to defer to NHTSA's expertise in this matter.

"BMW [North America] has no duty to recall the class vehicles
because it has not been ordered to do so by NHTSA," attorneys
contend.

In a second motion, BMW's attorneys write, "by this motion, BMW
seeks to strike all allegations made on behalf of the putative
class stricken without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs cannot represent the putative class specified in their
complaint because the class is simply too broad and faces
overwhelming individualized inquiries and because plaintiffs
cannot satisfy basic typicality requirements.  These deficiencies
are plain, even at the pleading stage.  For the foregoing
reasons, the class allegations therein should be stricken," BMW's
attorneys claim

The plaintiffs had not responded in the court system at press
time and the judge has not issued any new decisions.


BRE PROPERTIES: Facing 3 Suits Over Merger With Essex
-----------------------------------------------------
BRE Properties, Inc., has been named as one of the defendants in
three putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits
alleging breach its fiduciary duties over a planned merger,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

On December 19, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Essex Property Trust, Inc., a Maryland
corporation ("Essex"), and Bronco Acquisition Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Essex
("Merger Sub").  On February 5, 2014, Merger Sub changed its name
to BEX Portfolio, Inc.  The Merger Agreement provides for the
merger of the Company with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Essex.  If the Merger
process proceeds without delay, the Company currently expect the
transaction to close by the second quarter of 2014.

Since the announcement of the Merger Agreement, three putative
class action and shareholder derivative actions have been filed
on behalf of alleged shareholders of the Company and/or the
Company itself in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland,
under the following captions: Sutton v. BRE Properties, Inc., et
al., No. 24-C-13-008425, filed December 23, 2013; Applegate v.
BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-00002, filed December
30, 2013; and Lee v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-
00046, filed January 3, 2014.

All of these complaints name as defendants the Company, the
Company's Board of Directors, Essex, and Merger Sub, and allege
that the Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders and/or to the Company
itself, and that the Merger involves an unfair price, an
inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal protection
devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The
complaints further allege that Essex, Merger Sub, and, in some
cases, we aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The
complaints seek injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the Merger, and an award of other unspecified
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.
On February 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed identical, amended
complaints in the three pending actions. The amended complaints
add allegations that disclosures regarding the proposed merger in
the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on
January 29, 2014 are inadequate.

BRE Properties, Inc. (BRE) is a self-administered equity real
estate investment trust (REIT) focused on the development,
acquisition and management of multifamily apartment communities
primarily located in the metropolitan markets within the State of
California, and the Seattle, Washington region. BRE also owns and
operates communities in the Phoenix, Arizona and in the Denver,
Colorado metropolitan markets. As of December 31, 2011, its
multifamily portfolio had real estate assets, which included 76
wholly or majority owned stabilized multifamily communities,
aggregating 21,336 units in California, Washington and Arizona;
11 stabilized multifamily communities owned through joint
ventures comprised of 3,592 apartment units; and seven apartment
communities in various stages of construction and development. In
October 2013, the Company acquired Jefferson at Hollywood.


CABLE WIRING: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Cable Splicer Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinto Morales and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Cable Wiring Specialist, Inc. and Michael T Henning,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20464-KMM (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of willfully and intentionally refusing to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Morales worked for the Defendants as a cable splicer from
January 2007 through October 2013.

Cable Wiring Specialist, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Broward County.  Michael T. Henning is
a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          K. David Kelly, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                  david.kelly38@rocketmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul Octavio Lopez, Esq.
          Stephanie Vellios, Esq.
          TRIPP SCOTT, P.A.
          110 SE 6th Street, 15th Floor
          PO Box 14245
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302-4245
          Telephone: (954) 525-7500
          Facsimile: (954) 761-8475
          E-mail: pol@trippscott.com
                  scv@trippscott.com


CATERPILLAR INC: Wants Judges to Consolidate Engine Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line, reports that attorneys for
Caterpillar Inc. are asking a panel of federal judges to
consolidate five putative class action lawsuits filed against the
company over alleged defects with its C13 and C15 engines
purchased between 2007 and 2010.

According to court documents, Caterpillar is requesting that the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidate and
transfer the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District in Florida.

Paul M. Weiss's firm, Complex Litigation Group LLC in Highland
Park, Ill., represents truck and bus owners who purchased
vehicles with the allegedly defective C13 and C15 engines.

"What we have found from our clients is that after purchasing
vehicles with these engines, they found out they are basically
lemons," Mr. Weiss told Land Line on Monday, March 24.  "Besides
the constant breakdowns, it's a huge financial burden because
there's the money you have to lay out to fix the ARD
(Aftertreatment Regeneration Device) head to have these engines
regenerate or repower."

Mr. Weiss said clients with the Advanced Combustion Emissions
Reduction Technology (ACERT) diesel engines claim they started
experiencing engine breakdowns about every 20,000 miles.  He said
their buses or trucks would suddenly shut down to regenerate or
repower and had to be towed to a Caterpillar-authorized repair
facility because the computer codes and software were
proprietary.

The five separate putative class actions against Caterpillar are
pending in federal court in Florida, New Jersey, California,
Louisiana and Pennsylvania.

Mr. Weiss said he and other attorneys working on behalf of the
drivers don't have a dispute about consolidating the cases.  It's
more about the venue.

"We are requesting the case be heard in federal court in New
Jersey -- the BK Trucking case -- because it involves trucks and
buses with the C13 and C15 engines," Mr. Weiss said.
"Caterpillar wants the case to be in Florida because the Florida
court has limited the case to just the C13 bus issue."

According to court documents, all five complaints allege that
"C13 and C15 engines have defective regeneration systems; that
the defects lead to frequent breakdowns and repairs causing
economic loss to the owners of vehicles containing these engines;
that Caterpillar failed to comply with its obligations under the
emission system warranty; that the engines are not merchantable;
and that the engines do not comply with a warranty of fitness for
a particular purpose."

Caterpillar has stopped making the C13 and C15 ACERT engines, but
still repairs them if they are under warranty.  However,
Caterpillar denies knowledge that the C13 and C15 truck and bus
engines were defective.

Salud Services Inc., doing business as Endeavor Bus Lines, along
with four other bus companies who purchased buses with
Caterpillar C13 engines, first filed their case in October 2012.
BK Trucking out of New Jersey was the first trucking company to
file a lawsuit in April 2013, which includes vehicles with the
C13 and C15 engines.

Mr. Weiss said plaintiffs in the cases just want what the
vehicles would have been worth had there not been a problem with
the C13 and C15 issues.

"Honestly, the diminished value is between $50,000 to $80,000,
what they lost in value and what it should be worth had they not
had this problem."

Mr. Weiss is urging truck drivers who purchased a vehicle with
one of these engines to contact his office.


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Diena, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-00769-AET-LHG (D.N.J., February 6, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
          1669 East 12th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 339-0856
          E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter Cipparulo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER CIPPARULO, III, ESQ.
          349 Route 206, Suite K
          Hillsborough, NJ 08844
          Telephone: (908) 275-8777
          E-mail: petercipparulo@cipplaw.com


CLASSIC SOFT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arnaldo Mora, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Classic Soft Trim, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00120-LY
(W.D. Tex., February 6, 2014) accuses the Company of failing to
pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Classic Soft Trim, Inc., is a Texas profit corporation
headquartered in Austin, Texas.  The Company manufactures and
installs automobile interiors and parts, including sunroofs,
leather interiors, and other luxury automotive products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          E-mail: BMazaheri@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica Kirker, Esq.
          Stephanie Simons Rojo, Esq.
          THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.
          701 Brazos, Suite 1500
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 703-5079
          Facsimile: (512) 708-8777
          E-mail: jkirker@thompsoncoe.com
                  srojo@thompsoncoe.com


COMSCORE INC: Privacy Lawsuit Trial Expected in 2nd Quarter 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial of a lawsuit filed against ComScore, Inc., alleging,
among other things, violations of the Stored Communications Act,
is expected in the second quarter of 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "On August 23, 2011, we received notice that
Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against
us in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other things,
violations by us of the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act as well as
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
including statutory damages per violation and punitive damages,
injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the
plaintiffs. Based on a review of these claims, we believe that
they are without merit, and we intend to vigorously protect and
defend ourselves. In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint which, among other things, removed the claim
relating to alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act. The court has certified a class, with
trial expected in the second quarter of 2014."

comScore, Inc., is a provider of on-demand digital analytics
solutions that help its customers to make informed, data-driven
decisions and implement digital business strategies.


ENVIVIO INC: Scott+Scott, Attorneys File Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 2014, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a
class action complaint against Envivio, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The complaint was
filed on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Envivio securities between April 25, 2012 and
September 6, 2012 and seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Investors who purchased Envivio securities during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action
must move the Court no later than April 29, 2014. Members of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members in the lawsuit.

The class action complaint alleges that during the Class Period
Envivio and certain of its executive officers failed to disclose
material information regarding the Company's revenue growth.
When this adverse information became known, the complaint
alleges, the Company's stock lost more than half of its value.

If you wish to view the complaint, discuss the Envivio
litigation, or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Michael Burnett of Scott+Scott
(mburnett@scott-scott.com  (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or
visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


FARMERS INSURANCE: PLC Adjusters Seek to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes Alvarez, Matt Ohlson, Cedric Martin, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance
Exchange, Farmers Insurance Group, and Does 1 - 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00574-EDL (N.D. Cal., February 6, 2014) seeks
for payment of overtime, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf similarly situated individuals,
who have worked for the Defendants as Personal Lines Claims
Adjusters.

Farmers Insurance Group is a corporation with its principal place
of business in Los Angeles, California.  Farmers Insurance
Exchange is a reciprocal insurance exchange with its principal
place of business in the state of California.  The Defendants
offer homeowners insurance, auto insurance, commercial insurance,
and financial services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Rukin, Esq.
          Jessica Riggin, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-1800
          Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
          E-mail: prukin@rhdtlaw.com
                  jriggin@rhdtlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Ohio Court Granted New Trial in Truck Dealers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court on February 7, 2014, granted plaintiffs' motion for
a new trial relating to allegations against Ford Motor Company
for breaching its Sales and Service Agreement with truck dealers,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

This action pending in the Ohio state court system alleges that
Ford breached its Sales and Service Agreement with Ford truck
dealers by failing to publish to all Ford dealers all price
concessions that were approved for any dealer. The trial court
certified a nationwide class consisting of all Ford dealers who
purchased from Ford any 600-series or higher truck from 1987 to
1997, and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
liability. During 2011, a jury awarded $4.5 million in damages to
the named plaintiff dealer and the trial court applied the jury's
findings with regard to the named plaintiff to all dealers in the
class, entering a judgment of approximately $2 billion in
damages.

The Company appealed, and on May 3, 2012, the Ohio Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to
plaintiffs, vacated the damages award, and remanded the matter
for a new trial. The retrial in September 2013 resulted in a
verdict in Ford's favor. On February 7, 2014, the trial court
granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, but the order will be
stayed pending the Company's appeal and the Company is confident
that it will be reversed.

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a producer of automobiles.


FORD MOTOR: Court Requests Briefing on Apartheid Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court has requested an additional briefing on
the lawsuits against Ford Motor Company alleging it aided and
abetted South Africa's apartheid regime, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in purported class action
lawsuits seeking unspecified damages on behalf of South African
citizens who suffered violence and oppression under South
Africa's apartheid regime. The lawsuits allege that the defendant
companies aided and abetted the apartheid regime and its human
rights violations. These cases, collectively referred to as In re
South African Apartheid Litigation, were initially filed in 2002
and 2003, and are being handled together as coordinated
"multidistrict litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The District Court dismissed these
cases in 2004, but in 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed and remanded the cases to the District
Court for further proceedings. Amended complaints were filed
during 2008; motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied
in part, and defendants appealed. In August 2013, the U.S. Court
of Appeals remanded the cases to the District Court with
instructions to dismiss, but the District Court has requested
additional briefing.

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a producer of automobiles.


FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Ohio High Court Remanded "Agrawal" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio on December 17, 2013, reversed a Court
of Appeals' decision affirming the nationwide class certification
and certification of an Ohio subclass in which claimants alleged
that Ford Motor Credit Company LLC violated its lease-end excess
wear and use charges, among other things, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

On January 18, 2011, a state trial court judge in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio
subclass in a counterclaim arising out of a collection action.
Class claimants allege breach of contract, fraud, and statutory
violations for Ford Credit's lease-end excess wear and use
charges. Class claimants allege that the standard applied by Ford
Credit in determining the condition of vehicles at lease-end is
different than the standard set forth in claimants' leases. A
three-member panel of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth
Appellate District, affirmed nationwide class certification and
certification of an Ohio subclass.

The Company appealed, and on December 17, 2013, the Supreme Court
of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeals based on a recent Supreme
Court of Ohio decision in a separate case involving
decertification of a class under similar circumstances. The
Agrawal case has been remanded to the Court of Appeals for
further proceedings.

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC is one of the world's largest auto
financing companies, it funds autos for and through Ford and
Lincoln dealerships in some 70 countries. It finances new, used,
and leased vehicles, and provides wholesale financing, mortgages,
and capital loans for dealers. The company also offers business
fleet financing and insurance. Ford Motor Credit provided funding
for Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, Mercury, and Mazda vehicles, but
Ford sold or reduced its interests in those nameplates through
separate transactions.


GENERAL MOTORS: Bartimus Frickleton Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Brianne Pfannenstiel, writing for Kansas City Business Journal,
reports that Bartimus Frickleton Robertson & Goza PC in Leawood
has filed a class-action suit against General Motors LLC alleging
that the company fraudulently concealed material facts about the
safety of its key ignition system on a variety of cars.

Partner James Bartimus -- jb@bflawfirm.com -- represents
plaintiff Zachary DeWitt, a Sedalia, Mo., resident.  Mr. DeWitt
is one of 13 plaintiffs from a number of states.  Eight other law
firms are also part of the suit, which was filed in the Northern
District of California in San Francisco.

The plaintiffs allege that GM used a flawed ignition switch in
the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt, as well as other vehicles that were
made between 2005 and 2010.  They say GM knew of the potentially
fatal design flaw but instead informed dealers that if a problem
occurred it was because the driver was too short or the key chain
too heavy.

GM has recalled about 1.6 million cars with that ignition system,
saying that in some instances, power may be switched off to the
car, and the airbags will not deploy.  Those flaws have been
linked to a number of crashes and fatalities nationally.

The affected cars include the Chevrolet Cobalt (2005-10 models),
Chevrolet HHR (2006-07 models), Pontiac Solstice (2006-07),
Pontiac G5 (2005-07), Saturn Ion (2003-07) and Saturn Sky (2007).


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces New Class Action Over Ignition Switches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit has been
brought against General Motors after consumers from nine states
claim its key system was defective.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 24 by owners and lease-holders of
GM cars who allege their key systems were prone to sudden shut-
down.  They also claim GM concealed for a decade.

GM is currently facing investigations by Congress and federal
regulators over its alleged decade-long failure to correct faulty
ignition switches on several of its major car brands.

The plaintiffs in the case, Galdina Maciel, Daniel Cortex, Cindy
Wade, Zachary DeWitt, Roberta Cheraso, Demetrius Smith, Jenee
Byrd, Asuhan Leyva, Jim Gresik, Barbara Ellis Steele, Maria
Raygoza, Barbara Gray and Michele Bennett, purchased or leased
vehicles manufactured by GM, including the 2005-2010 Chevrolet
Cobalt, 2006-2007 Chevrolet HHR, 2006-2007 Pontiac Solstice,
2005-2007 Pontiac G5, 2003-2007 Saturn Ion and 2007 Saturn Sky
vehicles.

Each of the defective vehicles contains a "uniformly designed
ignition switch, which is substantially similar for all of the
defective vehicles," according to the suit.

The 13 plaintiffs who bought and leased GM's cars in a number of
states -- including California, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, Missouri, Texas and Vermont -- claim the key system on
the vehicles is prone to fail during ordinary and foreseeable
driving situations.

"GM had actual knowledge that, because of the way in which the
key system was designed and integrated in the defective vehicles,
the ignition switch can suddenly fail during normal operation,
cutting off engine power and certain electrical systems in the
cars, which, in turn, disables key vehicle components, safety
features . . . or other vehicle functions, leaving occupants
vulnerable to crashes, serious injuries and death," the complaint
states.

The plaintiffs claim GM fraudulently concealed 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 suit 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,
the suit says.

GM has publicly admitted that its keys could inadvertently slip
out of the "run" position with the car's engine on, according to
a press release by Grant & Eisenhofer.

The company is in the midst of a recall involving some 1.6
million vehicles.

The plaintiffs claim GM was fully aware that the problems
extended beyond just the ignition switch mechanism that has been
the focus of the recall.

"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, in
a press release.

The plaintiffs are 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.

The plaintiffs are seeking for the court to certify the action as
a class action; enjoin GM from continuing its unfair business
practices; and compensatory and punitive damages.

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.

Other attorneys participating in the action are Roland Tellis,
Mark Pifko and Isaac Miller of Baron and Budd; John E. Tangren --
jtangren@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer; Lance Cooper of the
Cooper Firm; Scott B. Cooper -- scott@cooper-firm.com -- of the
Cooper Law Firm; Cale H. Conley, Ranse M. Partin --
ranse@conleygriggs.com -- and Andrew T. Tennille III --
dre@conleygriggs.com -- of Conley Griggs Partin; James R.
Bartimus of Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Goza; Mark DiCello
-- madicello@dicellolaw.com-- and Robert F. DiCello --
rfdicello@dicellolaw.com -- of the DiCello Law Firm; Joseph J.
Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC; Niall A. Paul --
npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- and Nathan B. Atkinson --
natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman Thomas Battle; and Guy R.
Bucci, Timothy C. Bailey and Lee Javins of Bucci Bailey & Javins.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Jeffrey S. White.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 3:14-cv-01339


HERBALIFE LTD: Fails to Dismiss State Claims in "Bostick" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on October 11, 2013, denied Herbalife Ltd.'s motion
to dismiss the remaining state claims in a purported class action
lawsuit challenging the legality of the Company's network
marketing program under various state and federal laws, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Herbalife has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed April 8, 2013 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Bostick v.
Herbalife International of America, Inc., et al) challenging the
legality of our network marketing program under various state and
federal laws. On May 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on a variety of grounds. On October 11, 2013, after
plaintiff indicated his intention to dismiss certain claims
brought under federal law, the Court denied our motion to dismiss
the remaining state claims. We believe the suit is without merit
and plan to defend the suit vigorously."

Herbalife Ltd. is a global nutrition company. The Company sells
weight management, healthy meals and snacks, sports and fitness,
energy and targeted nutritional products as well as personal care
products. It distributes and sells its products through a network
of independent distributors, using the direct selling channel.


HITACHI LTD: Court Narrows Sharp's Claims in CRT Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as, In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, CASE NO. C 07-5944 SC, MDL NO. 1917, (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Samuel Conti issued an order on March 13, 2014,
granting in part and denying in part Technologies Displays
Americas, LLC's motion to dismiss Sharp's First Amended
Complaint.  The ruling relates to Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Hitachi,
Ltd., No.
13-cv-01173.

Judge Conti held that Sharp's state law claims are dismissed with
prejudice, with the exception of Sharp's Donnelly Act claims. All
federal claims are undisturbed.  A copy of the Order is available
at http://is.gd/XcHQrmfrom Leagle.com.


HR PLUS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Virginia Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone B. Henderson, Sr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and Carolyn Witt, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. HR Plus, Case No. 3:14-cv-00082-REP
(E.D. Va., February 6, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dale Wood Pittman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
          112-A W Tabb St.
          Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
          Telephone: (804) 861-6000
          Facsimile: (804) 861-3368
          E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Jeremiah A. Denton, III, Esq.
          JEREMIAH A. DENTON III, P.C.
          477 Viking Drive, Suite 100
          Virginia Beach, VA 23452
          Telephone: (757) 340-3232
          Facsimile: (757) 340-4505
          E-mail: jerry@jeremiahdenton.com

               - and -

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  srotkis@clalegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Taron Kato Murakami, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          975 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1454
          Telephone: (202) 463-2400
          Facsimile: (202) 828-5393
          E-mail: tmurakami@seyfarth.com


INGRAM MICRO: Court Approved $6,500 Award From LCD Display Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2014, a federal district judge approved a final
distribution which entitles Ingram Micro Inc., to an incremental
award of approximately $6,500, from its LCD display complaint,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 28, 2013.

The Company states: "We have been a claimant in a class action
proceeding seeking damages from certain manufacturers of LCD flat
panel displays. On July 12, 2013, the federal district judge
overseeing the proceeding issued an order approving a plan of
distribution to the class claimants. In July 2013, we received a
distribution of $29,494, net of all attorney fees and expenses,
which was reflected as a reduction of selling, general and
administrative expenses in 2013. In January 2014, the federal
district judge overseeing the proceeding issued an order
approving a final distribution which entitles us to an
incremental award of approximately $6,500, net of all attorney
fees and expenses, which is expected to be received and
recognized in the first quarter of 2014."

Ingram Micro Inc. (Ingram Micro) is a global information
technology (IT) supply-chain management, mobile device lifecycle
services and logistics solutions. The Company distribute and
market hundreds of thousands of technology products worldwide
from the industry's computer hardware suppliers, mobility
hardware suppliers, networking equipment suppliers, software
publishers, and other suppliers of computer peripherals, consumer
electronics (CE), physical security, automatic identification and
data capture (AIDC)/point-of-sale (POS) and physical security
products. The Company has operations in 37 countries. In October
15, 2012, the Company acquired Brightpoint, Inc. In February
2013, it opened a new business unit, Ingram Micro Mobility, at
Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. In September 2013, the
Company announced that it has acquired SoftCom Inc. In October
2013, the Company acquired Norcross, Ga.-based CloudBlue
Technologies, Inc. (CloudBlue).


JACKSONVILLE CITY, FL: Removed "Blackstone" Suit to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled The Blackstone Building, Inc. v.
The City of Jacksonville, Case No. 16-2012-CA-012908, was removed
from the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:14-cv-00158-HLA-JBT to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda Eaton Ferrelle, Esq.
          Carl Dorian Dawson, Esq.
          Michael Fox Orr, Esq.
          DAWSON ORR, PA
          50 N. Laura St., Suite 1675
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 358-8300
          Facsimile: (904) 358-8303
          E-mail: aef@dawsonorr.com
                  cdd@dawsonorr.com
                  mfo@dawsonorr.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David J. D'Agata, Esq.
          Rita Marie Mairs, Esq.
          OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
          St. James Bldg., Suite 480
          117 W Duval St.
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 630-1700
          Facsimile: (904) 630-1316
          E-mail: dagata@coj.net
                  mairsr@coj.net


JONES GROUP: New Claims Added in "Ettedgui" & "Smith" Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New class action claims were added on January 27, 2014, to the
Ettedgui and Smith actions against The Jones Group Inc., alleging
that there were material omissions and misrepresentations in the
Company's Preliminary Proxy, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "On January 27, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Ettedgui action and the Smith action filed amended complaints,
adding new class action claims alleging, among other things, that
there were material omissions and misrepresentations in our
Preliminary Proxy. The plaintiff in the Smith action also added
claims purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of Jones,
alleging, among other things, that members of the Board breached
their fiduciary duties, and that affiliates of Sycamore aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.

"The plaintiffs in each of the Actions seek equitable relief,
including an injunction preventing consummation of the Merger,
rescission in the event the Merger is consummated, damages, and
an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs."

The Jones Group Inc. (Jones) is a global designer, marketer and
wholesaler of over 35 brands with products in apparel, footwear,
jeanswear, jewelry and handbags. The Company operates in six
segments: domestic wholesale sportswear, domestic wholesale
jeanswear, domestic wholesale footwear and accessories, domestic
retail, international wholesale and international retail. The
Company's internationally recognized brands and licensing
agreements include Nine West, Jones New York, Anne Klein, Kurt
Geiger, Rachel Roy , Robert Rodriguez, Robbi & Nikki, Stuart
Weitzman, Brian Atwood , Boutique 9, Easy Spirit, Carvela, Gloria
Vanderbilt, l.e.i., Bandolino, Enzo Angiolini, Nine & Co., GLO,
Joan & David, Miss KG, Kasper, Energie, Evan-Picone, Le Suit,
Mootsies Tootsies, Grane, Erika, Napier, Jessica Simpson ,
Givenchy, Judith Jack, Albert Nipon, Pappagallo and Rafe .


JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Illegally Suspending Credit Limits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Sanchez, Thomas Torres, Marilyn Grabador Torres, Amjad
Hayaud-Din, as individuals, on their own behalves and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20468-FAM (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2014) is about
the Defendant's alleged use of false pretenses to illegally
suspend and reduce credit limits on debit cards in approximately
two million cases across the country.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in an attempt to limit its exposure to
the risk of the recently well-publicized Target security breach,
has violated the spirit and substance of the Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank"), and the Truth in
Lending Act, the Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that Chase
reduced credit limits and froze accounts at the outset, leaving
the customer without the opportunity to buy food and gifts prior
to the holidays and otherwise access money, which he or she had
in the account.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a national banking association with
its main office located in Columbus, Ohio.  Chase operates
branches throughout the country.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Sanchez, Esq.
          WILLIAM J. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          12600 SW 120th Street, Suite #102
          Miami, FL 33186
          Telephone: (305) 232-8889
          Facsimile: (305) 232-8819
          E-mail: william@wsanchezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert Mark Brochin, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 5300
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          Telephone: (305) 415-3456
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: rbrochin@morganlewis.com


KINDER MORGAN: Defendant in Suit Over Breach of Partnership Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., is one of the defendants in
a putative class action lawsuit alleging, among other things,
breach of a Partnership Agreement, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2013.

On February 5, 2014, a putative class action and derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware (Case No. 9318) against defendants Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. and nominal defendant Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. The suit was filed by a purported
unitholder of KMP and seeks to assert claims both individually
and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public
holders of KMP units during the period of February 5, 2011
through the date of the filing of the suit. The suit alleges
direct and derivative causes of action for breach of the
Partnership Agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among
other things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith
allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMP's distributions
and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions
to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would
have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith"
allocation of KMP's maintenance capital expenses, together with
other unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages and
attorney fees. Defendants believe that this suit is without merit
and intend to defend it vigorously.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP) is a pipeline
transportation and energy storage company in North America. KMP.
The Company operates in five business segments: Products
Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, carbon dioxide (CO2), Terminals
and Kinder Morgan Canada.


KIRBY INLAND: Faces Class Action Over Oil Spill
------------------------------------------------
Nik Rajkovic, writing for KTRH News, reports that the oil spill
near the Texas City dyke is already at the center of a class-
action lawsuit.  Attorney Sean O'Rourke filed the suit in federal
court against Kirby Inland Marine and Cleopatra Shipping Agency -
- the two companies blamed for the spill.

"We represent a lot of fisherman, charter boat captains,
shrimpers, oyster men, people who own bait camps, all who are
being directly impacted as we speak," Mr. O'Rourke tells KTRH
News.

"We wanted to be there before the defendants in the case file a
limitation of liability action, or some similar claim," he says.

"Their lawyers are already preparing their defense I imagine, so
we want to be involved from the very beginning to make sure our
clients' rights are represented," Mr. O'Rourke says.

The plaintiffs are seeking lost wages and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and other unspecified relief.


KMART CORP: Removed "Romero" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jocelyn Romero v. Kmart
Corporation, et al., Case No. BC527557, was removed from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-00944-ABC-JCG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges labor law violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          Raymond Paul Boucher, Esq.
          Scott Tillett, Esq.
          KHORRAMI BOUCHER SUMNER SANGUINETTI LLP
          444 South Flower Street, 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 596-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 569-6010
          E-mail: ladolph@kbsslaw.com
                  rboucher@kbsslaw.com
                  stillett@kbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          SAHAG MAJARIAN II LAW OFFICES
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brittany A Sachs, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hess, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: brittanysachs@paulhastings.com
                  jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  ryanhess@paulhastings.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Court Narrows Tech Data and Sharp Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, CASE NO. C 07-5944 SC, MDL NO. 1917, (N.D. Cal.)
District Judge Samuel Conti issued an order on March 13, 2014,
granting in part and denying in part defendants' joint motion to
dismiss.  The ruling relates to: Tech Data Corp. v. Hitachi,
Ltd., No. 13-cv-00157; Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No.
13-cv-01173; Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs.
N.V., No. 13-cv-02776.

The Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss claims asserted in
the cases by Tech Data and Sharp.

The Court concluded that Sharp's state law claims are dismissed
with prejudice, with the exception of Sharp Plaintiff SEMA's
California claims and Sharp's Donnelly Act claim, which remain in
the case. Tech Data's California and Florida claims are dismissed
with prejudice. All parties' federal claims are undisturbed. All
holdings apply to the Philips Defendants.

A copy of the March 14, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/26Zx7rfrom Leagle.com.

Crago, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Ashlei
Melissa Vargas, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Christopher Wilson,
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw LLP, Daniel D. Owen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.,
Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Esther L
Klisura, Sher Leff LLP, Jonathan Mark Watkins, Pearson Simon
Warshaw & Penny LLP, Patrick John Brady, Polsinelli Shughart,
P.C., Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, a California business,
Plaintiff, represented by Betty Lisa Julian, Cadio R. Zirpoli,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell, Nelson,
Schrimp, Pallios, Pache & Silva, Fred A. Silva, Damrell Nelson
Schrimp Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri
& Saveri Inc., Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Saveri & Saveri, Guido
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Kathy Lee Monday, Damrell, Nelson,
Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Richard Alexander Saveri,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Roger Martin Schrimp, Damrell Nelson
Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist
Vennum, PLLP.

Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R.
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Joseph W.
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Niki B. Okcu, AT&T
Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer
Richardson & Renick LLP, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Adam C.
Belsky, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP, Monique Alonso, Gross & Belsky LLP, Sarah Crowley, Gross
Belsky Alonso LLP & Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.

Jeffrey Figone, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law
Offices of Brian Barry, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph
M. Patane, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott,
LLP, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP & Veronica
Besmer, Besmer Law Firm.

Chad Klebs, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP,
Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Qianwei Fu, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Richard M. Hagstrom, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason &
Gette LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Lee
Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella
Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC, Lindsey H.
Taylor, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC,
Marisa C. Livesay, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
Francis M. Gregorek, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Carmen Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by James McManis, McManis
Faulkner, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Marwa Elzankaly, McManis, Faulkner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Samuel J. Nasto, a Nevada resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert
B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Craig Stephenson, a New Mexico resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert
B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

David G. Norby, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert
B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

John Larch, a West Virginia resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert
B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Gary Hanson, a North Dakota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M.
Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G.
Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert
B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Margaret Slagle, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Karon,
Goldman Scarlato and Karon, PC, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law
Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo
Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Mary Gilmore Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick &
Goldborough PLLC, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Barry Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Alioto, Sr.,
Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Daniel
R. Karon, Goldman Scarlato and Karon, PC, Daniel Joseph Mulligan,
St. James Recovery Services, P.C., Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki
LLP, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut & Cambronne, Joseph Michelangelo
Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut &
Cambronne & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Brian A. Luscher, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Alioto-
Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto
Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Robert James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC, Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Steven Ganz, a California resident, Plaintiff, represented by
John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper,
Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper &
Kirkham PC.

Dana Ross, a California resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law Group, Susan Gilah
Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Brigid Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth, Mansfield
Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M.
Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro
Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore & Brewer, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Southern Office Supply, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur
Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
Donna F. Solen, Mason Law Firm-Washington, Drew A. Carson, Miller
Goler Faeges, Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, Krishna B. Narine,
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler Faeges, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Meijer, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox
LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC,
Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K
Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan
Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers
& Masini PC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP,
Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Kevin Bruce Love,
Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Studio Spectrum, Inc., is a California business, Plaintiff,
represented by Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
David Nathan-Allen Sims, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn
Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.
Kory Pentland, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman
Law Corp, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Andrew J. Morganti, Milberg
LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jessica Lynn
Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.
Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J.
Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Brady Lane Cotton, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina
Diane Crow, Jinks, Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin &
Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly
Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Colleen Sobotka, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Christopher William Cantrell, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt, Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C.,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Robert Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C., Robert G. Methvin,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr,
McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Lynn W. Jinks,
Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson
PC.

Daniel Riebow, a Hawaii resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist &
Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer,
Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.
Travis Burau, a Iowa resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Andrew Kindt, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

James Brown, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Alan Rotman, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Ryan Rizzo, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Charles Jenkins, a Mississippi resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J.
Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael
Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum,
Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.
Daniel R. Hergert, a Nebraska resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Adrienne Belai, a New York resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Joshua Maida, a North Carolina resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Rosemary Ciccone, a Rhode Island resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Frank Warner, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart,
Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica
Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP.

Albert Sidney Crigler, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff,
represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric
D. Hoaglund, McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman
Horsley, King, Horsley & Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M.
Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock,
Hausfeld LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jayne Ann Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer
Lowenthal, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Daniel D. Cowen,
Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist &
Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer,
Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP & P.
John Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel
Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Craig C. Corbitt,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper &
Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph
Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Judith A. Zahid,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, KAG Law Group, Tracy
R. Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher Thomas
Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei
Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Joseph Mario
Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

State of Washington, State of Washington Attorney General 800 5th
Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 206-464-7030 State of
Washington, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Kerwin,
Washington State Attorney General's Office.

State of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist &
Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer,
Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.
Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Benjamin Daniel
Battles, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, James
M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Benjamin Daniel
Battles, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, James
M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by
Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, James
M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike
McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum
& Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori
Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP,
Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos,
Perkins Coie, Joren Surya Bass, Perkins Coie LLP, Nicholas H.
Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Steven Douglas Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP, William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum & Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Peterson,
Susman Godfrey LLP, John Pierre Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny
William Carter, Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, N/A,
Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, H. Lee Godfrey,
Susman Godfrey LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist &
Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP & Kenneth S. Marks,
Susman Godfrey LLP.

Department of Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia
A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of
the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney
General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff, represented by
Patricia A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer,
Office of the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the
Attorney General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney
General, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James
M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP, Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum & Kelly Laudon,
Lindquist Vennum, PLLP.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura
Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon
Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi,
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig
Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David
Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth
Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang,
Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P..

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Best Buy.com LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan,
Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T
Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter
PA, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A.
Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA,
Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner.

Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny
Nachwalter PA, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine
Garcia, James T Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny
Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner & Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA.

Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.
Giovanni Constabile, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart
Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Gio's Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and
Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski,
Kirby McInerney LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price
& Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Sharp Electronics Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Craig A
Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A.
Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Stephen E.
Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP.

Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP,
Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph
J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP.

Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston
& Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth
Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, Matthew D. Kent, Alston & Bird LLP, Melissa Mahurin
Whitehead, Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP,
Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James Matthew Wagstaffe,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn
Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird
LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Matthew D. Kent, Alston & Bird LLP,
Melissa Mahurin Whitehead, Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny,
Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James
Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P..

Sharp Corporation, Petitioner, represented by Colin C. West,
Bingham McCutchen LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., ("Chunghwa PT") is a Taiwanese
company, Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP & Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Hitachi, Ltd., is a Japanese company, Defendant, represented by
Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd., ("Hitachi America") is a New York company,
Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton
Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., ("Hitachi Asia") is a Singaporean company,
Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland
and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP.

Irico Group Corp., ("IGC") is a Chinese entity, Defendant,
represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.

Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., ("IDDC") is a Chinese entity,
Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

LG Electronics, Inc., ("LGEI") is a South Korean entity,
Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Bethany Woodard
Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman,
Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP,
Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, William David Temko,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP & YongSang Kim.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, ("PCNA") is a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Weil,
Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, A.
Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Andrew R. Tillman, Paine Tarwater Bickers & Tillman,
Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald,
James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph Richard Wetzel, King & Spalding, Kajetan Rozga,
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B.
Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP & Molly M Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., ("Samsung America") is a California
corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant,
represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, ("TC") is a Japanese company, Defendant,
represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E.
Foster, White and Case LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal
Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, George L. Paul,
White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White &
Case LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu,
White and Case LLP, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew
Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., ("BMCC") is a Chinese
company, Defendant, represented by Terry Calvani, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Christine A. Laciak, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Craig D. Minerva, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US
LLP.

LG Eletronics U.S.A., Inc., ("LGEUSA") is a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & William David Temko,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, ("PENAC") is a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon
D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Stephen M. Ng, Baker Botts LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tiffany B.
Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Charles M Malaise & Erik T. Koons, Baker
Botts LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, ("SEC") is a South Korean company,
Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C Byrd,
David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Haidee L.
Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., ("SEAI") is a New York
corporation, Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Courtney C
Byrd, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny
and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, ("TAEP") is
headquartered in Irvine, California, Defendant, represented by
Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland,
Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP,
Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J.
Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster,
White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., ("TAIP") is
headquartered in Irvine, California, Defendant, represented by
Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland,
Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP,
Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent
Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and
Case LLP, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White
and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America, Inc, ("Toshiba America") is a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard
Lau, White & Case LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal
Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Samuel J.
Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, Charise Naifeh,
White & Case LLP & Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L
Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory D. Hull, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn LLP, Steven
A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP & Molly M
Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP.

Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC, ("TACP") is a limited
liability company, is headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey,
Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White &
Case LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil,
White & Case LLP, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White &
Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J.
Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, Charise Naifeh,
White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew
Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, fka Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,
Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Bambo
Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen
Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole,
Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M
Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C. Hemlock,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), ("HEDUS") is a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James
Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., ("Philips
Brazil") is a Brazilian company, Defendant, represented by David
Michael Lisi, Reed Smith LLP, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard &
Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., ("Samsung Malaysia") is a
Malaysian corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., ("Samsung SDI Mexico") is a
Mexican company, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., ("Samsung SDI Brazil") is a Brazilian
company, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, ("Samsung SDI Shenzhen") is a
Chinese company, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., ("Samsung SDI Tianjin") is a
Chinese company, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant,
represented by Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus
Deringer US LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik &
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James
Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., "KPNV", Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Stephen M. Ng,
Baker Botts LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,
Tiffany B. Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Charles M Malaise & Erik T.
Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L
Wald, William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary
Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich,
Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles
and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin,
Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP
& YongSang Kim.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil,
Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,
Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F.
Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B.
Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Eva
W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon
D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn
LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Diana
Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, James F.
Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara
Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello,
Winston & Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP.

Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..
Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Charles M Malaise & Erik
T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian
Ballard, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott
A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. LTD., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian
Ballard, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott
A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Samuel J.
Sharp.

Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas
L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius
Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White
and Case LLP, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig,
White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew
Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White
and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E.
Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp & Charise
Naifeh, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White
and Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard
Lau, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent
Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC & Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP.

Technologies Displays Americas LLC, Defendant, represented by
Mark C. Dosker, Squire Sanders (US) LLP & Nathan Lane, III,
Squire Sanders (US) LLP.

Technicolor S.A, Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP.

Technicolor USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin L.
Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by
Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC.
Viewsonic Corporation, Movant, represented by Daniel Allen Sasse,
Crowell & Moring LLP & Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring
LLP.

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC.

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC.

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Interested Party, represented
by Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Calvin Lee Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker
Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Ryan M.
Hurley, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

Thomson S.A., Interested Party, represented by Calvin L. Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, Kathy L.
Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Ryan M. Hurley, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP.

State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio
Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office.

Douglas A. Kelley, Miscellaneous, represented byties,
Miscellaneous, represented by James M. Lockhart, Lindquist &
Vennum, P.L.L.P., Jessica Lynn Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum, Philip
J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

John R. Stoebner, Miscellaneous, represented by James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Jessica Lynn Meyer, Kelly
Laudon, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General, Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office
of the Illinois Attorney General & Blake L. Harrop, Office of the
Illinois Attorney General.

State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord,
Oregon Department of Justice.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Court Tosses Bid For Atty. Fee Award
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jooseph C. Spero denied a motion for attorneys'
fees and costs in CAROL POSTIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP, Defendant, CASE NO. 09-CV-03290-JCS,
(N.D. Cal.).
A copy of the March 13, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/szJw7hfrom Leagle.com.

A Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs was filed by Defendant
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LP) against parties-in-interest
Boston Cedar, Inc., Cheapskate Charlie's, LLC, Cabinets to Go,
Inc. and Cal Garland d/b/a Meadow River Lumber (the Michigan
Plaintiffs). LP seeks an award of fees and costs pursuant to an
indemnification provision in a Settlement Agreement that has been
entered in the action.

Judge Spero denied the Motion without prejudice saying LP has not
met its burden of establishing any particular award of reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Carol Postier, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Caleb Ezrin --
jezrin@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP & William M. Audet -
- waudet@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP.
Yvonne Langan, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas John Borchard --
tborchard@borchardlaw.com -- Borchard and Callahan, APC..

Boston Cedar, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Alan
Cebrian -- mcebrian@mpbf.com -- Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney
& Jennifer Jill Karpinski -- jkarpinski@mpbf.com -- Murphy
Pearson Bradley Feeney.

Louisiana-Pacific Corp, Defendant, represented by Thomas Arthur
Packer -- tpacker@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, James E
Weatherholtz -- jweatherholtz@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge Rice, LLP & Rebecca R Monroe -- rmonroe@gordonrees.com
-- Gordon & Rees LLP.


MITSUBISHI: Bid to Dismiss Sharp Complaint Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, NO. C 07-5944 SC, MDL NO. 1917, (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge Samuel Conti entered an order on March 13, 2014, granting
in part and denying in part Mitsubishi's Motion To Dismiss
Sharp's First Amended Complaint.  The ruling relates to:
Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05724;
Alfred H. Siegel v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05261; Best Buy
Co., Inc. v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05264; Interbond
Corporation of America v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05727; Office
Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05726; Costco Wholesale
Corporation v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05723; P.C. Richard &
Son Long Island Corporation v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05725;
Schultze Agency Services, LLC v. Technicolor SA, Ltd., No. 13-cv-
05668; Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corp. v. Technicolor SA,
No. 3:13-cv-05262; Target Corp. v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-
05686.

Defendant Mitsubishi filed a motion to dismiss various Direct
Action Purchaser Plaintiffs' complaints.

Judge Conti held that the DAPs' state law claims are dismissed
with prejudice, except their Donnelly Act claims, which remain in
the case. All federal claims are undisturbed.

A copy of the March 13, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/1j0kgBfrom Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Court Orders Closure of Ex-Cop's Suit vs. NYPD
--------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Wallace, a former employee of the New York City Police
Department (NYPD), asserts various claims arising out of her
termination from the NYPD after a disciplinary hearing. She
brings suit individually and on behalf of a putative class of
current and former NYPD employees who have also been terminated
or faced disciplinary sanctions.  Ms. Wallace -- who is African-
American -- alleges that Defendants violated her due process
rights during her termination and breached an earlier settlement
agreement in which the City of New York pledged to address racial
discrimination within the NYPD.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.

In a Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated December 3, 2013,
Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended dismissing Plaintiff's
claims.

In an Opinion and Order entered on February 24, 2014, available
at http://is.gd/xZQaIIfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Ronnie
Abrams adopted Judge Netburn's R&R in its entirety.

"The Court has reviewed the other portions of the R&R and finds
no clear error. Accordingly, it adopts Judge Netburn's R&R in
full and grants Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint," ruled Judge Abrams.

Judge Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The case is BRENDA WALLACE, Plaintiff Individually and as
Representative of a Class of L. 1549 DC 37 Employees who have
been disciplined by NYPD, and Defendants in violation of section
1983 United States Code, Plaintiffs, v. RAY KELLY, Commissioner,
N.Y.P.D.; NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPT.; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW
YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 8210
(RA), (S.D. N.Y.).


OCEANEERING INT'L: Offshore Worker Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Theophalis J. Gaines, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Oceaneering International, Inc., Case No.
6:14-cv-00191-RTH-CMH (W.D. La., February 6, 2014) is a
collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Putative Class Members are
current and former hourly offshore employees of Oceaneering.

Oceaneering International, Inc. may be served with process by
serving its registered agent CT Corporation System in Dallas,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com
                  adunlap@fhl-law.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          E-mail: Phil@bohrerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          OFFICE OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          P O Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laurence E. Stuart, Esq.
          Robert Glen Rigby, Esq.
          Hollie Reiminger, Esq.
          STUART & ASSOCIATES
          909 Fannin St., Suite 3250
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 337-3750
          Facsimile: (713) 481-6320
          E-mail: lstuart@stuartpc.com
                  grigby@stuartpc.com
                  hreiminger@stuartpc.com


OLD REPUBLIC: Obtains Final Approval of "Neff" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik issued an order, judgment and
decree granting final approval to a class action settlement in
PEGGY A. NEFF and GEOFFREY E. NEFF, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OLD REPUBLIC TITLE,
LTD., a foreign corporation, Defendant, NO. 2:12-CV-02019-RSL,
(W.D. Wash.).  A copy of the March 13, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/SlmlKJfrom Leagle.com.

The Court granted final approval to the Settlement Agreement and
found it is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class as a whole.

Class Counsel's request for an attorney fee award, payable solely
from the Settlement Fund, is approved in the amount of
$50,392.48, which includes their litigation costs. The Settlement
Administrator will pay the Attorney Fee Award to Class Counsel,
in such shares as Class Counsel directs, within 20 business days
after the Effective Date.

Class Counsel's request for representative plaintiffs' award is
approved in the total amount of $2,500.00 for Plaintiffs Peggy A.
Neff and Geoffrey E. Neff, payable solely from the Settlement
Fund. The Settlement Administrator will pay the Representative
Plaintiffs' Award by delivering a check to Schroeter Goldmark &
Bender made payable jointly to Peggy A. Neff and Geoffrey E. Neff
in the total amount of $2,500.00.

Peggy A. Neff, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J Berger --
berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Guy William
Beckett -- gbeckett@beckettlaw.com -- BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP,
Martin S Garfinkel -- garfinkel@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK
& BENDER & Roblin John Williamson -- roblin@williamslaw.com --
WILLIAMSON & WILLIAMS.

Geoffrey E. Neff, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J Berger,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Guy William Beckett, BERRY &
BECKETT, PLLP, Martin S Garfinkel, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER &
Roblin John Williamson, WILLIAMSON & WILLIAMS.

Old Republic Title Ltd, a foreign corporation, Defendant,
represented by Gavin Williams Skok -- gskok@riddellwilliams.com -
- RIDDELL WILLIAMS & Scott A. Smith -- ssmith@riddellwilliams.com
-- RIDDELL WILLIAMS.


PACIFIC BELL: Loses Appeal From $17MM Judgment in "Ammari" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In AMMARI ELECTRONICS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY, Defendant and Appellant, NO. A136801,
Pacific Bell Directory appealed from a class action judgment
awarding over $17 million in breach of contract damages to tens
of thousands of advertisers in its Yellow Pages directories
(directories). The judgment is premised on Pacific Bell's
asserted failure to exert its best efforts in distributing the
directories to its business and residential customers in all
parts of the state. Pacific Bell challenged (1) the trial court's
rulings certifying the case as a class action, (2) the
sufficiency of the breach of contract evidence, and (3) the
amount of damages awarded.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
however, affirmed the class action judgment in a March 14, 2014
Order available at http://is.gd/INsae2from Leagle.com.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Severance Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli communications
operator, on March 26 disclosed that it was served with a lawsuit
and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class
action, filed against Partner on March 24, 2014 in the Tel-Aviv-
Jaffa District Labour Court.

The claim alleges that Partner did not include in the severance
pay calculation for its employees various components that
constitute an addition to the salary for the severance pay
calculation and thereby acted unlawfully.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total amount
claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
NIS100 million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of
certainty, the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range
of potential exposure, if any.


PECH HUGHES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Lee A. Jenkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Christopher E. Pech and Pech, Hughes, & McDonald,
P.C., doing business as Litow & Pech, P.C., doing business as
Litow & Pech, P.C., A Fictitious Name, Case No. 8:14-cv-00041-
JFB-TDT (D. Neb., February 6, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM - CHICAGO
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM
          8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net
                  billr205@gmail.com


PENN CREDIT: Illegally Contacts Class Members' Phones, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Hartley-Culp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Penn Credit Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00208-ARC (M.D. Pa., February 6, 2014) is brought for damages,
injunctive relief, and other remedies, resulting from the alleged
illegal actions of Penn Credit in negligently and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Penn Credit Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation also based
in Pennsylvania.

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


PENNSYLVANIA: Loses Bid for Summary Relief in Tax Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In Charles Muscarella, Executor of the Estate of Josephine Carbo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioner, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent, NO. 10
F.R. 2011, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is considering
whether the estate of a claimant who paid her property taxes for
the tax claim year, and was otherwise eligible for a rebate under
the Senior Citizens Property Tax and Rent Rebate Assistance Act
(Act), but died before December 31 of the claim year, should
still be entitled to a rebate. The Act provides rebates for a
portion of real estate taxes and rents to claimants who meet
certain age and income qualifications. The regulations of the
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (Department) relating to this
Act also permit the personal representative of a claimant's
estate to seek the rebate, provided that the claimant survived
the entire claim year. These regulations permitting estates to
obtain the rebate have been in effect, and essentially remained
unchanged, for nearly four decades.

Presently before the Court is the application of Charles
Muscarella, Executor of the Estate of Josephine Carbo (Decedent),
on behalf of the Estate and the class that he represents
(together Muscarella), for entry of judgment on liability only,
as well as a cross-application for summary relief filed on behalf
of the Commonwealth. In his application, Mr. Muscarella seeks an
order declaring sections 401.1(iv) and 401.43(a) of the
Department's regulations invalid insofar as they limit a personal
representative of an estate from claiming a property tax rebate
for a decedent who did not live during some part of the year next
succeeding the calendar year for which the rebate is claimed.  In
its application, the Commonwealth seeks an order declaring that
estates are ineligible for the property tax or rent rebate
because the Act does not define the term "claimant" to include
estates and that the aforementioned regulations are invalid to
the extent they are inconsistent with the language of the Act.

In an opinion signed by Hororable Patricia A. McCullough on March
14, 2014, available at http://is.gd/69GT74from Leagle.com, the
Court construed the Act as allowing a decedent's estate to pursue
a claim for a rebate under the Act so long as the decedent meets
any one of the three eligibility criteria set forth in the
definition of "Claimant" under section 1303 of the Act, 53 P.S.
Section6926.1303.

"We do not construe the Act as limiting the right of estates to
file a claim only where the decedent lived throughout the
entirety of the tax year for which the property tax or rent
rebate is sought. We, therefore, will grant Muscarella's
application for entry of judgment on the issue of liability only
and deny the Commonwealth's cross-application for summary
relief," the Honorable McCullough concluded.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Received $1.3-Mil of Insurance Recoveries
----------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., disclosed that for the year
ended December 31, 2013, it has received and recognized
approximately $1.3 million of insurance recoveries related to the
settlement of two separate securities lawsuits, Form 10-K filed
on February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

During the year ended December 31, 2012, Piedmont settled two
separate securities class action lawsuits and recorded $7.5
million in litigation settlement expense. During the year ended
December 31, 2013, Piedmont received and recognized approximately
$1.3 million of insurance recoveries related to the settlement.

Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. (Piedmont) is a real estate
investment trust (REIT). Piedmont is engages in the acquisition
and ownership of commercial real estate properties throughout the
United States, including properties that are under construction,
newly constructed, or have operating histories. Company conducts
business primarily through Piedmont Operating Partnership, L.P.
(Piedmont OP), a limited partnership, as well as performing the
management of its buildings through two wholly owned
subsidiaries, Piedmont Government Services, LLC and Piedmont
Office Management, LLC. Piedmont is the sole general partner of
Piedmont OP. Piedmont OP owns properties directly, through wholly
owned subsidiaries and through both consolidated and
unconsolidated joint ventures. In December 2013, Piedmont
completed the purchase of two office buildings. On December 30,
2013, the Company purchased office building in Irving, TX. In
January 2014, it sold of 8700 South Price Road in Tempe, AZ.


PNC BANK: Accused of Manipulating Force-Placed Insurance Market
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Montoya, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PNC Bank, N.A., PNC Mortgage, Assurant, Inc., and
American Security Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-20474-JEM
(S.D. Fla., February 6, 2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged
manipulation of the force-placed insurance market with an eye
toward artificially inflating premiums and placing unnecessary
coverage, which the PNC Defendants purchase from the Assurant
Defendants and then choose to pass on to the borrower.

PNC Bank, N.A., is a national banking association headquartered
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which regularly conducts business in
the state of Florida and throughout the United States.  PNC
Mortgage is a division of PNC Bank, N.A., also headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Assurant, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
office in New York.  Assurant participates in the force-placed
insurance market through its trade name, Assurant Specialty
Property.  American Security Insurance Company is a Delaware
corporation and an indirect subsidiary of Assurant, writing
force-placed insurance policies in all 50 states and the District
of Columbia with its principal address in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK, TROPIN, & THROCKMORTON P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
                  tr@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          Stephen F. Rosenthal
          John Gravante, III, Esq.
          Matthew Weinshall
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          City National Bank Building
          25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
                  pprieto@podhurst.com
                  srosenthal@podhurst.com
                  jgravante@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Sarah Engel, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  sengel@harkeclasby.com
                  hbushman@harkeclasby.com

               - and -

          Allan A. Joseph, Esq.
          FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH, PL
          1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 32nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 350-5690
          Facsimile: (786) 364-7995
          E-mail: ajoseph@fuerstlaw.com

Defendants PNC Bank, N.A., and PNC Mortgage are represented by:

          Peter W. Homer, Esq.
          HOMER BONNER JACOBS, P.A.
          1441 Brickell Avenue
          Four Seasons Tower Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 350-5100
          Facsimile: (305) 372-2738
          E-mail: phomer@homerbonner.com


SCIBERRAS INTERNAL: Sued Over Unpaid Wage & Retaliatory Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jhenny Allen and other similarly situated individuals v.
Sciberras Internal Medicine, Inc. and Andrea Sciberras,
individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-60294-JIC (S.D. Fla., February 6,
2014) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid wages and
retaliatory discharge under the laws of the United States.

Sciberras Internal Medicine, Inc. is a Florida Profit
Corporation.  Andrea Sciberras is now, the director, manager or
owner of SIM.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter Neil Andresky, Esq.
          THE ANDRESKY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          9121 N. Lake Park Circle
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 348-4546
          Facsimile: (954) 342-1988
          E-mail: pandresky@andreskylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adi Amit, Esq.
          LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC
          200 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 900
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 755-3425
          Facsimile: (954) 755-2993
          E-mail: adi@lubellrosen.com

               - and -

          Lisa Griffin Hodgdon, Esq.
          BROAD AND CASSEL
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 225-3035
          Facsimile: (813) 204-2134
          E-mail: lhodgdon@broadandcassel.com


STANFORD HOSPITAL: To Settle Class Action for More Than $4.1MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Green, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
Stanford Hospital & Clinics and two of its vendors are set to pay
more than $4.1 million to settle a class action claim that they
violated a state privacy law by allowing the medical information
of approximately 20,000 emergency room patients to be posted
online for nearly a year.

The settlement was tentatively approved March 19 by Los Angeles
County Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle.

Shana Springer sued Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Multi-
Specialty Collection Services LLC for $20 million on Sept. 28,
2011.  Corcino & Associates LLC was later added to the class
action complaint.  Ms. Springer alleged that her medical
information and that of other patients treated in the hospital's
emergency room between March 1, 2009, and Aug. 31, 2009, was
illegally displayed on a public website for nearly a year,
beginning on Sept. 9, 2010.

The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act prohibits health
care providers from disclosing patient records without written
consent.  The compromised information in this case included
medical record numbers, hospital account numbers, billing
charges, and emergency room admission and discharge dates.  The
psychiatric diagnosis of a Santa Clara man was also disclosed,
according to the lawsuit.  No credit card or Social Security
numbers were disclosed.

Multi-Specialty Collection Services and Corcino & Associates will
pay $3.3 million of the $4.125 million settlement, according to a
statement released by Stanford.  The hospital will pay $500,000
for a program to educate vendors on recent regulations that hold
them accountable for privacy breaches as well as $250,000 to
cover the administrative costs of the settlement.

In its statement, Stanford stressed that federal and state
government agencies reviewed its actions, including security and
privacy safeguards, and determined there was no violation on its
part.  The hospital said it agreed to participate in the
settlement to avoid the costs of continuing the litigation.

"Patient privacy and data security continues to be an utmost
priority at Stanford Hospital & Clinics," the statement said.
"We are pleased to have put this case behind us and look forward
to helping outside vendors better understand and comply with new
patient privacy regulations."

Each of the affected patients will receive a little more than
$100, according to Springer's Los Angeles-based attorney Brian S.
Kabateck.  But big payday wasn't the objective of the suit, he
said.

"Our case was always about protecting privacy," he said, adding
that health care providers, no matter how big or how small, have
an obligation to safeguard patient information.

Shortly after the complaint was filed, Stanford laid the blame on
Multi-Specialty Collection Services.  The hospital said it
properly sent the medical information to the collection and
billing services firm in an encrypted format.  An electronic
spreadsheet created by Multi-Specialty Collection Services was
then allegedly sent Corcino & Associates for help creating a
graph.

The information ultimately ended up on www.StudentOfFortune.com,
a now-defunct website that solicited bids to answer homework
questions.

Mr. Kabateck said he hasn't seen any evidence of the information
being used for nefarious purposes.  But the possibility still
exists.  While the information was removed from the website,
there is no way to know whether it was copied, he said.

The hospital also said around the time the suit was filed that it
moved quickly to have the information pulled.  In addition, it
notified the affected patients and provided free identity
protection services.

The settlement will take a couple of months to be finalized, but
once it is, the payouts will be automatically distributed,
Mr. Kabateck said.


STATE FARM: Denial of Class Decertification Bid Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Rosemary Guadiana, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, Defendant, NO. CIV 07-326 TUC FRZ (LAB), (D. Ariz.),
pending before the court is the defendant's motion to decertify
the class pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 23, filed on October 15, 2013.

Plaintiff claims the defendant breached her homeowner's insurance
policy by failing to pay the cost of tearing out and replacing
part of the structure when she replaced her polybutylene (PB)
plumbing.  The defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
(State Farm), moved that the court decertify the Arizona class
certified by the court on March 31, 2011.  State Farm argued that
factual and legal developments show Guadiana's claim no longer
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Fed.R.Civ.P. The case was
referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for all pretrial matters
pursuant to LRCiv 72.1. Rules of Practice of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.

In a Report and Recommendation dated March 13, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/3ioPnmfrom Leagle.com,
Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman Recommended that the District
Court enter an order denying State Farm's motion to decertify the
class saying recent legal and factual developments do not require
the court to decertify the plaintiff's Rule 23(b)(3) class.

Rosemary Guadiana, Plaintiff, represented by Cory S Fein --
csf@caddellchapman.com -- Caddell & Chapman, Cynthia B Chapman --
cbc@caddellchapman.com -- Caddell & Chapman, Joseph William
Watkins -- JoeWLaw@Cox.net -- Joseph W Watkins PC, Michael A
Caddell -- mac@caddellchapman.com -- Caddell & Chapman & Richard
D Daly -- rdaly@rdalylaw.com -- Richard Daly Law firm.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
James R Broening -- jrb@bowwlaw.com -- Broening Oberg Woods &
Wilson PC, Michael S McCarthy -- michael.mccarthy@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker & Daniels LLP, Robert Thomas Aquinas Sullivan --
rts@bowwlaw.com -- Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson PC, Todd P
Walker -- todd.walker@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker & Daniels LLP
& Tyler Maxwell Abrahams -- tma@bowwlaw.com -- Broening Oberg
Woods & Wilson PC.


SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caridad Martinez v. City Of Sunny Isles Beach, Case No. 1:14-cv-
20469-KMW (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2014) alleges that between
September 10, 2011, and August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff worked an
average of 58 hours a week for the Defendant but was never paid
the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a
week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

City of Sunny Isles Beach is an incorporated municipality 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:

          Eugene K. Pettis, Esq.
          HALICZER PETTIS & SCHWAMM PA
          100 SE 3rd Avenue, 7th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 523-9922
          Facsimile: (954) 522-2512
          E-mail: cmarr@hpslegal.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Smith" Suit in California Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian and Michele Smith, husband and wife, Ashley Barlow, Jamie
L. Bateman, John Belski, Nicholas Cooper, Ashley Durrah-
Markupson, Michael Craig, Stephen Lagano, Lorne Murphy, Tammi
Mendell, Elizabeth Perdue, Molly Phillips, Kethra Ramert, Amber
Rippy, Sharon Sanders, Stanley Sountharavong, Leanna Walther,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00577 (N.D. Cal., February 6, 2014) arises from the data breach
at Target stores in late 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com


TAYLOR CAPITAL: Settles Sullivan & Panozzo Actions Over MB Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Capital Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 8-K dated
February 17, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that the Company, the members of its board of
directors, and MB Financial, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of certain
litigation in response to the announcement of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of July 14, 2013, between MB Financial
and Taylor Capital.

On July 15, 2013, Taylor Capital and MB Financial announced that
they had entered into the Merger Agreement, pursuant to which
Taylor Capital will be acquired by MB Financial through a merger
of Taylor Capital with and into MB Financial (the "Merger"). On
October 17, 2013, MB Financial filed a Registration Statement on
Form S-4 with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") that included a preliminary version of a
joint proxy statement/prospectus for the Merger. On or about
January 21, 2014, in connection with special meetings of their
respective stockholders to approve the Merger Agreement, Taylor
Capital and MB Financial each mailed copies of the final joint
proxy statement/prospectus, dated January 14, 2014, to their
respective stockholders (the "Proxy Statement"). The Proxy
Statement was filed by each of Taylor Capital and MB Financial
with the SEC on January 15, 2014.

As disclosed on page 99 of the Proxy Statement, on July 26, 2013,
an action captioned James Sullivan v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2013-CH17751 (the "Sullivan Action") was
commenced against Taylor Capital, the Taylor Capital Board
(collectively, the "Taylor Capital Defendants"), and MB Financial
(collectively, the "Defendants") in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois (the "Court"), alleging that the Taylor Capital
Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger
and that MB Financial aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On August 8, 2013, a stockholder class action captioned Dennis
Panozzo v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2013-CH-
18546 (the "Panozzo Action") was commenced against the Defendants
in the Court making similar allegations in connection with the
Merger.

Subsequently, on September 10, 2013, the Sullivan Action and the
Panozzo Action were consolidated pursuant to Court order under
the first-filed Sullivan Action, Case No. 2013-CH17751.

On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Action filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, alleging that the
Taylor Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger, including by making incomplete and misleading
disclosures concerning the Merger, and that MB Financial aided
and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.

On February 17, 2014, solely to eliminate the costs, risks,
burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and to put
the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, the
Defendants entered into the MOU with the Plaintiffs pursuant to
which Taylor Capital and MB Financial have agreed to make the
disclosures concerning the Merger set forth below. The MOU also
provides that, solely for purposes of settlement, the Court will
certify a class consisting of all persons who were record or
beneficial stockholders of Taylor Capital when the Merger was
approved by the Taylor Capital Board or any time thereafter (the
"Class"). In addition, the MOU provides that, subject to approval
by the Court after notice to the members of the Class (the "Class
Members"), the Action will be dismissed with prejudice and all
claims that the Class Members may possess with regard to the
Merger, with the exception of claims for statutory appraisal,
will be released.

In connection with the settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel have
expressed their intention to seek an award by the Court of
attorneys' fees and expenses. The amount of the award to the
Plaintiffs' counsel will ultimately be determined by the Court.
This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration
to be paid by MB Financial or that any Taylor Capital stockholder
will receive in the Merger. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a definitive settlement
agreement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if
the parties enter into such an agreement. In the absence of
either event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU
may be terminated.

The Defendants continue to believe that the Action is without
merit, have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny,
all of the allegations of wrongful or actionable conduct asserted
in the Action, and the Taylor Capital Board vigorously maintains
that it diligently and scrupulously complied with its fiduciary
duties, that the Proxy Statement is complete and accurate in all
material respects and that no further disclosure is required
under applicable law. The Defendants are entering into the MOU
and the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the costs,
risks, burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and
to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest.
Nothing in the MOU, any settlement agreement or any public
filing, including this Current Report on Form 8-K ("Current
Report"), shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity of
filing or the materiality under applicable laws of any of the
additional information or in any public filing associated with
the proposed settlement of the Action.

Taylor Capital Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. The Company
derives its revenue from its wholly owned subsidiary, Cole Taylor
Bank (the Bank). It provides a range of products and services to
closely-held commercial customers and their owner operators in
the Chicago area. It also provides asset-based lending and
residential mortgage origination services through offices both in
Chicago and other geographic markets. Its businesses are
commercial banking, asset based lending, mortgage origination
services and retail banking. The Bank's primary businesses are
commercial banking, asset based lending, mortgage banking
services and retail banking. Its commercial lending activities
consists of providing loans for working capital, business
expansion or acquisition, owner-occupied commercial real estate
financing, revolving lines of credit, and stand-by and commercial
letters of credit.


THOMSON SA: Bid to Dismiss Sharp et al Suits Has Partial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL NO. 1917, NO. C-07-5944-SC, (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge Samuel Conti issued an order granting in part and denying
in part The Thomson Defendants' Motions To Dismiss.  The ruling
telates To: Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Hitachi Ltd., No. C-13-
1173-SC; Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-
05724; Alfred H. Siegel v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05261; Best
Buy Co., Inc. v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05264; Interbond
Corporation of America v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05727; Office
Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05726; Costco Wholesale
Corporation v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05723; P.C. Richard &
Son Long Island Corporation v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-05725;
Schultze Agency Services, LLC v. Technicolor SA, Ltd., No. 13-cv-
05668; Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corp. v. Technicolor SA,
No. 3:13-cv-05262; Target Corp. v. Technicolor SA, No. 13-cv-
05686.

Defendants Thomson SA and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.
filed motions to dismiss the Sharp Plaintiffs' first amended
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as the
complaints of various direct action plaintiffs (DAPs).

All Plaintiffs' state law claims are dismissed with prejudice as
untimely, except their Donnelly Act claims, which are tolled by
the federal criminal proceedings, ruled Judge Conti. All
Plaintiffs' federal claims are also tolled, he added.

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


THORATEC CORP: Defendant in Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In January 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Thoratec Corporation, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

The Company states: "Shareholders often have instituted
securities class action litigation after periods of volatility in
the market price of a company's securities. Securities class
action suits have been filed against us in the past, including
most recently in January 2014, and if other such suits are filed
against us in the future we may incur substantial legal fees and
our management's attention and resources may be diverted from
operating our business in order to respond to the litigation."

Thoratec Corporation is engaged in mechanical circulatory support
with a product portfolio to treat the range of clinical needs for
advanced heart failure (HF) patients. The Company develops,
manufactures and markets medical devices used for circulatory
support.


TKO RENTALS: Welder Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
John Wall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated TKO Rentals & Services, LLC; Kirvard, Inc; and Keith
Brevard, Case No. 6:14-cv-00073-JDL (E.D. Tex., February 6, 2014)
is brought to recover overtime compensation and all other
available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

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

TKO Rentals & Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Carthage, Texas.
Kirvard, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business in Carthage, Texas.  The Defendants own, operate and are
affiliated with an oilfield services company with operations in
Carthage and Centerville.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Deron R. Dacus, Esq.
          Peter Aaron Kerr, Esq.
          THE DACUS FIRM, PC
          821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
          Tyler, TX 75701
          Telephone: (903) 705-1117
          Facsimile: (903) 705-1117
          E-mail: ddacus@dacusfirm.com
                  pkerr@dacusfirm.com


TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Massive Data Breach at Target
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Greenberg, writing for SC Magazine, reports that banks
impacted by the Target breach are suing the company as well as
security firm Trustwave.  Banks impacted in the late-2013 breach
of Target have banded together to file a class-action against the
retail giant, as well as against Trustwave, a Chicago-based
security firm said in the lawsuit to have failed to bring
Target's systems up to industry standards.

"On information and belief, Trustwave scanned Target's computer
systems on [Sept.] 20, 2013 and told Target that there were no
vulnerabilities in Target's computer systems," according to
documents filed on March 24 in U.S. District Court in Chicago by
Trustmark National Bank and Green Bank, N.A.

The documents, filed on behalf of all similarly situated
institutions, continued, "To the contrary, however, and as
reported by The New York Times, Target kept credit and debit card
data on its servers for six full days before hackers transmitted
the data to a separate webserver outside of Target's network."

These vulnerabilities, "either undetected or ignored by
Trustwave," enabled the hackers to pilfer 40 million payment
cards and encrypted PIN data, among heaps of other personal
information, according to the documents, which add that the
breach was preventable.

Sourcing the Consumer Bankers Association, the documents state
that U.S. member banks have already spent $172 million reissuing
stolen cards, and, sourcing global investment banking firm
Jefferies, the documents suggest that payment card issuers may in
total suffer upwards of a billion dollars in damages as a result
of the breach.

When contacted, a Trustwave spokesperson told SCMagazine.com on
March 26 that speaking on pending legal matters and specific
customers is against company policy.

A Target spokesperson told SCMagazine.com on March 26 that the
company does not discuss pending litigation.


TSD INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Kitchen Staff Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Arandy Ramirez-Gomez, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. TSD, Inc., d/b/a
Omega Restaurant, Kostas Konstantopoulos, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-00852 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2014) arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees earned minimum wage and overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Ms. Ramirez-Gomez has worked over ten years for the Defendants as
a kitchen/cleaning staff member.  She worked at the Defendants'
Niles, Illinois restaurant location.

TSD, Inc., doing business as Omega Restaurant, is an Illinois
corporation.  Kostas Konstantopoulos is the president of TSD.

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


TUTM ENTERTAINMENT: Drew's Sued Over Inferior Recordings
--------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
musicians are going back to the studio to re-record old hits.
It's an open secret of the music industry, but a new lawsuit
contends that consumers aren't being told they're getting "poorly
re-recorded songs" when buying compilation albums.

The defendant in the proposed class action lawsuit is Tutm
Entertainment (d/b/a Drew's Entertainment), which has sold albums
including Hits of the 80's and Hits of the 90's.  The albums
feature songs like "I Think We're Alone Now" by Tiffany, "Cult of
Personality" by Living Colour, "Ice Ice Baby" by Vanilla Ice and
"I Wanna Sex You Up" by Color Me Badd.

In New Jersey federal court, Celeste Farrell is leading a
proposed class of consumers taking issue with the packaging.
"Instead of conveying the source of the recording to allow the
consumer to make an informed purchase decision, Tutm provides no
information on the Albums' cover or back label to indicate to the
consumer that the songs are not the original songs," says the
lawsuit.

In theory, re-recordings allow musicians to get more money and
consumers to get cheaper tunes.  The proposed class action
contends that it is fraud to sell unlabeled re-recordings this
way, allegedly depriving consumers of informed choice.  The
lawsuit seeks at least $5 million in damages.

The defendant hasn't responded yet to The Hollywood Reporter's
request for comment.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: "Hawthorne" Claim in Overdraft Fees Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation disclosed that on October 25, 2013, a
U.S. court dismissed with prejudice claims for "unfair" prong of
the California Unfair Competition Law, in the class action
lawsuit relating to overdraft fees filed by Amber Hawthorne,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

According to the Company: "In our Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2011, we initially reported on a class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Bank by Amber Hawthorne
relating to overdraft fees and the posting order of point of sale
and ACH items. On October 25, 2013, U.S. District Judge Jon S.
Tigar issued an order dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff's
claims for "unfair" prong of the California Unfair Competition
Law (the UCL), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
Accordingly, the only claims remaining in the action are for
alleged violation of the "unlawful" and "fraudulent" prongs of
the UCL and for conversion."

Umpqua Holdings Corporation (Umpqua) is a financial holding
company. Umpqua has two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua
Bank (the Bank) and Umpqua Investments, Inc. (Umpqua
Investments).


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Entered MOU to Settle Spokane County Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation on January 16, 2014, entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle and dismiss the class
action lawsuits filed in Spokane County, Washington, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in two separate
class action lawsuits filed in Spokane County, Washington,
Superior Court arising from the proposed merger with Sterling
Financial Corporation (Case Nos. 13-2-03848-4 and 13-2-03904-9).
Specifically, the plaintiffs in the actions allege that Sterling
and its directors breached their fiduciary shareholder duties by
agreeing to the merger terms and that the Company aided and
abetted such breach. The actions further seek to enjoin the
proposed Sterling merger. The court has consolidated the cases
before a single judge for further administration.

On January 16, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding that contains the essential terms of a settlement
and dismissal of the consolidated cases. The MOU does not call
for the payment of any money damages, but does require the
defendants to make certain additional disclosures relating to the
proposed merger and to pay the attorney fees, costs, and expenses
of plaintiffs' counsel incurred in connection with the action.
The terms of the MOU further provided that if the parties cannot
agree on the amount of fees, costs, and expenses to be paid by
the defendants to plaintiffs' counsel, such amount shall be
decided by the court.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation (Umpqua) is a financial holding
company. Umpqua has two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua
Bank (the Bank) and Umpqua Investments, Inc. (Umpqua
Investments).


VILLAGE OF PINECREST, FL: Event Coordinator Seeks Overtime Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caridad Martinez v. Village of Pinecrest, Case No. 1:14-cv-20467-
MGC (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act relating to unpaid overtime.  The Plaintiff
worked for the Defendant as a program and event coordinator for
its Pinecrest Gardens park from September 4, 2012, through
July 12, 2013.

Village of Pinecrest is an incorporated municipality within Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          Christopher Nathaniel Cochran, 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
                  cnc02g@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brett Jeremy Schneider, Esq.
          WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA COLE & BONISKE, P.L.
          200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1900
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 763-4242
          Facsimile: (954) 764-7770
          E-mail: bschneider@wsh-law.com

               - and -

          James C. Crosland, Esq.
          Denise Marie Heekin, Esq.
          BRYANT MILLER OLIVE
          1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-7349
          Facsimile: (305) 374-0895
          E-mail: jcrosland@bmolaw.com
                  dheekin@bmolaw.com


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Settled Employee Retirement Security Act Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2014, Weyerhaeuser Company settled the Employee
Retirement Security Act complaint, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2013.

The Company states: "On April 25, 2011, a complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of a person alleged to be a participant in
the company's U.S. Retirement Plan for salaried employees. The
complaint alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Security
Act (ERISA) with respect to the management of the plan's assets
and sought certification as a class action. On August 23, 2013,
the Court dismissed the claim for money damages, but the claim
for injunctive relief remained active. We recorded an accrual for
$5 million that is reflected in "Accrued liabilities" in our
Consolidated Balance Sheet. In January 2014, we entered into a
settlement of the litigation. The settlement was not material to
either the current or future periods."

Weyerhaeuser Company, formerly Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, is a
forest products company.  The Company is engaged in growing and
harvesting trees, builds homes and making a range of forest
products.


YUM! BRANDS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Price Inflation Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc., on October 4, 2013, filed a motion to dismiss
an amended complaint alleging price inflation for securities
trading due to the omission of information about the Company's
supply chain in China, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
on February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain executive officers alleging
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future
business and financial condition. The four complaints were
subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment
GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased the Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and
February 4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint no
longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding
the Company's business or financial condition and instead alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted
information about the Company's supply chain in China, thereby
inflating the prices at which the Company's securities traded.

On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Briefing on the motion
to dismiss is now complete. The Company denies liability and
intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended
Complaint. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. (YUM) is a quick service restaurant company
based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more
than 125 countries and territories. The Company, through three
concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell (Concepts) develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of priced
food items. The Company operates in six segments: YUM Restaurants
China (China or China Division), YUM Restaurants International
(YRI or International Division), Taco Bell U.S., KFC U.S., Pizza
Hut U.S. and YUM Restaurants India (India or India Division). The
China Division includes mainland China, and the India Division
includes India, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Nepal and Sri Lanka. YRI
includes the remainder of its international operations.


YUM! BRANDS: Notice in Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions Distributed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 28, 2013, YUM! Brands, Inc., reported that on January
21, 2014, the plaintiffs in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions mailed the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the
litigation seeking to certify late meal break class.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay
accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of
meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and
unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and
final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the
court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation
and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four
separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the
District Court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted
certification with respect to the late meal break class. The
parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members,
and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation
were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  "We have provided for a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this
lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not
result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in our
Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that
currently provided for in our Consolidated Financial Statements
cannot be made at this time," YUM! Brands said.

YUM! Brands, Inc. (YUM) is a quick service restaurant company
based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more
than 125 countries and territories. The Company, through three
concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell (Concepts) develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of priced
food items. The Company operates in six segments: YUM Restaurants
China (China or China Division), YUM Restaurants International
(YRI or International Division), Taco Bell U.S., KFC U.S., Pizza
Hut U.S. and YUM Restaurants India (India or India Division). The
China Division includes mainland China, and the India Division
includes India, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Nepal and Sri Lanka. YRI
includes the remainder of its international operations.


YUM! BRANDS: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss "Rodriguez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the so-called Rodriguez
complaint was denied on October 30, 2013, according to YUM!
Brands' Form 10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 28, 2013.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case described above. Taco Bell removed the case
to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for
alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's
Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or
stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. (YUM) is a quick service restaurant company
based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more
than 125 countries and territories. The Company, through three
concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell (Concepts) develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of priced
food items. The Company operates in six segments: YUM Restaurants
China (China or China Division), YUM Restaurants International
(YRI or International Division), Taco Bell U.S., KFC U.S., Pizza
Hut U.S. and YUM Restaurants India (India or India Division). The
China Division includes mainland China, and the India Division
includes India, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Nepal and Sri Lanka. YRI
includes the remainder of its international operations.


YUM! BRANDS: Plaintiffs in "Moeller" Suit Seek Injunction
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Moeller, et al. lawsuit on January 15, 2014,
filed a motion seeking issuance of a class-wide injunction with
regard to maintaining compliance as to corporate Taco Bell
restaurants in California, according to YUM! Brands, Inc. Form
10-K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

In December 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.
In August 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging,
among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the
class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by
failing to make its approximately 200 Company-owned restaurants
in California accessible to the class.  Plaintiffs contend that
queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of
the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use
of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities
do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the
California Disabled Persons Act (the "CDPA"). Plaintiffs have
requested: (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering
Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in
violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on
behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages
per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under
the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. Plaintiffs
contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the
class. In February 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The class included claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

In May 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was
in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues:
indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. In August
2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to
dining room seating. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion in part with regard to door opening force at some
restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to
queue lines.

In December 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiffs to select one
restaurant to be the subject of a trial. The trial for the
exemplar restaurant began on June 6, 2011, and on October 5, 2011
the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ruling
that plaintiffs established that class-wide injunctive relief was
warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to corporate
Taco Bell restaurants in California. The court declined to order
injunctive relief at the time, however, citing the pendency of
Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive and damages
class. The court also found that 12 specific items at the
exemplar store were once out of compliance with applicable state
and/or federal accessibility standards.

Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011,
and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
decertify the previously certified state law damages class but
denied Taco Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief
class. In September 2012, the court set a discovery and briefing
schedule concerning the trials of the four individual plaintiffs'
state law damages claims, which the court stated will be tried
before holding further proceedings regarding the possible
issuance of an injunction. The court subsequently issued an order
modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law deleting the statement that an injunction was warranted.
Plaintiffs appealed that order, and on June 24, 2013 the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal. On January
15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking issuance of a class-
wide injunction, and Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss both the
individual and class ADA claims based on a lack of jurisdiction.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and
federal disability access laws.

YUM! Brands, Inc. (YUM) is a quick service restaurant company
based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more
than 125 countries and territories. The Company, through three
concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell (Concepts) develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of priced
food items. The Company operates in six segments: YUM Restaurants
China (China or China Division), YUM Restaurants International
(YRI or International Division), Taco Bell U.S., KFC U.S., Pizza
Hut U.S. and YUM Restaurants India (India or India Division). The
China Division includes mainland China, and the India Division
includes India, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Nepal and Sri Lanka. YRI
includes the remainder of its international operations.


YUM! BRANDS: Pizza Hut Denies Liability in "Smith" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Pizza Hut division denies liability against
all claims in the so-called Mark Smith complaint alleging that
Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for
various job-related expenses, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filed on February 18, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza
Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not
properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile
costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks
to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. In
January 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.

However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which
dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA
claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws of
sixteen different states.

Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.
In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

In July 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect
to plaintiffs' state law claims but allowed the FLSA claims to go
forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional
Certification in August 2011, and the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on August 23,
2012, and approximately 6,000 individuals opted in.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

YUM! Brands, Inc. (YUM) is a quick service restaurant company
based on number of system units, with over 39,000 units in more
than 125 countries and territories. The Company, through three
concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell (Concepts) develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of priced
food items. The Company operates in six segments: YUM Restaurants
China (China or China Division), YUM Restaurants International
(YRI or International Division), Taco Bell U.S., KFC U.S., Pizza
Hut U.S. and YUM Restaurants India (India or India Division). The
China Division includes mainland China, and the India Division
includes India, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Nepal and Sri Lanka. YRI
includes the remainder of its international operations.


                             *********

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  * * *