CAR_Public/140407.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 68

                             Headlines


ACCELRYS INC: Facing Suits Over Proposed Merger With Dassault
ALLY FINANCIAL: Class Lack Standing to Accuse Mortgage Industry
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York
APPLE INC: Trial in No-Poaching Suit Scheduled for May 2014
CALIFORNIA: Has Two More Years to Unpack Prisons

CANADA: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Student Loan Data Loss
CASA LINDA: Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Army Must Warn Veterans of Health Concerns
CHICKIE'S & PETE'S: Gets Approval of Workers' Suit Settlement
CORRECTIONS CORP: PLN Wants Docs Behind Employee Deal Unsealed

DOUGLAS J. DEGLOPPER: Faces "Gonon" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
EBIX INC: June 5 Fairness Hearing on $6.5MM Settlement
FOREST LABORATORIES: Appeals Class Ruling in Celexa/Lexapro MDL
FOREST LABORATORIES: Awaits Order in Bid to Nix Cal. Lexapro Suit
FOREST LABORATORIES: Moves to Junk Minn. Celexa/Lexapro Suit

FOREST LABORATORIES: Awaits Order in Mo. Suit Over Celexa/Lexapro
GENERAL MOTORS: Consumers File Class Action Over Ignition Defect
GNC CORP: Misrepresented Efficacy of TriFlex Product, Suit Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Allows Pension Fund Class Action to Proceed
HANAMI WESTWOOD: Class to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Graphics Card
HITACHI AUTO: Accused of Fuel Injection System Price-Fixing
HITACHI AUTO: Accused of Electronic Throttle Bodies Price-Fixing
HOMELAND SECURITY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Vukov" Suit
HOSPIRA INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $60 Million

INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in NJ
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Upholds Aveeno Advertising Class Action
JTEKT CORPORATION: Faces "Martens" Antitrust Suit in Michigan
LG ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses "Smith" Class Action
LUIGI'S DOLCERIA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Cake Decorator Says

LYFT: Accused of Violating Privacy Laws by Requiring FB Login
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Leave to Appeal "Dugal" Action Ruling Denied
MEDTRONIC INC: Transferred "Scovil" Suit From Arizona to Nevada
MEL S. HARRIS: 2nd Circuit Skeptical to Junk Suit vs. Debt Buyers
MITSUBA CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Power Window Motors

MIZUHO BANK: Judge Trims Libor Rate-Fixing Class Action
NBTY INC: Appeal Pending on Approval of Glucosamine Suit Accord
NESTLE USA: Falsely Advertised Decaffeinated Coffees, Suit Claims
NET 1 UEPS: Faces Securities Litigation in New York Court
NMB MANAGEMENT: Sued by Restaurant Worker Over FLSA Violations

NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Faces "Ferrell" Class Suit in California
OCLARO INC: Discovery Starts in California Securities Lawsuit
OCWEN LOAN: Removed "Gamble" Suit to N.D. Alabama
OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiff Denied Appeal in Suit Over Redbox Fees
OUTERWALL INC: Suit v. Redbox in Ill. in Prehearing Conference

OUTERWALL INC: Provides Updates on Suits v. Redbox Unit
PANASONIC CORP: Conspired to Rig Bids for HID Ballasts, Suit Says
PANASONIC CORP: Sued for Fixing Prices of Steering Angle Sensors
PERRIGO COMPANY: Hearings Held on Certification of Eltroxin Suits
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces 11 Smoking and Health Litigations

PHILIP MORRIS: Oral Hearing in Lights Case Set for Sept. 2014
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Another Suit Over FLSA Violations
RADIOSHACK CORP: Removed "Melik-Mushgambaryan" Suit to C.D. Cal.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Removed "Myers" Suit to C.D. California
SANOFI PASTEUR: Court Tosses "Weitzner" Suit Dismissal Bid

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation
SHAC LLC: Sent Class Members Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
STANLEY BLACK: Sued Over Misleading Ultrasonic Wave Gizmo Ads
SWIFT ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Spill in Lake Grande
SWISHER HYGIENE: Obtains Initial Approval of Securities Suit Deal

T.RAD CO: Faces Suit Over Price-Fixing of ATF Warmers
TARGET CORP: Faces Another Class Suit in Pennsylvania Over Breach
TARGET CORP: Has More Time to Respond to Data Breach Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. to Consider Propoxyphene Suits
THELADDERS.COM INC: Ct. Narrows Claims in Breach of Contract Suit

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Court Narrows Claims in Pension Fund's Suit
VISA CANADA: Credit Card Fee Class Action Can Proceed
VISA INC: Wal-Mart Files Suit Following Class Action Settlement
WARNER MUSIC: Suit Over Digital Music Downloads in Discovery
WARNER MUSIC: Oct. 2 Final Hearing on Music Download Suit Accord

WEST ASSET: Accused of Negligently Calling Class Members' Phones
WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Illegally Obtaining Consumer Reports
ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS: Class in Electronic Check Scheme Certified


                             *********


ACCELRYS INC: Facing Suits Over Proposed Merger With Dassault
-------------------------------------------------------------
Accelrys, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that on February 6, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of the Company's stockholders challenging the
proposed merger with Dassault Systemes Americas Corp., a Delaware
corporation, and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Dassault
Systemes SA, a French corporation with limited liability, and 3DS
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of DSAC as Purchaser.

According to Accelrys, "On January 30, 2014, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Dassault Systemes Americas
Corp., a Delaware corporation (" DSAC") and a wholly owned
indirect subsidiary of Dassault Systemes SA, a French corporation
with limited liability, and 3DS Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of DSAC ("Purchaser").
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, on February 13,
2014, Purchaser commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") to
purchase all of the outstanding shares of our common stock at a
price per share of $12.50, net to the seller in cash, without
interest (such amount, as it may be adjusted from time to time on
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement the "Offer Price"), and subject to any required
withholding of taxes. The initial expiration date of the Offer is
12:00 midnight, New York City time, on March 13, 2014 (which is
the end of the day on March 13, 2014), subject to extension in
certain circumstances as required or permitted by the Merger
Agreement."

"The consummation of the Offer is subject to customary closing
conditions, including, among other things, (i) the valid tender
of shares of our common stock representing at least a majority of
the total outstanding shares of our common stock, calculated on a
fully diluted basis, (ii) the expiration or termination of
waiting periods and the obtaining of all applicable consents or
approvals required under applicable antitrust, competition and
trade regulation laws of Germany and Austria and (iii) the
conclusion or termination of review by The Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States.

"The lawsuit names us, the members of our board of directors,
DSAC and Purchaser as defendants. The complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of our board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders in
connection with the Transactions by undertaking a flawed process
that failed to maximize stockholder value, and that DSAC and
Purchaser aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, (i) preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from
consummating the Transactions pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, (ii) damages and (iii) recovery of attorneys' fees and
other fees and costs.  On February 24, 2014, the plaintiff in
this lawsuit filed an amended complaint to include allegations
that our officers and directors have interests in Transactions
that conflict with the best interests of our stockholders and
that our Solicitation/
Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (as may be amended and
supplemented from time to time, the "Schedule 14D-9"), filed with
the SEC on February 13, 2014, contains materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures.

"On February 21, 2014, a second putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf
of our stockholders, challenging the proposed Transactions. The
lawsuit names us, the members of our board of directors, Dassault
Systemes SA, DSAC and Purchaser as defendants. The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the members of our
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our
stockholders in connection with the proposed Transactions by
facilitating the acquisition of Accelrys for inadequate
consideration and through a flawed sales process, agreeing to
unfair deal protection devices that will preclude other bidders
from making competing offers and misrepresenting and failing to
disclose in the Schedule 14D-9 material information necessary for
our stockholders to decide whether to tender their Accelrys
common stock pursuant to the Offer or seek appraisal. The
complaint further alleges that the other defendants aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint
seeks, among other things, (i) injunctive relief enjoining the
defendants from consummating the Transactions pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining
the Merger Agreement as invalid and unenforceable, or in the
alternative, amending or enjoining the deal protection provisions
of the Merger Agreement as necessary to ensure a full and fair
sales process for the benefit of the plaintiffs, and unless or
until the defendants disclose all material information to our
stockholders, (iii) damages, (iv) imposition of a constructive
trust in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to any benefits
improperly received by the defendants as a result of their
alleged wrongdoing and (v) recovery of attorneys' fees and other
fees and costs.

"If the plaintiffs are successful in obtaining the injunctive
relief sought, we may be unable to consummate the Transactions
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement in the expected
timeframe, or at all. We, our board of directors, Dassault
Systemes SA, DSAC and Purchaser believe the respective
allegations against them in the complaints are wholly without
merit, and we each intend to vigorously defend against those
allegations."


ALLY FINANCIAL: Class Lack Standing to Accuse Mortgage Industry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dozens of people whose homes were foreclosed upon between
December 2006 and November 2010 lack standing to accuse the
"entire mortgage industry" of a racketeering conspiracy, Adam
Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service has reported, citing a
February 10, 2014 federal court ruling.

In late 2012, Massachusetts resident John Anctil and 15 other
former mortgagors sued Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup,
PNC, Wells Fargo and others, seeking damages and injunctive
relief under federal anti-racketeering law.  The number of
plaintiffs and defendants in that case ballooned several months
later in two amended complaints, until the allegations
practically consumed the "entire mortgage industry," U.S.
District Judge Cathy Seibel wrote.

"In essence, the [Second Amended Complaint] alleges that the
entire mortgage industry is engaged in a massive racketeering
scheme designed to mislead mortgagors, the public, and various
government entities in order to illegally foreclose on homes,"
the 27-page opinion states.  "To support this conclusion, much of
the SAC is devoted to recounting the history and development of
the mortgage securitization industry, the creation of the
Mortgage Electronic Registration System ('MERS'), the role of the
Mortgage Bankers Association ('MBA'), and the development of
certain accounting standards by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board ('FASB')."

MERS, short for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, has
been criticized for allegedly helping banks avoid fees or
publicly recording mortgage transfers.

In early 2012, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman
targeted Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo in a
lawsuit alleging that their use of MERS deprived homeowners and
the general public of the ability to track the purchase and sale
of properties through the public records system.

Shielded from public scrutiny, unaccountable MERS officials
rubber-stamped thousands of invalid foreclosures, in what came to
be known as the robosigning scandal, Schneiderman said.

The banks eventually settled that lawsuit without admitting or
denying wrongdoing.

With Judge Seibel's dismissal of the class action on February 10,
2014, for lack of standing, the merits of the racketeering remain
unexamined.

Seibel said the case fails under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a
rule that precludes relitigation in federal court of state court
cases.  It derives from two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co. and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman.

Quoting the mortgage companies' brief, Seibel characterized the
allegations as "generalized grievance[s] against the entire
mortgage industry" rather than a valid lawsuit.  Nor did the
judge find the alleged conspiracy plausible.

"Nothing in the complaint indicates that these defendants, who
are all competitors in the mortgage industry, are in fact working
together towards a common goal of any kind," Seibel wrote.  "The
complaint merely alleges the roles each entity played in the
legitimate mortgage industry, which is most accurately described
as parallel activity among competitors -- not coordinated
activity to jointly achieve a common fraudulent purpose.  The
allegation that each of the Defendants uses the MERS system to
further its own business goals is insufficient to plausibly
support the existence of a RICO enterprise; inside traders all
use the stock market to further their unlawful goals, but that
alone does not plausibly lead to the conclusion that they are all
working together as part of a single enterprise in furtherance of
a larger fraudulent scheme."

The plaintiffs will not get a fourth try to amend their claims,
according to the ruling.

A state lawsuit also seems unlikely because the plaintiffs
variously hail from New York, Massachusetts and Maryland.

Scott Kamber, who is representing the plaintiffs from the Wall
Street-based firm Kamber Law LLP, indicated that the fight may
not be over.

"We are evaluating the decision in consultation with our clients
to determine the most appropriate course of action," he said.

Aside from a Deutsche Bank attorney who declined to comment, the
defendants have not immediately returned an email about the case.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street 23rd floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

The case is John Anctil, et al. v. Ally Financial, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 7:12-cv-08572-CS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 14-cv-736 is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of AmTrust between February 15, 2011 and December 11,
2013, both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


APPLE INC: Trial in No-Poaching Suit Scheduled for May 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation ("HTEAL")
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, is scheduled to be
held in May 2014.

Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reported in February that
workers have told a federal judge that attempts by Apple and
other tech giants to dismiss wage-conspiracy claims hang on a
"far-fetched premise that their misconduct amounts to 'nothing
more' than 'parallel behavior among pairs of defendants.'"

The U.S. Department of Justice brought the employment and
recruitment practices at Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit,
Lucasfilm and Disney Pixar to light in a 2010 suit that said the
companies had agreed to restrict the mobility of their skilled
employees.  Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar reached a $20 million
settlement with the government, still denying any wrongdoing, and
a federal judge approved the deal this past November.

Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel still face the government's
claims, however, and all seven companies are also still battling
a consolidated class action in San Jose, California.  The civil
suit alleges that the tech giants agreed not to recruit one
another's employees in CEO-to-CEO emails and "conspired to
suppress, and actually did suppress, employee compensation to
artificially low levels" from 2005 to 2009.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh partly certified the class in April
2013 and ordered the plaintiffs to further prove the impact of
the agreements, classwide.  Four companies -- Adobe, Apple, Intel
and Google -- individually moved for summary judgment on the San
Jose, California, case in January.

Apple's 14-page motion claimed that there was no single
"overarching conspiracy," as the plaintiffs claimed, but "only
three separate, bilateral do-not-cold-call agreements" between
the company and Adobe, Pixar and Google.

Intel separately claimed evidence suggested it "at most" entered
into a single bilateral do-not-cold-call agreement with Google,
and that the plaintiffs "have no direct or circumstantial
evidence showing that Intel entered into the broader 'overarching
conspiracy' alleged in the amended complaint."

Google did not dispute entering into three do-not-cold-call
agreements and called the plaintiffs' claims "extravagant."
Citing a single bilateral agreement with Apple, Adobe said there
was no inference that it joined a broader conspiracy.

The companies also jointly moved for summary judgment based on a
motion to exclude the expert testimony of economist and
statistician Dr. Edward Leamer, who found that the alleged
agreements had a widespread, adverse effect on pay.

Noting that the Justice Department says the agreements "disrupted
the normal price-setting mechanisms," and thereby suppressed
compensation, the workers say that Leamer's analysis has support.

"Defendants' four individual motions for summary judgment serve a
single purpose: to contest the sufficiency of the substantial
evidence as to each defendant's participation in the alleged
conspiracy," the consolidated opposition, filed February 6, 2014,
states.  "Defendants' joint motion for summary judgment is
nothing more than a vehicle for Defendants to refer to their
separate motions to exclude Dr. Edward E. Leamer's testimony."

The opposition also notes that the tech companies previously
failed to challenge the certification of a proposed class of
60,000 to 100,000 workers who were employed "in widely varying
jobs and received vastly different compensation set by each
defendant's unique practices" -- and to strike Leamer's
testimony.

"This is the fourth time defendants have asked the court to
accept the far-fetched premise that their misconduct amounts to
'nothing more' than 'parallel behavior among pairs of
Defendants,'" the plaintiffs said.  "The court should reject
defendants' fourth attempt for the same reasons the court
rejected their prior three."

Outlining four points, the plaintiffs said the companies "finally
confirmed what has long been obvious."

"Setting aside what they fail to address, defendants' five
motions for summary judgment are notable for what they admit,"
the 57-page opposition states.  "First, defendants concede the
bilateral anti-solicitation agreements as alleged.  Second,
defendants do not meaningfully contest the existence of the
alleged conspiracy.  Instead, each claims not to have joined it.
Third, defendants concede that their alleged misconduct violated
the antitrust laws per se."

The filing adds: "Defendants have thus finally confirmed what has
long been obvious: the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice understood the facts and properly applied
the antitrust laws when it found Defendants' agreements to be
'per se unlawful' and 'facially anticompetitive because they
eliminated a significant form of competition to attract high-tech
employees, and, overall, substantially diminished competition to
the detriment of the affected employees who were likely deprived
of competitively important information and access to better job
opportunities.'"

Workers say high-level executives -- including late Apple CEO
Steve Jobs, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Pixar President Ed Catmull,
Intuit Chairman Bill Campbell and Intel CEO Paul Otellini --
participated in the "gentleman's agreements" that aimed to avoid
so-called "bidding wars" over employees.

The workers added, pointedly: "With respect to the alleged
conspiracy as a whole, defendants advance no justification
whatsoever."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
          Lisa J. Cisneros, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com
                  lcisneros@lchb.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          James G. Dallal, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          505 Montgomery, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  jdallal@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
                  pbarile@gelaw.com

The case is In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 11-CV-2509-LHK, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


CALIFORNIA: Has Two More Years to Unpack Prisons
------------------------------------------------
Gov. Jerry Brown won an extra two years on February 10, 2014, to
reduce prison overcrowding from reluctant judges who don't want
to see prisoners sent out of state by legislators, William
Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported in
February.

The battle over California prison overcrowding has spanned five
governors and 23 years since prisoners Ralph Coleman and Marciano
Plata charged that cramped conditions degraded medical and mental
health care.  Coleman filed a federal class action in 1990 on
behalf of seriously mentally ill inmates, while Plata filed his
2001 action to improve conditions for prisoners with serious
medical conditions.

A three-judge panel from California's Northern and Eastern
Districts first ordered the state to reduce its prison population
to 137.5 percent of design capacity in 2009.

After the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2011, the panel --
including U.S. District Judges Lawrence Karlton and Thelton
Henderson as well as Judge Stephen Reinhardt from the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals -- gave the state until Dec. 31 to release
10,000 prisoners or face contempt charges.

Brown and the Legislature responded by drafting a plan -- Senate
Bill 105 -- that combines leasing space in county jails and out-
of-state prisons, along with incentives to reduce recidivism
should the panel agree to a two-year extension.  On February 10,
2014, the panel agreed to the extension but said sending
prisoners out of the state is "neither durable nor desirable."

"It would result in thousands of prisoners being incarcerated
hundreds or thousands of miles from the support of their
families, and in hundreds of millions of dollars that could be
spent on long-lasting prison reform being spent instead on
temporarily housing prisoners in out-of-state facilities," the
panel wrote.  "Moreover, we have consistently demanded a
'durable' solution to California prison overcrowding, and
plaintiffs' proposal does not help to achieve that solution."

The judges also noted, however, that for the first time in over
two decades of litigation, state officials appear serious about
reducing the prison population -- hence the reluctant two-year
grace period.

"For the first time under this order, there will be an effective
mechanism which will ensure that benchmarks are met: a
'compliance officer' who will have the authority to release
prisoners should the state fail to reach one of the benchmarks,
with the number of prisoners released being the number necessary
to bring defendants into compliance with the missed benchmark,"
the panel wrote.  "Further, during these two years, officials
have agreed to develop comprehensive and sustainable prison
population-reduction reforms, including considering the
establishment of a commission to recommend reforms of state penal
and sentencing laws.  They have also agreed to immediately
implement various population reduction measures, such as
increasing good time credits prospectively for non-violent
second-strike offenders and minimum custody inmates, implementing
a new parole determination process by which second-strike
offenders will be eligible for parole after serving only 50
percent of their sentence, and expanding parole for the elderly
and medically infirm."

The panel also highlighted the recidivism reduction fund touted
by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who authored
SB 105. California's promise to stop using the courts to delay
its inmate-reduction obligations also cemented the extension --
though not without rebuke by the judges.

"We recognize that these measures should have been adopted much
earlier, that the inmates' lawyers have made unceasing efforts to
obtain immediate relief on behalf of their clients, and that
California prisoners deserve far better treatment than they have
received from the state over the past four and a half years," the
panel wrote.  "Similarly, California's citizens have incurred far
greater costs, both financial and otherwise, as a result of
defendants' heretofore unyielding resistance to compliance with
this court's orders.  Finally, we recognize that this court must
also accept part of the blame for not acting more forcefully with
regard to the state's obduracy in the face of its continuing
constitutional violations.  Nevertheless, resolving the
conditions in California prisons for the long run, and not merely
for the next few months, is of paramount importance to this court
as well as to the people of this state."

Brown called the extension "encouraging," and added that it gave
California "the time and resources necessary to help inmates
become productive members of society and make our communities
safer."

The cases are Ralph Coleman, et al. v. Edmund G. Brown Jr., et
al., Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), and Marciano Plata, et
al. v. Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al., Case No. C01-1351 TEH, in the
United States District Courts for the Eastern District of
California and the Northern District of California.


CANADA: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Student Loan Data Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Butler, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that a Federal
Court judge has given a green light to a class-action lawsuit
against the federal government for losing a hard drive from an
office in Gatineau in 2012 containing personal information about
583,000 Canadians who applied for student loans between 2000 and
2007.

Based on the sheer numbers involved, the government could
conceivably face a damage award of $1 billion or more if the
lawsuit is successful.

The class action suit is by far the largest involving a digital
privacy breach in Canada.  "It's 583,000 people.  It's big," said
Ted Charney, one of the lawyers representing the class
plaintiffs. "Certainly there's been nothing of this scale against
anyone (in Canada)."

Litigating privacy law claims in Canada is still in its infancy,
said Mr. Charney, who hopes the case will come to trial within a
year.

"There's been almost no litigation in Canada yet on this topic,
and it's really becoming an increasingly difficult issue for
anybody who does any kind of volume electronic Internet
business."

The government revealed in January 2012 that a portable hard
drive containing the names, dates of birth, loan balances, social
insurance numbers and addresses of 583,000 Canada Student Loan
borrowers had vanished from a Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada office in Gatineau.

In a report to Parliament, Chantal Bernier, the interim federal
privacy commissioner, said the hard drive had been left unsecured
for extended periods, often in an unlocked filing cabinet in an
open cubicle.

The government has since beefed up its policies for the secure
storage of personal information, banned the use of portable hard
drives and toughened discipline for employees who violate privacy
and security policies.  It also set up an information line that
received more than 250,000 calls and sent letters to 333,000 of
those affected, offering to put a notation on their credit file
for up to six years at no cost.  As of last June, more than
88,000 people had signed up for that credit protection.

Four law firms initiated the proposed class action lawsuit in
2013, using three people who obtained student loans -- Gaelen
Condon of St. John's, N.L., Rebecca Walker of Sydney, N.S., and
Angela Piggott of Toronto -- as representative plaintiffs.

In a decision dated March 17, Federal Court Justice Jocelyne
Gagne certified the case as a class proceeding.

Everyone whose name was on the hard drive is part of the class
unless they sign a form opting out, Mr. Charney said.  "So my
guess is we're going to have at least 582,000."

When it hears the case, the Federal Court will consider whether
the government breached its contract with student loan recipients
by failing to protect their personal information, retaining it
too long and failing to destroy it as the loan agreement
required.  It will also decide whether the government is guilty
of "intrusion upon seclusion," a new tort for invasion of
personal privacy first recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal
in 2012.

If the court rules against the government, it could be liable for
"nominal" damages.  It could also be assessed punitive damages if
its loss of the hard drive arose from reckless behavior.

Under contract law, nominal damages are awarded when the court
rules there has been a breach of contract but those affected by
it didn't actually lose money, Mr. Charney said.  "You can still
recover damages for all your wasted time and frustration."

Nominal damages typically range from $500 to $2,000, Mr. Charney
said. If all 583,000 people in the class received $500, the
government would be on the hook for $291 million.  If they
received $2,000 each, that would balloon to more than $1.1
billion.  "If you do the math," Mr. Charney said, "it's quite
significant."

The massive size of the affected class means even small numbers
can multiply into huge ones.  If those affected by the data loss
spent four hours on average trying to deal with the problem,
"you're talking about hundreds of years of lost time," Mr.
Charney said.

One issue that arises with class actions is whether they can
modify the behavior of those being sued.  In the hearing before
Gagne, the federal government argued that it had already done
everything it could to prevent a recurrence, so there was no need
for behavior modification.

But lawyers for the plaintiffs pointed out that the government
had hundreds of privacy breaches in the previous two years. The
class action might force the government to better protect
personal information, they argued.  "The judge bought that and
certified it," Mr. Charney said.

He said some of those affected have suffered identity theft since
the loss of the hard drive.  "The question is, when you have this
huge size of a class, whether it's just part of the usual
percentage of people who experience identity theft on an annual
basis, or if it's connected to this specific hard drive.

"We're not at the stage yet where we're able to make those
decisions," he said.

                     Class action information

People whose Canada Student Loan files were on the portable hard
drive that went missing from an office in Gatineau in 2012 can
get information about the class action lawsuit and follow its
progress by going to a dedicated website,
www.studentloansclassaction.com

They can also register with the site so that lawyers can contact
them quickly if information is needed or class members are
required to fill out forms.


CASA LINDA: Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal D. Russell, on behalf of herself and all other Employees
of Casa Linda Retirement, Inc. d/b/a Lakeland Hills Assisted
Living v. Casa Linda Retirement, Inc. d/b/a Lakeland Hills
Assisted Living, Case No. 3:14-cv-00481-N (N.D. Tex., February 7,
2014) is a complaint for unpaid overtime at the facility run by
Casa Linda Retirement, Inc., known as Lakeland Hills Assisted
Living., located in Dallas, Texas.

Casa Linda Retirement, Inc., doing business as Lakeland Hills
Assisted Living, is a foreign for-profit corporation formed and
existing under the laws of Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amos S. Waranch, Esq.
          Norman J. Hoppenstein, Esq.
          HOPPENSTEIN LAW FIRM
          7920 Belt Line Rd., Suite 370
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (972) 931-4000
          Facsimile: (972) 692-7322
          E-mail: amos.waranch@gmail.com
                  hoppensteinlaw@gmail.com


CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Army Must Warn Veterans of Health Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Army cannot delay its duty to warn veterans subjected to Cold
War-era drug experiments about potential health concerns, Nick
McCann at Courthouse News Service reported in February, citing a
federal court ruling.  The ruling comes in Vietnam Veterans of
America et al. v Central Intelligence Agency et al., a 2009 class
action that claimed at least 7,800 soldiers had been used as
guinea pigs in Project Paperclip.

Soldiers were administered at least 250 and perhaps as many as
400 types of drugs, among them Sarin, one of the most deadly
drugs known, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene
gas and LSD.  Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet
enemy, Uncle Sam sought drugs to control human behavior, cause
confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and
vision, induce hypnosis, and enhance a person's ability to
withstand torture, according to the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken certified the class in 2012,
which could make thousands of veterans eligible for relief.

Though the defendants succeeded in tossing claims against
Attorney General Eric Holder and the CIA, the Department of
Defense and Department of the Army are still on the hook.

In November 2103, Judge Wilken gave both sides some relief,
granting the Defense Department, Army and CIA summary judgment on
certain claims, and giving the plaintiffs summary judgment only
on one claim against the Army.

"The court concludes that defendants' duty to warn test subjects
of possible health effects is not limited to the time that these
individuals provide consent to participate in the experiments,"
Wilken wrote then.

"Instead, defendants have an ongoing duty to warn about newly
acquired information that may affect the well-being of test
subjects after they completed their participation in research."

In an injunction accompanying the summary judgment order, Wilken
directed the Army to provide such test subjects with newly
acquired information that may affect their well-being that it has
learned since its original notification, now and in the future as
it becomes available."

In January, the remaining defendants moved to stay that
injunction pending the resolution of the other claims.  The
defendants claimed it will cost $8.8 million over 5 years to
provide possible test subjects with the kind of notice the court
ordered.

In a new order, Wilken found the defendants did not show that
those costs will cause them irreparable harm -- an element needed
to stay the injunction.

"On the one hand, there are the expenses that will be incurred by
defendants and, on the other, there is the very real possibility
that the aging and adversely affected test subjects will not
learn about health effects that could be mitigated if known,"
Wilken wrote in a 7-page order.

"Any expense incurred by defendants doing research and providing
information to adversely affected test subjects, even if
defendants should not have been required to incur those expenses,
would not be wasted.

"However, lost time for the adversely affected test subjects
could lead to irreversible health consequences."

Wilken also denied the defendants' request to extend their
deadlines, and ordered them to submit a report of their efforts
on February 17.

The case is Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. Central
Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. CV 09-0037-CW, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.


CHICKIE'S & PETE'S: Gets Approval of Workers' Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. Barclay Surrick approved a proposed settlement
agreement in IN RE CHICKIE'S & PETE'S WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6820, (E.D. Penn.) under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

This matter is a Consolidated Action combining four class and
collective actions. On April 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Complaint on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated. Defendant Peter Ciarrocchi is the owner and
chief executive of Packer Cafe, Inc., CPC Bucks County, LLC, CPC
International, LLC, Warrington CPC, LLC, 4010, Inc., and
Chickie's and Pete's Inc. Defendant Wright Food Services LLC is
an independent entity responsible for managing Chickie's & Pete's
locations in the Philadelphia International Airport. Each of the
corporate Defendants is a restaurant or sports bar doing business
as "Chickie's & Pete's." Each location employs waiters,
waitresses, and bartenders -- employees compensated, in part, by
tips from customers. Plaintiffs are current or former employees
of Chickie's & Pete's. The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants
systematically and willfully deprived them of minimum wages,
overtime pay, and gratuities.

Under the Proposed Agreement, the Court approved $365,000 in
attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 10, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/b8UQS5from Leagle.com.


CORRECTIONS CORP: PLN Wants Docs Behind Employee Deal Unsealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prison Legal News asked a federal judge to unseal documents
supporting a settlement Corrections Corporation of America
reached with employees in a lawsuit accusing it of labor laws
violations, Iulia Filip, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported in February.

The nonprofit, which publishes a monthly newspaper, claims it
needs the documents to report on the ongoing political dialogue
about whether private prison operators hide legal settlement
expenses and minimize their costs to get prison contracts.

Employees at two prison facilities CCA ran in Kentucky sued the
company in May 2012, alleging it violated Kentucky and federal
labor laws by misclassifying them and withholding overtime
compensation.

CCA denied the allegations, but after more former and then-
current employees joined the class action, the parties reached a
tentative settlement in November 2013.

A federal judge approved the settlement on Nov. 27 and granted
the parties' request to seal exhibits supporting the agreement.

The sealed documents contained information about the amount to be
paid to each plaintiff and attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the $131,000 award of attorneys' fees and costs was
disclosed, the record provided no details about their allocation,
according to court filings.

Prison Legal News asked the court to unseal the exhibits,
claiming they were crucial to its reporting on issues related to
private prison operators' expenses.

Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center,
publishes reviews and analyses of prisoners' rights issues and
other prison-related news.  It has devoted extensive coverage to
the private prison industry, including issues related to CCA,
according to its motion in Federal Court.  The nonprofit recently
moved to Florida from its longtime home in Brattleboro, Vermont.

"Specifically, PLN seeks to review the settlement amounts paid to
the plaintiffs in this case to determine the actual financial
costs incurred by CCA for its Kentucky operations," Prison Legal
News wrote in its motion to intervene.  "These amounts are
particularly newsworthy because providers of private prison
services, including CCA, tout their purported ability to house
inmates for a lower per-inmate cost than the state in order to
secure valuable state prison contracts.  Given that approximately
80 percent of prison operation expenses are due to staffing costs
(e.g., salaries, benefits, training, etc.), private prison firms
seek to minimize those costs in order to maximize profits.  The
fact that, here, CCA incurred settlement expenses for what
plaintiffs claimed were systemic violations of the FLSA [Fair
Labor Standards Act] is relevant (as is the amount of those
expenses) to the ongoing political dialogue about whether private
prison operators seek to minimize their costs improperly and
whether their claimed operational costs adequately reflect their
resolution of legal claims."

Prison Legal News claims its request to intervene, which came
less than 10 weeks after the court approved the settlement, is
timely and cannot prejudice the original parties.

The court has closed the case, and Prison Legal News does not
challenge the underlying claims or the settlement.

Prison Legal News says the sealed records are relevant to public
debate on the private prison industry, which is a matter of
public concern.  It claims the original parties to the lawsuit
have not justified their request to restrict public access to the
judicial record.

Prison Legal News is represented by William Sharp with the ACLU
of Kentucky.

"CCA has been sued a number of times by its own employees for
failure to comply with federal labor laws," Prison Legal News
editor Alex Friedmann told Courthouse News in an e-mail.  "We
successfully intervened in another case in Kansas several years
ago to have the settlement in that lawsuit unsealed.

"Such cases demonstrate the business model of private prison
companies in terms of cutting costs, including what they pay
their employees, as well as the additional costs of prison
privatization -- such as settlements in these lawsuits (the
Kansas settlement was capped at $7 million)."

Attorneys for CCA and the plaintiffs did not respond to requests
for comment.

Nashville-based CCA is the largest private corrections company in
the United States, with more than 60 prisons across the nation.
The company will pay Idaho $1 million for understaffing that
state's largest prison in violation of contract, according to a
settlement agreement previously announced.

CCA acknowledged last year that its employees falsified staffing
records it gave the state, making it look as though thousands of
hours of mandatory guard posts were filled when they were left
vacant for months.  The vacant posts and phony records violated
the company's $29-million annual contract to run the Idaho
Correctional Center and a federal settlement agreement reached
with inmates who sued claiming the understaffing led to rampant
violence.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas W. Miller, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Woodford, Esq.
          Don A. Pisacano, Esq.
          MILLER, GRIFFIN & MARKS, P.S.C.
          271 W. Short Street, Suite 600
          Lexington, KY 40507
          E-mail: twm@kentuckylaw.com
                  ewoodford@kentuckylaw.com
                  pisacano@kentuckylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Margaret T. Blackwood, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3344 Peachtree Road, Suite 1500
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          E-mail: mblackwood@littler.com

               - and -

          LaToi D. Mayo, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.S.C.
          333 West Vine Street, Suite 1620
          Lexington, KY 40507
          E-mail: lmayo@littler.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Mersich, Esq.
          Robert W. Pritchard, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15237
          E-mail: vmersich@littler.com
                  rpritchard@littler.com

Prison Legal News is represented by:

          William E. Sharp, Esq.
          ACLU OF KENTUCKY
          315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 581-9746
          E-mail: sharp@aclu-ky.org

The case is Michael E. Johnson, et al. v. Corrections Corporation
of America, Case No. 3:12-cv-00246-JGH, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville
Division.


DOUGLAS J. DEGLOPPER: Faces "Gonon" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard B. Gonon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Douglas J. Deglopper, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00184-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., February 7, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Murphy, Esq.
          3745 W. Washington Street, Suite 3
          Indianapolis, IN 46241
          Telephone: (317) 248-5570
          Facsimile: (317) 248-5571
          E-mail: abe@ramirezmurphy.com


EBIX INC: June 5 Fairness Hearing on $6.5MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX), an international supplier of On-Demand
software and E-commerce services to the insurance industry,
announced that on February 4, 2014, the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an Order
granting preliminary approval of the agreement among the parties
to settle all claims in the shareholder securities class action
styled In re Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
1:11-CV-02400-RWS (N.D. Ga.), which was filed in 2011 on behalf
of a class consisting of those persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between May 6, 2009, and June
30, 2011.  The agreement calls for a one-time cash payment of
$6.5 million to be funded by the Company and its insurance
carrier.  The Court scheduled a final fairness hearing on the
settlement for June 5, 2014.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Company and certain current
officers and directors deny any and all of the allegations made
against them by the class in the litigation and have agreed to
settle this matter solely to eliminate the uncertainties, risk,
and expense of further protracted proceedings. The agreement to
settle this litigation constitutes neither an admission nor
acceptance of fault by any named Defendant with respect to the
allegations made in the litigation.

Ebix Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Robin
Raina, commented, "We are pleased to settle this litigation
matter and move forward with the development of our business."

As disclosed in its Q3 2013 Form 10-Q, the Company recorded a
contingent liability and recognized a charge against earnings in
the amount of $4.23 million ($2.63 million net of the associated
tax benefit) in connection with this settlement. That contingent
liability was reported in the current section of the Consolidated
Balance Sheet, and the charge against earnings was reported below
operating income in the Consolidated Statement of Income for the
quarter ended September 30, 2013 and for the nine months ended
September 30, 2013. This amount represents the portion of the
settlement absorbed by the Company, and Management does not
expect there to be further exposure to the Company with regard to
this litigation beyond the legal expenses to finalize the
settlement.

An international supplier of On-Demand software and E-commerce
services to the insurance industry, Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) --
http://www.ebix.com/-- provides end-to-end solutions ranging
from infrastructure exchanges, carrier systems, agency systems
and BPO services to custom software development for all entities
involved in the insurance industry.  With 30+ offices across
Brazil, Singapore, Australia, the US, UK, New Zealand, India and
Canada, Ebix powers multiple exchanges across the world in the
field of life, annuity, health and property & casualty insurance.
Through its various SaaS-based software platforms, Ebix employs
hundreds of insurance and technology professionals to provide
products, support and consultancy to thousands of customers on
six continents.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Appeals Class Ruling in Celexa/Lexapro MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. filed a petition seeking leave to
appeal a certification of a Missouri class in "In re Celexa and
Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation," according to
the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The Company is a defendant in three federal actions filed on
behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa and/or Lexapro for
pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in a MDL proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and
Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation."  These
actions, two of which were originally filed as putative
nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative
California-wide class action, allege that the Company marketed
Celexa and/or Lexapro for off-label pediatric use and paid
illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa
and Lexapro.  The complaints assert various similar claims,
including claims under the Missouri and California consumer
protection statutes, respectively, and state common laws.

On February 5, 2013, the district judge overseeing the MDL denied
all plaintiffs' motions for class certification.  On February 18,
2013, the plaintiff in the California action filed a petition
seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.  On April 16, 2013, the First
Circuit denied the petition.  On April 30, 2013, plaintiffs in
the other two actions filed an amended complaint seeking to
certify state-wide class actions in Illinois, Missouri, and New
York under those states' consumer protection statutes.
Plaintiffs moved for class certification in all these three
states on June 28, 2013.  On January 13, 2014, the district judge
denied plaintiffs' motion with respect to the proposed Illinois
and New York classes and allowed it with respect to the proposed
Missouri class.  Forest filed a petition seeking leave to appeal
this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
on January 27, 2014.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Awaits Order in Bid to Nix Cal. Lexapro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Forest Laboratories, Inc. to dismiss a suit over
Lexapro for adolescent use was argued before the Court, and a
decision is pending, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of individuals
who purchased Lexapro for adolescent use, seeking to certify a
state-wide class action in California and alleging that the
company's promotion of Lexapro for adolescent depression has been
deceptive.  This action was transferred to the MDL proceeding
captioned "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation" and, on July 29, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss
the complaint.  The motion was argued before the Court on
September 20, 2013, and a decision is pending.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Moves to Junk Minn. Celexa/Lexapro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. files a motion to dismiss a suit by
third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa and Lexapro for
pediatric use, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota seeking to certify a
nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased
Celexa and Lexapro for pediatric use.  The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro.  This action was
transferred to the MDL proceeding captioned "In re Celexa and
Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation" and the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 15, 2014.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Awaits Order in Mo. Suit Over Celexa/Lexapro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A decision remains pending on a motion for summary judgment by
Forest Laboratories, Inc. in a suit filed on behalf of entities
or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of
Celexa or Lexapro for pediatric use, according to the company's
Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The Company is named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf
of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain
purchases of Celexa or Lexapro for pediatric use pending in the
Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, and
arising from similar allegations as those contained in the
federal actions.

The first action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the caption
"St. Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought
by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of
Celexa and/or Lexapro.  The complaint asserts claims under the
Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and
seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company has
reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve this action
for payments that are not material to the company's financial
condition or results of operations.

The second action, filed on July 22, 2009 under the caption
"Crawford v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," and now known as
"Luster v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class
action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased
Celexa for pediatric use.  Only Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
which is headquartered in Missouri, is named as a defendant.  The
complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection
statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury.  Discovery is
currently ongoing and a trial date has been set in March 2014.
On December 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was argued on January 8, 2014.  A decision on
this motion is pending.


GENERAL MOTORS: Consumers File Class Action Over Ignition Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, on March 28 disclosed that consumers from across the county
have joined together and filed a class-action lawsuit that
demands compensation from General Motors and Delphi Automotive
for manufacturing, advertising and selling certain cars alleged
to be unsafe to drive.

Drivers of the recalled cars filed the lawsuit to recover the
costs associated with owning or leasing a GM car manufactured
with an ignition switch that GM admits it knew for over a decade
was defective and is now linked to hundreds of highway deaths.

"As the complaint alleges and GM's 'Dear Customer' letter advises
class members, GM now publicly acknowledges a clear and present
danger that it is not prepared to correct," stated attorney
Elizabeth J. Cabraser of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.  "Affirmative action by
consumers and courts is essential to swiftly and completely
eliminating the danger from these ignition switches before any
more deaths and injuries occur."

"People from all over the nation are uniting to hold GM
accountable -- and we're expecting the number of individuals
demanding this accountability to grow even larger in the days and
weeks ahead," said attorney Robin L. Greenwald with Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C. of New York, New Jersey, and California, one of
six plaintiffs' law firms coordinating to bring the litigation.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in compensatory
damages, and to have exemplary and statutory penalties imposed on
the defendants.  Additionally, the plaintiffs want the defendants
to either surrender the ill-gotten profits made on the affected
cars or to make full restitution to the victims individually and
as a class.

            Class Action Lawsuit Allegations Summarized

The complaint alleges that GM and Delphi, producer of the
ignition switches at issue, knew of the defect early on but chose
to do nothing about it and to offer no warning of the problem so
as not to harm sales of the vehicles.

More than 300 fatalities have been reported by independent safety
regulators who looked into deaths tied to just two of the
affected GM makes and models, the complaint alleges.

The complaint also alleges that GM deprived consumers of their
right to make an informed decision about driving a car they had a
right to expect would be safe.

The plaintiffs assert in the lawsuit that Delphi knew its
ignition switches were defective in design and/or manufacture,
but nonetheless continued to make and sell them.  They allege as
well that Delphi knew GM would install the faulty switches in the
carmaker's vehicles.

"The class action lawsuit prioritizes prompt correction under
court control, calls for statutory penalties to punish and deter
misconduct, and requests a court-supervised compensation fund to
repay the expense and inconvenience to consumers of being saddled
with this defect, and of bringing in their cars to fix what
should have been designed and built safely in the first place,"
Ms. Cabraser explained.

"The decade-long deceit, the complaint charges, was spread,
amplified and reinforced by GM's false advertising about the
cars," Mr. Greenwald said.  "On the basis of that advertising,
more and more innocent people kept buying these cars believing,
as GM told them -- even though not true -- that the car was safe
for them, their families, their friends and others on the road.
These consumers had the absolute right to know the truth.  But
rather than admit the defect and offer car owners repair of their
vehicles, GM concealed the defect and, shockingly, continued to
sell cars with the same defect.  What is even worse, GM put
millions of people's lives at risk as GM knew that the defect had
and could continue to cause driving fatalities."

The complaint was filed on March 27 in federal court in Los
Angeles.

The consumers in the class action lawsuit are represented by
Weitz & Luxenberg, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Lackey Hershman, L.L.P. of Dallas, Texas, Bailey & Glasser, LLP,
of Charleston, West Virginia, The Lanier Law Firm P.C. of
Houston, Texas, Barrett Law Group, P.A. of Lexington,
Mississippi, and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles,
P.C. of Montgomery, Alabama.

                      GM Recall Summarized

Some 1.5-million vehicles are affected by the ignition switch
defect, the complaint estimates.  Two models of GM-built
Chevrolet are among the cars at the center of the lawsuit.  They
are the 2005-07 Cobalt and 2006-07 MY Chevrolet HHR.

The lawsuit also involves two GM Saturn models: the 2003-07 MY
Saturn Ion and 2007 MY Saturn Sky.

Additionally identified in the lawsuit are GM's 2006-07 Pontiac
Solstice and 2005-07 Pontiac G5.

The defects result in ignition switches being installed loose and
improperly positioned, which makes them susceptible to failure
during normal and expected driving conditions, the complaint
contends.

When the ignition switch failure occurs, it turns off the engine
and vital electrical components, such as the power steering
system and anti-lock brakes; it also can affect deployment of the
car's safety airbag system, as GM admits in the recall.

"If the vehicle is traveling along the freeway at 65 mph, the
loss of those crucial systems will leave the driver unable to
control the vehicle," said Mr. Greenwald.  "GM even acknowledges
there have been deaths caused by the defective ignition switch."

          Legal Resources for Owners of Recalled GM Cars

Owners of the affected cars interested in more information about
protecting and advancing their legal interests through this class
action are invited to contact Weitz & Luxenberg toll-free at
(800) 476-6070 or visit http://www.weitzlux.comor Lieff Cabraser
toll-free at (800) 541-7358 or visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com


GNC CORP: Misrepresented Efficacy of TriFlex Product, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Galvin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GNC Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:14-cv-00250-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) alleges that
GNC engages in a pervasive and widespread marketing campaign to
drive sales of its TriFlex product, luring consumers into
purchasing TriFlex by making not only claims as to product
efficacy but scientific proof as well.

Despite its explosion on the national marketplace, the use of
glucosamine, one of the main ingredients of TriFlex, in the
management of Osteoarthritis remains unproven, and its purported
mechanism of action in OA pain and function modification are
still unclear, the Plaintiff alleges.

GNC Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  At all relevant
times, GNC has advertised, marketed, provided, offered,
distributed, and sold a line of joint health supplements,
including GNC TriFlex; GNC TriFlex Fast-Acting; and GNC TriFlex
Sport throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara Avila, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
                  savila@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, PA
          12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 406
          Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
                  ryan@kumussman.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Allows Pension Fund Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Warren, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that U.S.
District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum ruled that a proposed class
action lawsuit against Goldman Sachs brought by Detroit's police
and fire department system over mortgage-backed securities may
proceed as planned.  In the suit, filed in 2010, the plaintiffs
accused Goldman Sachs of misrepresenting the standards used to
qualify borrowers for mortgage loans, which were later pooled
into securities and bought by the fund.

According to the lawsuit, the systems' pension fund purchased
roughly $1.8 million of the securities through a mortgage loan
trust created by Goldman Sachs in 2007.  Reuters reports that
Goldman issued more than $790 million of securities through the
trust before it collapsed in value during the 2007-2008 financial
crisis.

In her ruling, Judge Cederbaum agreed that documents Goldman
provided to the systems were "affirmatively misleading" and
denied Goldman's bid to have the suit dismissed.  Goldman had
attempted to argue that the underwriting policies were only
guidelines and lenders could deviate from them, but Judge
Cederbaum said that exceptions to standards were not the same as
full abandonment of them.

However, despite growing legal bills, shareholders have restored
confidence in the recently scandal-riddled financial institution.
In 2014, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankstein is set to regain his spot
as the highest-earning CEO by salary among U.S. financial
institutions.  His $23 million pay package surpassed both
JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon and Wells Fargo's John Stumpf,
restoring Goldman to the top spot after a four year absence.


HANAMI WESTWOOD: Class to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jun Yin and Xinquan Liu, and on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Hanami Westwood, Inc. d/b/a Hanami
Restaurant, Hanami Cresskill, Inc. d/b/a Hanami Restaurant, Eric
Chen, and Sam Linder, Case No. 2:14-cv-00809-CCC-MF (D.N.J.,
February 7, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Laws and Regulations, are entitled to recover from the Defendants
(1) unpaid overtime wages, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3)
liquidated damages, and (4) attorney's fees and costs.

Hanami Westwood, Inc., doing business as Hanami Restaurant,
operates the Hanami Restaurant located in Westwood, New Jersey.
Hanami Cresskill, Inc., doing business as Hanami Restaurant,
operates the Hanami Restaurant located in Cresskill, New Jersey.
The Individual Defendants are co-owners and officers of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq.
          17 Academy Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 642-0885
          Facsimile: (973) 642-0946
          E-mail: bzurofsky@zurofskylaw.com

               - and -

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Graphics Card
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard must face claims that it recommended graphics
cards to customers knowing that the computers they purchased were
not powerful enough to handle the upgrades, according to a court
ruling, Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported in February.

Lead plaintiff David Elias filed a class action against Hewlett-
Packard Co. after the company failed to replace or repair his
computer when its power supply could not handle the computer's
included components and caused damage.  Elias said he purchased a
Pavilion Slimline through HP's Web site and opted to upgrade the
base configuration to include a "recommended" graphics card.

The 220-watt power supply unit (PSU) in the Slimline was
inadequate to handle the graphics card, however, and within the
first year the computer began to "randomly freeze, restart, or
shut down," according to the complaint.  After 17 months, it
"shorted out" and "melted," Elias said.  He claimed that HP knew
that the recommended graphics card needed to be powered by at
least a 300-watt supply unit and that the company concealed the
information to increase its sales of higher-cost components.  The
graphics card manufacturer itself allegedly recommended to HP
that the card only be used by 300-watt PSUs.

Elias' complaint has already been through three rounds of
dismissal, leaving only the express warranty and Song-Beverly Act
implied warranty claims intact.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh found February 7, 2014, that
Elias cured past deficiencies and may continue with his common-
law fraud claims and allegations under the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.

"Plaintiff need only plead sufficient facts to raise a plausible
inference that HP knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care
should have known, that the PSUs included in computers sold to
plaintiff and class members were inadequate, and this inadequacy
led to the performance and safety issues plaintiff identifies,"
Koh wrote.  'The component supplier recommendations and
specifications form part of the factual basis supporting
plaintiff's allegations that HP was aware that upgraded graphics
cards and other components require more power, and more powerful
PSUs."

The complaint provided additional allegations to support HP's
knowledge, including the fact that the company maintained an
information webpage notifying customers of the importance of
upgrading their PSUs when making post-purchase component
upgrades, according to the ruling.  Elias has also alleged that
numerous customer complaints and warranty-service requests also
putting HP on notice of the inadequate PSUs.

Koh dismissed HP's argument that Elias could have discovered on
his own that the graphics card he purchased would not work
properly on his computer.

"HP provides no basis to conclude that when purchasing a brand
new computer from HP's website, plaintiff should have considered
whether the upgrades HP offered and encouraged him to buy could
be properly powered by the included, non-customizable PSU in his
HP computer," the decision states.  'Nor is there any reason to
think that many customers, including plaintiff, would be aware
that information like PSU capacity recommendations exist, let
alone is available on the Internet."

At this stage in proceedings, Elias' allegations that HP actively
encouraged customers to buy more costly, high-performance
components through its "help me choose" interface can support a
claim that HP actively concealed the fact that the PSUs in
computers it sold to class members were not powerful enough to
support these components and that its motivation was to increase
sales.

"The court's conclusion should not be read to suggest that
plaintiff's active concealment claim could survive in later
stages of the litigation," Koh wrote.  "Rather, at this stage,
the court's review is confined solely to the pleadings."

The case is David Elias, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the general public v. Hewlett-Packard
Company, Case No. 12-CV-00421-LHK, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


HITACHI AUTO: Accused of Fuel Injection System Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Hitachi Automotive Systems,
Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Denso
Corporation, and Denso International America, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-10598-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) alleges that
the Defendants and unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers and
suppliers of Fuel Injection Systems engaged in a long-running
conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and
stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for Fuel Injection Systems.

"Fuel Injection Systems" admit fuel or a fuel/air mixture into
engine cylinders and may include injectors, high pressure pumps,
rail assemblies, feed lines and other components sold as a
unitary system.

Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. is a Japanese corporation
headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi Automotive Systems
Americas, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Harrodsburg, Kentucky.  Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas is a
subsidiary of and wholly owned and controlled by its parent,
Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd.

DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation headquartered in
Kariya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan.  DENSO International America,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Southfield,
Michigan.  DENSO International is a subsidiary of and wholly
owned or controlled by its parent, DENSO Corporation.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Fuel Injection
Systems throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'Neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


HITACHI AUTO: Accused of Electronic Throttle Bodies Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Hitachi Automotive Systems,
Ltd., and Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Case No. 2:14-cv-
10594-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) is brought against
the Defendants and their unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers
and suppliers of Electronic Throttle Bodies for engaging in a
long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise,
maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the
market and customers in the United States for Electronic Throttle
Bodies.

Electronic Throttle Bodies control the amount of air flowing into
a vehicle's engine and are a main part of an electronic throttle
control system.

The Hitachi Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Electronic
Throttle Bodies throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'Neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Vukov" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kiril Vukov appealed a district court order dismissing his
putative class action.  Vukov's suit sought, inter alia, to
compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) to adjudicate his adjustment of immigration status
application. While Vukov's case was pending before the district
court, USCIS denied his adjustment of status application on both
statutory and discretionary grounds. The district court granted
the government's motion to dismiss Vukov's case because Vukov's
"claims that are based on the agency's alleged failure to act
have been mooted by the denial of his adjustment application.
Furthermore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review his claims
challenging the denial itself.

The district court explained that USCIS's rejection of his
adjustment of status application mooted his failure to adjudicate
claims. The district court further found that it lacked
jurisdiction to review the basis for that denial because the
agency "alternately denied relief as a matter of discretion."
That is, because the agency rejected Vukov's application not just
on reviewable statutory grounds but alternately on non-reviewable
discretionary grounds, there was no jurisdiction to second guess
the agency decision.

In a March 12, 2014 memorandum, the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, agreed with the district court saying
USCIS's denial of Vukov's petition mooted his failure to
adjudicate claims.  A copy of ruling is available at
http://is.gd/BsMdIcfrom Leagle.com

The case is KIRIL VUKOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Citizenship and Immigration Services;
ROBERT M. COWAN, Director of the National Benefits Center; ERIC
H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of
Department of Homeland Security; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director of
the United States USCIS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 13-55097.


HOSPIRA INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $60 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, reports that global
pharmaceutical company Hospira Inc. agreed to pay $60 million on
March 27 to settle a class action lawsuit accusing it of
violating securities laws by providing misleading positive
statements that artificially inflated share prices despite
problems at the company's manufacturing plant.

The lead plaintiffs in the class action moved for court approval
of the settlement in Illinois federal court on March 27 after
coming to an agreement with Hospira following negotiations before
a mediator.  The agreement could put an end to the litigation
that has been ongoing since 2011.

"The settlement is the result of well-informed and extensive
arm's-length negotiations between and among highly experienced
counsel, facilitated by a respected mediator.  Lead Plaintiffs
respectfully submit that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and therefore ask the court to enter the
accompanying [order approving the settlement]," the lead
plaintiffs' memorandum supporting the settlement said.

Hospira agreed to pay $60 million into a fund benefiting the
class members while denying any wrongdoing alleged in the class
action suit, according to the settlement agreement.

"Defendants deny that they have violated the federal securities
laws or any laws and maintain that their conduct was at all times
proper and in compliance with all applicable provisions of law,"
the agreement said.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of pension fund investors
including Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, KBC Asset
Management NV, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Pension
& Annuity Funds, and Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund

The plaintiffs said Hospira, which has a portfolio of over 200
generic injectable products, issued materially false and
misleading statements and "touted to investors [its] ability to
streamline its process and practices in order to boost the
company's long-term profitability and increase the return for
Hospira shareholders," the plaintiffs' suit said.

The suit alleged Hospira puffed up a program meant to increase
profit margins, fuel growth and increase manufacturing efficiency
and did not disclose the full extent of manufacturing
deficiencies that led to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration
investigation.

The FDA investigation, combined with a problem at the company's
manufacturing plant in Rocky Mount, N.C., led to underwhelming
sales and a 21% drop in Hospira's stock price, the plaintiffs
alleged.  The suit said Hospira later revealed further problems
and estimated that remediation costs would be between $300
million and $375 million, according to the suit.  The previously
undisclosed issues caused the company's stock to trade at an
inflated price as it eventually fell to half of what it was at
its high during the class period, the suit said.

The lead plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Motley Rice LLC.

Hospira is represented by Mark Filip -- mark.filip@kirkland.com
-- Robert J. Kopecky -- robert.kopecky@kirkland.com -- and Joshua
Z. Rabinovitz -- joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland &
Ellis LLP.

The case is City of Sterling Heights General Employees'
Retirement System v. Hospira, Inc. et al, case number 1:11-cv-
08332 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of
InterCloud Systems, Inc., on March 28 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of InterCloud securities between November 5, 2013 and
March 17, 2014, inclusive.

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

InterCloud is a global single-source provider of value-added
services for corporate enterprises and service providers.  The
Company offers cloud and managed services, professional
consulting services and voice, data and optical solutions.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose that the Company hired a
promoter -- The DreamTeam Group -- to tout InterCloud stock
without disclosing that it was paid by the Company to promote the
stock. The Complaint further alleges that the promoter had posted
misleading articles on behalf of the Company without properly
disclosing its paid marketing relationship.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move
the Court no later than May 27, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff,
if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this
action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh,
Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street,
Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-
mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Upholds Aveeno Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on March 27 largely upheld a proposed class action accusing
Johnson & Johnson of advertising its Aveeno line of personal care
products as "natural" even though the products contain synthetic
chemicals, ruling plaintiffs can move forward with allegations
that the labels are misleading.

U.S. District Judge Nelson S. Roman tossed the unjust enrichment
claim but otherwise refused to dismiss the suit, which alleges
that Johnson & Johnson prices its Aveeno products higher than
equivalent synthetic products when they actually contain a range
of unnatural ingredients including glycerine, cetyl alcohol and
sodium hydroxide, some of which are harmful, according to the
order.

"Although 'the presence of a disclaimer or other clarifying
language may defeat a claim of deception,' the court cannot hold
as a matter of law that the product labels are not misleading to
a reasonable consumer," the order said.

Judge Roman shot down Johnson & Johnson's arguments that the term
"active naturals" is part of the Aveeno brand name and that the
suit should be dismissed because the products contain at least
one natural ingredient, according to the order.

The products' website and Facebook page deceive customers by
focusing exclusively on the natural ingredients found in Aveeno
products, the order said.

"The court cannot find as a matter of law that no reasonable
consumer could be misled by these advertisements into believing
the products contain exclusively natural ingredients,"
Judge Roman said.

Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@mpnsb.com -- counsel for plaintiffs,
told Law360 he is pleased with the decision and looks forward to
pursuing the case.

Meanwhile, Carol Goodrich, senior director of communications for
Johnson & Johnson, told Law360: "We have no higher responsibility
than the health and safety of consumers and we remain confident
in our product claims."

Lead plaintiff Michael Goldemberg filed the suit in May 2013
alleging that he paid a premium for the products Aveeno touts as
being "natural," including the Aveeno Active Naturals
Nourish+Moisturize Shampoo or Aveeno Active Naturals Creamy
Moisturizing Oil, the complaint said.

Research shows that the "natural" label can allow companies to
sell a product at an elevated price, according to the complaint.

The suit, brought on behalf of a proposed class of all consumers
who have purchased Aveeno products in New York state, claims
breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment and violations of
New York General Business Law.  It seeks punitive and statutory
damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeremiah L. Frei-Pearson --
jfrei-pearson@mpnsb.com -- and Todd S. Garber of Meiselman
Packman Nealon Scialabba & Baker PC and Michael R. Reese and Kim
E. Richman of Reese Richman LLP.

Johnson & Johnson is represented by Harold P. Weinberger --
hweinberger@kramerlevin.com -- and Eileen M. Patt --
epatt@kramerlevin.com -- of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

The case is Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc.,
case number 7:13-cv-03073, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


JTEKT CORPORATION: Faces "Martens" Antitrust Suit in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. JTEKT Corporation, and JTEKT
Automotive North America, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-10596-MOB-MKM
(E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) is brought on behalf of all
automobile dealers, who purchased vehicles, which included one or
more Electric Powered Steering Assembly(s) as a component part,
or purchased one or more Electric Powered Steering Assembly(s) as
a replacement part, which were manufactured or sold by the
Defendants or any coconspirator of the Defendants.

"Electric Powered Steering Assemblies" provide electronic power
to assist the driver to more easily steer the automobile.
Electric Powered Steering Assemblies link the steering wheel to
the tires, and include the column, intermediate shaft, and
electronic control unit, among other parts, but do not include
the steering wheel or tires.

JTEKT Corporation is a Japanese company headquartered in Osaka,
Japan.  JTEKT Automotive North America, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Plymouth, Michigan.  JTEKT
Automotive is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and controlled by
its parent, JTEKT Corporation.  The Defendants manufacture,
market, and sell Electric Powered Steering Assemblies throughout
and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'Neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses "Smith" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the case captioned
LAURY SMITH, Plaintiff, v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., et al.,
Defendants, NO. C 13-4361 PJH, (N.D. Cal.)

The proposed class action was filed by plaintiff Laury Smith,
against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Sears Holding Corp.,
asserting claims related to the design, manufacture, sale, and
service of six models of top-loading LG brand and Kenmore brand
automatic clothes-washing machines (three models of LG brand, and
three models of Kenmore brand), which plaintiff alleges are
defective.

As the court finds that any attempt to amend the breach of
warranty claims would be futile, the dismissal of the first
through fifth and ninth causes of action is with prejudice, held
Judge Hamilton. The dismissal of the sixth through eighth causes
of action is with leave to amend. Any amended complaint will be
filed no later than April 11, 2014. No new claims or new parties
may be added without leave of court, she added.

A copy of the March 11, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/9feMvLfrom Leagle.com


LUIGI'S DOLCERIA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Cake Decorator Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Silverio Quiroz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Luigi's Dolceria, Inc. (d/b/a Luigi's Dolceria),
Luigi Di Rosa and Angelo Di Rosa, Case No. 1:14-cv-00871-ERK-VVP
(E.D.N.Y., February 7, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff regularly
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he
worked over 40 each week.

Mr. Quiroz discloses that he worked long days as cake decorator
and cookie mix-maker at the Defendants' bakery located in Staten
Island, New York.

Luigi's Dolceria, Luigi Di Rosa and Angelo Di Rosa own and
operate Luigi's Dolceria, a bakery in Staten Island, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LYFT: Accused of Violating Privacy Laws by Requiring FB Login
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lyft dba Zimride, which runs a ride-sharing service, violates
California privacy laws by requiring users to log in through
Facebook, which sells personal information to marketers, a class
action claims in California Federal Court, Courthouse News
Service reported in February.


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Leave to Appeal "Dugal" Action Ruling Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingrid Minott -- iminott@stikeman.com -- at Stikeman Elliott LLP
reports that on March 3, 2014, the Ontario Divisional Court
released its decision in Dugal v. Manulife Financial Corporation,
denying the defendant Manulife Financial Corporation's motion for
leave to appeal the decision of Justice Belobaba (the Motion
Judge) granting leave to the plaintiffs to pursue a secondary
market claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act (Ontario)
and certifying the action as a class proceeding.

                         Background

In Dugal, the plaintiffs alleged that during the class period of
April 1, 2004 to February 12, 2009, Manulife misrepresented its
equity market risk from its segregated fund/guaranteed investment
products by failing to disclose that it had largely abandoned
hedging and reinsurance of these products during the class
period. The Motion Judge found that the plaintiffs had met the
test for leave under Part XXIII.1 on the basis that they had
raised serious arguable questions regarding Manulife's liability
and that they had a reasonable possibility of succeeding at
trial.  The Motion Judge also held that the action should be
certified as a class proceeding.

                 The Motion for Leave to Appeal

Manulife brought a motion for leave to appeal at the Divisional
Court.  Appearing before Justice Sanderson, counsel for the
company argued that the Motion Judge had erred in four important
respects: (i) in finding that that there was a serious arguable
question regarding what the market knew about the nature and
extent of Manulife's equity risk prior to the alleged corrective
disclosure; (ii) in finding that the alleged corrective
disclosure was "corrective" as opposed to simply the timely
release of the 2008 annual financial results; (iii) in relying on
inadmissible hearsay evidence and speculative opinions from
unqualified experts; and (iv) in finding that there was an
evidentiary basis for the plaintiffs' allegation that market
declines of 2008 were not entirely unforeseeable and that
Manulife's equity market sensitivity was an "existential threat
to Manulife's business".

Sanderson J. rejected Manulife's argument that the Motion
Judge had improperly disregarded and misapprehended the evidence
regarding what the market knew about the nature and extent of
Manulife's equity market risks prior to the alleged corrective
disclosure.  Sanderson J. held that it was open to the Motion
Judge to reach the conclusion that there was an arguable question
regarding what the market knew.

With respect to the argument that no corrective disclosure was
issued by Manulife, Sanderson J. held that the Motion Judge was
entitled to consider the uncontroverted evidence of the
plaintiffs' expert that there was a significant decline in the
price of Manulife stock on February 12, 2009 that was "directly
attributable" to news of the conditional tail expectation (CTE)
level it was using to calculate losses and Manulife's decision
not to hedge or reinsure its guaranteed investment products.

Sanderson J. rejected Manulife's argument that the Motion Judge
relied on hearsay evidence, finding that Belobaba J. had not
relied "much or at all" on a newspaper article that was hearsay
and that there had been other evidence supporting his conclusion.
Sanderson J. also noted that while Manulife disparaged the
plaintiffs' experts' qualifications, Manulife had not moved to
strike the expert opinions or to have the expert disqualified.

With respect to the argument that the Motion Judge had erred in
his findings regarding the 2008 financial crisis and the
foreseeability of the "existential threat to Manulife's
business", Sanderson J. held that there was an evidentiary basis
for the plaintiffs' allegation that market declines of 2008 were
foreseeable and that there was no good reason to doubt the
correctness of the Motion Judge's conclusion on that point.

Regarding Manulife's motion for leave to appeal the certification
order, Sanderson J. rejected the company's argument that the
Motion Judge had erred in certifying the common law negligent
misrepresentation claim.  Sanderson J. accepted the Motion
Judge's finding that the misrepresentation alleged by the
plaintiffs "could stand alone as a single Representation that is
judicially manageable in a class proceeding."  Sanderson J.
rejected Manulife's argument that permitting the plaintiffs to
assert both common law misrepresentation claims and a Part
XXIII.1 claim made the statutory regime redundant.  She concluded
that in Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Ontario
Court of Appeal had made it clear that a common law
misrepresentation claim can be certified alongside the statutory
claim.

Finally, Sanderson J. determined that the issues raised did not
transcend the interests of the parties and did not warrant
granting leave to appeal.


MEDTRONIC INC: Transferred "Scovil" Suit From Arizona to Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Scovil, et al. v. Medtronic Incorporated,
et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02093, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona to the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas).  The
Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00213-APG-
VCF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a products liability case arising out of injuries
caused by the alleged illegal, off-label promotion by the
Defendants, who are drug manufacturers, promoters, marketers, and
inventors.  The INFUSE Bone Graft and LT-Cage (collectively known
as "Infuse") is manufactured, promoted, marketed, and distributed
by Defendants Medtronic, Vertelink, and Wyeth, a subsidiary of
Pfizer, and promoted, invented, marketed and designed, in part,
by Dr. Gary Karlin Michelson.

Infuse is used by surgeons to surgically cure back pain in
patients.  The surgeons in this case used Infuse in an off-label
manner, which was due to the unlawful acts of all the Defendants,
individually, and in concert with each other, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP, P.C.
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
          E-mail: TreyD@phillipsdayeslaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan A. Hamilton, Esq.
          HAMILTON LAW LLC
          5125 S. Durango, Suite C
          Las Vegas, NV 89113
          Telephone: (702) 818-1818
          Facsimile: (7020 974-1139
          E-mail: ryan@hamiltonlawlasvegas.com

               - and -

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          J. Christopher Jorgensen, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER
          3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 385-3373
          Facsimile: (702) 949-8398
          E-mail: cjorgensen@lrrlaw.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Kelly Kahn, Esq.
          Stephen M. Bressler, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP-PHOENIX OFFICE
          40 N Central Ave., Suite 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429
          Telephone: (602) 262-5792
          Facsimile: (602) 734-3910
          E-mail: KKahn@LRRLaw.com
                  sbressler@lrlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Kevin Brown, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 S Grand Ave., Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: mkbrown@reedsmith.com


MEL S. HARRIS: 2nd Circuit Skeptical to Junk Suit vs. Debt Buyers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Circuit seemed reluctant on February 7, 2014, to kill a
class action brought on behalf of more than 100,000 people whose
debts were bought for pennies on the dollar, according to Adam
Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

Monique Sykes is the lead plaintiff in the federal anti-
racketeering lawsuit against a debt-buying company, a law firm, a
process-service company and others that they said ran a "sewer
service."  The practice involves buying debt on the cheap,
failing to serve a complaint on the debtor and then filing a
false affidavit claiming that the notice has been served.  The
plaintiffs contend that New York courts have been awarding tens
of thousands of default judgments based on a scheme that violates
RICO, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York General
Business Law.

Judge Denny Chin certified the Sykes class over a year ago on
claims carrying the possibility of injunctive relief, declaratory
relief and damages.  A 2nd Circuit judge himself, Chin
nevertheless presided over Sykes in the Southern District of New
York by designation.

Mel S. Harris Associates LLC and its co-defendants appealed that
decision on the grounds that these cases should be brought
individually and in state court.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit peppered both sides on
February 7, 2014, on proper venue.  The roughly two-hour hearing
focused mostly on arcane procedural issues that could have wide
ramifications beyond the immediately affected debtors.

Miguel Estrada, a Washington-based partner of the firm Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, for example, wrote a brief asking the court to
declare that the RICO law does not allow the debtors to seek an
injunction.  If that argument succeeds, Gibson Dunn client
Chevron could lose its racketeering lawsuit that asks U.S.
District Judge Lewis Kaplan to block a $9.5 billion judgment
against the company in Ecuador.

Chevron indicated that, if Gibson Dunn prevails on this issue in
the 2nd Circuit, it will seek to overturn the ruling in the
Supreme Court.

Estrada, who represents several of the defendants sued by Sykes,
kept mum on this topic during oral arguments.

His adversary Matthew Brinckerhoff, who represents the debtors as
a partner for the firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP,
appeared to relish the irony on the other hand.  Brinckerhoff
said that barring injunctive relief would be "contrary to the big
trial that Judge Kaplan just had over the Chevron case."

Judge Guido Calabresi noted that Gibson Dunn has advocated both
sides of this issue for different clients, and that "they have
the perfect right" to do so.

Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs noted that the 9th Circuit stands in
the debt-collectors' favor on this issue, as does dicta from the
2nd Circuit.

Another bone of contention involved whether the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine means that the plaintiffs chose the wrong venue.  The
rule -- which derives from two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Rooker
v. Fidelity Trust Co. and District of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman -- precludes relitigation in federal court of state
court cases.

Sykes is unrelated to Chevron's dispute with the Ecuadoreans, but
it mirrors a similar controversy.  The Ecuadoreans contend that a
New York federal judge should not sit in judgment over a ruling
made by their home country.

Likewise, the appellate panel suggested February 7 that a federal
judge might not be in the best position to "obliterate" thousands
of state court judgments.

Chief Judge Jacobs wryly noted that the administrative judges in
question "must have a phone number" and suggested that New York's
attorney general could also get involved.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office did not respond by
press time.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement defended the business
model of his clients, which he believed would withstand scrutiny.

Calabresi quipped that Clement's confidence should prompt him to
fight the class action in discovery and trial rather than try to
defeat it procedurally.

"Then, you win on the merits," Calabresi said.  "God save you."

The third judge on the panel, Rosemary Pooler, appeared skeptical
about the supposedly "sophisticated" and "proprietary" software
that the defendants purport to use.  She said it was little more
than a "mail merge" program, but Clement said it had other
features for handling bounced back mail.

Samserv's lawyer Jordan Sklar had no easier time trying to
convince the panel that his client should not be a defendant as a
mere service provider.

"If the service was good, we did our job," Sklar said.

Pooler countered that GPS evidence showed servers were not at the
locations that they said, but Sklar insisted that his clients
could show contradictory data.

The judges reserved decision after nearly two hours of grueling
and arcane argument.


MITSUBA CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Power Window Motors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Mitsuba Corporation and
American Mitsuba Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-10599-MOB-MKM
(E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) is brought as a proposed class
action against the Defendants and unnamed co-conspirators,
manufacturers and suppliers of Power Window Motors for engaging
in a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially
raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate
the market and customers in the United States for Power Window
Motors.

"Power Window Motors" are small electric motors used to raise and
lower vehicle windows.

Mitsuba Corporation is a Japanese company headquartered in Gunma,
Japan.  American Mitsuba Corporation is an Illinois corporation
headquartered in Novi, Michigan.  American Mitsuba is a
subsidiary of and wholly owned and controlled by its parent,
Mitsuba Corporation.  The Mitsuba Defendants manufacture, market,
and sell Power Window Motors throughout and into the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'Neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


MIZUHO BANK: Judge Trims Libor Rate-Fixing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk and Igor Kossov, writing for Law360, reports that a
New York federal judge on March 27 trimmed a putative class
action accusing more than 20 banks of fixing yen-denominated
Libor rates, ruling the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to
support his price manipulation claims but not his antitrust
claims.

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels granted the banks' motion
to dismiss named plaintiff Jeffrey Laydon's antitrust, vicarious
liability and unjust enrichment claims, while denying the motion
as to Mr. Laydon's price manipulation and aiding and abetting
allegations.  The judge's ruling followed a marathon hearing on
March 5.

"Plaintiff has adequately pled a claim under the Commodity
Exchange Act for price manipulation and aiding and abetting
against all defendants," Judge Daniels wrote.

Mr. Laydon's attorney, Vincent Briganti of Lowey Dannenberg Cohen
& Hart PC, told Law360 that "we are pleased for our clients and
class members with the court's decision sustaining plaintiff's
Commodity Exchange Act claims, and are now evaluating and
preparing for next steps, including the discovery stage of the
litigation."

Mr. Laydon alleges that in 2006, he lost thousands of dollars
shorting derivatives of Euroyen Tibor rates, which are allegedly
influenced by Libor.  In a 300-page complaint replete with
economic models, he accused the banks that sit on Libor and Tibor
panels of conspiring to fix these rates by submitting agreed-upon
estimates.  He claimed anti-competitive action, unjust enrichment
and violations of the Commodity Exchange and Sherman acts.

The banks, which include JPMorgan Chase & Co., Deutsche Bank AG
and Mizuho Bank Ltd., moved to dismiss, arguing that bank
submissions of Libor rates to Thomson Reuters are an inherently
uncompetitive endeavor and that the collusion claims don't make
sense.  It's too much of a stretch to link their rate estimates
to an investor making an unsuccessful bet, they added.

In the March 28 ruling, Judge Daniels said Mr. Laydon's complaint
contains sufficient allegations to support his price manipulation
claims.  The plaintiff pled that the banks stood to gain profits
from the manipulations of Yen-Libor and Tibor rates, in the form
of hundreds of millions in ill-gotten trading profits from
Euroyen derivatives positions, the judge wrote.  Mr. Laydon has
presented "overwhelming factual content" from which the court
could infer manipulative intent, including evidence from certain
defendants' communications, according to the judge's order.

Among other things, the suit includes claims that defendants
permitted traders whose compensation was connected to their
success in trading financial derivative products tied to Yen-
Libor or Tibor to exercise improper influence over that
defendant's submissions, "thus creating inherent conflicts of
interest and an environment ripe for its derivatives traders and
trader-submitters to abuse," Judge Daniels wrote.

With respect to Mr. Laydon's aiding and abetting claims, Judge
Daniels pointed out that the suit contains numerous allegations
that could give rise to the inference that the banks knew of
other defendants' alleged unlawful and manipulative conduct and
helped each other to further the violations.

Mr. Laydon's antitrust claims didn't fare as well, with Judge
Daniels ruling that the plaintiff didn't plead any antitrust
injury.  The judge said Mr. Laydon didn't identify or describe
any of the actual transactions underlying his claims, and doesn't
indicate whether it was an increase or decrease in the price of
Euroyen Tibor futures contracts that caused his alleged losses.

"Plaintiff alleges only that he 'initiated short positions in CME
Euroyen Tibor futures contracts during the class period and
suffered net losses on such contracts due to the presence of
artificial Euroyen Tibor future prices proximately caused by
defendants' unlawful manipulation and restraint of trade,"
Judge Daniels wrote.  "Plaintiff fails to plead facts to
establish that this 'is or might be anticompetitive.'"

Even if Mr. Laydon had antitrust standing, the judge wrote, he
hasn't alleged a restraint of trade.  The judge said Mr. Laydon's
claims that the banks' alleged rate-setting collusion harmed
competition among buyers and sellers of Euroyen derivatives are
conclusory.

"The alleged collusion occurred in the rate-setting process of
the benchmark, not in the actual Euroyen Tibor futures market,"
Judge Daniels wrote. "Plaintiff merely alleges that prices may
have been different.  Plaintiff does not, however, allege that
trades in Euroyen Tibor futures contracts were in any way
restrained by alleged misconduct."

Moreover, Mr. Laydon didn't allege that any of the banks competed
less or were forced out of any of the relevant markets because of
the purported anticompetive conduct, the judge wrote.

In dismissing Mr. Laydon's unjust enrichment claim, the judge
concluded that the plaintiff didn't allege that he had any
relationship with the defendant banks or specify how the banks
benefited at his expense.

Mr. Laydon is represented by Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC.

UBS is represented by Gibson Dunn.  JPMorgan is represented by
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.  Resona Bank Ltd. is represented
by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Shinkin Central Bank is
represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.  RP Martin
Holdings Ltd. is represented by Perkins Coie LLP.  Barclays Bank
PLC is represented by Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP and Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.  Deutsche Bank is represented by Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP.  ICAP PLC is represented by Richards
Kibbe & Orbe LLP. Societe Generale is represented by Mayer Brown
LLP. HSBC Holdings PLC is represented by Locke Lord LLP.  The
Sumitomo Trust and Banking Co. Ltd. is represented by Seward &
Kissel LLP. The Norinchukin Bank is represented by Sidley Austin
LLP.  BNP Paribas SA is represented by Patterson Belknap Webb &
Tyler LLP. RBS Securities Japan Ltd. and Royal Bank of Scotland
are represented by WilmerHale and Clifford Chance US LLP.  The
Shoko Chukin Bank Ltd. is represented by Arnold & Porter LLP.
Mizuho is represented by Shearman & Sterling LLP.  Cooperatieve
Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA is represented by Milbank
Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP.  Citibank NA is represented by
Covington & Burling LLP.  The Bank of Yokohama Ltd. is
represented by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. M itsubishi UFJ Trust
and Banking Corp. is represented by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

The case is Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd. et al., case number 1:12-
cv-03419, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


NBTY INC: Appeal Pending on Approval of Glucosamine Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to NBTY, Inc.'s Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013, beginning in June 2011, certain putative class
actions have been filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY,
its subsidiary Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other
companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and
indemnify, challenging the marketing of glucosamine-based dietary
supplements, under various states' consumer protection statutes.

The lawsuits against NBTY and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v.
NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, on behalf of a putative class of California consumers
seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of
restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive damages and
injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August
22, 2011) in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts
consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory damages; and
Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
(the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of California
consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on
theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive relief,
as well as other cases in California and Illinois against certain
wholesale customers as to which the company may have certain
indemnification obligations. The Nunez Case settled on an
individual basis on June 20, 2013.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
remaining plaintiffs, which includes all cases and resolves all
pending claims without any admission of or concession of
liability by NBTY, and which provides for a release of all claims
in return for payments to the class, together with attorneys'
fees, and notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took
place on October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3,
2014, the court issued an opinion and order approving the
settlement as modified ("the Order"). The final judgment was
issued on January 22, 2014 ("the Judgment"). Certain objectors
filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment on January
29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February
3, 2014.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12,000,000
reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the
class together with attorney's fees, and notice and
administrative costs in connection with this class action
settlement. As a result of the court's approval of the settlement
and the closure of the claims period, NBTY has reduced its
estimate of exposure to $6,100,000.  This reduction in the
estimated exposure has been reflected in the Company's first
quarter results for fiscal 2014. Until the appeal is resolved, no
final determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY.


NESTLE USA: Falsely Advertised Decaffeinated Coffees, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Estrada, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00989-RGK-FFM
(C.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) seeks to remedy the alleged unfair,
deceptive, and unlawful business practices of Nestle with respect
to the marketing, advertising, labeling, and sales of Nescafe
Decaf branded decaffeinated instant coffees, including Nescafe
Decaf Taster's Choice Decaf House Blend and Nescafe Decaf Clasico
Decaf Dark Roast.

Nestle USA, Inc. is headquartered in Glendale, California.  The
Company distributes, markets, advertises, and sells Nescafe Decaf
in California and throughout the rest of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (213) 985-1274
          Facsimile: (213) 985-1278
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  hcunningham@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Telephone: (205) 908-4906
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Greg L. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale J. Giali, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9509
          Facsimile: (213) 576-8121
          E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com


NET 1 UEPS: Faces Securities Litigation in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------
NET 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 24, 2013, Net1, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.

The lawsuit alleges that Net1 made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business and compliance
policies in its SEC filings and other public disclosures. The
lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported shareholder of Net1
and all other similarly situated shareholders who purchased its
securities between August 27, 2009 and November 27, 2013. The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.


NMB MANAGEMENT: Sued by Restaurant Worker Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hala K. Said, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NMB Management Group, Inc., NMB Commons, Inc., NMB
Group Inc., NMB Partners Inc., NMB Rudra Ltd, NMB Shivai Ltd, NMB
Ltd, Shivai Management Inc. and Bakula Patel, individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-10297-RGS (D. Mass., February 7, 2014) is brought on
behalf of similarly situated current and former restaurant
employees, who have suffered as a result of the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts
Wage Act.

NMB Management Group, Inc. and NMB Group Inc. are Massachusetts
for-profit corporations headquartered in Canton, Norfolk County,
Massachusetts.  NMB Commons, Inc., NMB Partners Inc., NMB Rudra
Ltd., NMB Shivai Ltd. and NMB Ltd. are Massachusetts for-profit
corporations headquartered in Boston, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts.  Shivai Management Inc. is a Massachusetts for-
profit corporation headquartered in North Attleboro, Bristol
County, Massachusetts.

Bakula Patel is the president and CEO of the Corporate
Defendants, and owns and operates Subway restaurants in eastern
Massachusetts through each of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Summer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. SUMMER
          77 Franklin Street, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 444-9525
          Telephone: (617) 695-0050
          E-mail: david@summerlaw.com

               - and -

          Alan D. Meyerson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON
          100 State Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 444-9525
          Facsimile: (617) 934-7715
          E-mail: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com


NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Faces "Ferrell" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Ferrell, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., Wal-Mart,
Stores, Inc., and Rite-Aid Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00606-
KAW (N.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) alleges product liability
claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148
          Oakland, CA 94661
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 237-4616
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

               - and -

          Sydney Jay Hall, Esq.
          1308 Bayshore Hwy., Suite 220
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 342-1830
          E-mail: sydneyhalllawoffice@yahoo.com


OCLARO INC: Discovery Starts in California Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a securities suit filed against
Oclaro, Inc. the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and no trial has been scheduled in this
action, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 28, 2013.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against the company and
certain of the company's officers and directors. The Court
subsequently appointed the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund
("Pension Fund") as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On
April 26, 2012, the Pension Fund filed a second amended
complaint, captioned as Westley v. Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448
EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased the company's
common stock between May 6 and October 28, 2010, alleging that
the company and certain of the company's officers and directors
issued materially false and misleading statements during this
time period regarding the company's current business and
financial condition, including projections for demand for the
company's products, as well as the company's revenues, earnings,
and gross margins, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 as
well as the full fiscal year. The complaint alleges violations of
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as well as section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages and costs of
an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2012, the Court dismissed
the second amended complaint with leave to amend. After the
Pension Fund moved for reconsideration, on January 10, 2013, the
Court allowed plaintiffs to take discovery regarding statements
made in May and June 2010. On March 1, 2013 the Pension Fund
filed a third amended complaint, attempting to cure pleading
deficiencies with regard to statements allegedly made in July and
August 2010. On April 1, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the
third amended complaint with respect to the statements made in
July and August 2010. On May 30, 2013, the Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint's claims based on
statements made in July and August 2010. Discovery has commenced,
and no trial has been scheduled in this action.


OCWEN LOAN: Removed "Gamble" Suit to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Edwina Thornton Gamble
v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2013-905056,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
(Southern).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
00231-AKK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from the alleged wrongful foreclosure on a
property located in Jefferson County, Alabama, which secured a
mortgage loan owned HSBC and serviced by Ocwen.

Ocwen is a limited liability company.  The sole member of Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC, is Ocwen Financial Corporation, which is a
citizen of Florida.  HSBC is a national banking association.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce L. Gordon, Esq.
          J. Brannon Maner, Esq.
          John G. Dana, Esq.
          GORDON DANA KNIGHT & GILMORE
          600 University Park Place, Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 874-7950
          Facsimile: (205) 874-7960
          E-mail: bgordon@gattorney.com
                  bmaner@gattorney.com
                  jdana@gattorney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          D. Keith Andress, Esq.
          Natalie R. Bolling, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC
          420 North 20th Street, Suite 1400
          Birmingham, AL 35203-5202
          Telephone: (205) 328-0480
          Facsimile: (205) 488-3846
          E-mail: kandress@bakerdonelson.com
                  nbolling@bakerdonelson.com


OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiff Denied Appeal in Suit Over Redbox Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for leave
to appeal the trial court's denial of class certification in a
suit filed against Redbox, a subsidiary of Outerwall Inc.,
alleging it charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees,
according to Outerwall's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a putative class action complaint against the company's
Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and
excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental
terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the
Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is
seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009,
Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District
Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the
court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class
certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court
denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an
amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the
hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification,
the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only
her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and
the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the
court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January
29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition
for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class
certification.


OUTERWALL INC: Suit v. Redbox in Ill. in Prehearing Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case filed against Redbox, a subsidiary of Outerwall, Inc.,
alleging it retains personally identifiable information of
consumers in excess of allowable time, was referred for a
Prehearing Conference, and briefing of the appeal is suspended
pending further court order, according to Outerwall's Feb. 6,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the company's Redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was
filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident,
Kevin Sterk. Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has
been replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an
amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of
personally identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs'
claims of retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking
statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of
suit, and interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The
court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
upon interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's
motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of
information, holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a
suit for damages under this theory.

On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the court
dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent that
plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief. On August 16,
2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's favor on all
remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for Redbox. On
September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Pursuant
to Seventh Circuit Rule 33, the case was referred for a
Prehearing Conference, and briefing of the appeal is suspended
pending further court order.


OUTERWALL INC: Provides Updates on Suits v. Redbox Unit
-------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall, Inc. provided updates in suits filed against its
subsidiary, Redbox, alleging that, among other things, Redbox
violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971,
according to Outerwall's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a putative class action complaint against the company's
Redbox subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that,
among other things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the
collection and recording of consumer personal identification
information, and violated the California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-
Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly
and the right to privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, by
a California resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar complaint
alleging only a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March
2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego, by a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs
are seeking compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. Redbox
removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and the
Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California. The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been
consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted
Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case.
After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the
Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Schiff
case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court
rules and orders. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi
case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In
January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class
certification as moot. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal. After a stay pending the California
Supreme Court's decision in a case presenting similar issues
involving Song-Beverly in a case to which Redbox is not a party,
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on April 15, 2013. The
matter is fully briefed, and oral argument occurred on January 8,
2014.


PANASONIC CORP: Conspired to Rig Bids for HID Ballasts, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Panasonic Corporation and
Panasonic Corporation of North America, Case No. 2:14-cv-10600-
MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) accuses the Defendants and
unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers and suppliers of
automotive high intensity discharge ballasts for engaging in a
long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise,
maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the
market and customers in the United States for HID Ballasts.

An HID Ballast is an electrical device that limits the amount of
electrical current flowing to an HID headlamp, which would
otherwise rise to destructive levels due to the HID headlamp's
negative resistance.

Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese company headquartered in
Osaka, Japan.  Panasonic Corporation of North America is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.
Panasonic Corporation of North America is a subsidiary of and
wholly owned or controlled by its Japanese parent, Panasonic
Corporation.  The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell HID
Ballasts throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'Neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


PANASONIC CORP: Sued for Fixing Prices of Steering Angle Sensors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Panasonic Corporation and
Panasonic Corporation of North America, Case No. 4:14-cv-10597-
TGB-LJM (E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) accuses the Defendants and
unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers and suppliers of Steering
Angle Sensors of engaging in a long-running conspiracy to
unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and stabilize
prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in
the United States for Steering Angle Sensors.

A Steering Angle Sensor is installed on the steering column of a
vehicle and may be connected to and part of a combination switch;
it detects the angle of the vehicle's direction and sends signals
to a vehicle computer, which in turn controls for vehicle
stability during turns.

Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese company headquartered in
Osaka, Japan.  Panasonic Corporation of North America is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.
Panasonic Corporation of North America is a subsidiary of and
wholly owned or controlled by its Japanese parent, Panasonic
Corporation.

The Panasonic Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Steering
Angle Sensors throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'Neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Hearings Held on Certification of Eltroxin Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
cases filed in Israel related to Eltroxin took place in December
2013 and January 2014, according to Perrigo Company PLC's Feb. 6,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2013.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo
Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd.,
the manufacturers of the product, and various health care
providers who provide health care services as part of the
compulsory health care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a
reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications
generally alleged that the respondents (a) failed to timely
inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in
the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the
need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to
confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug.
As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following
damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have
been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation;
(b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance
of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm
resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to
the use of the reformulation.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated
into one application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated
motion to certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead
counsel for the claimants. Generally, the allegations in the
consolidated motion are the same as those set forth in the
individual motions; however, the consolidated motion excluded the
manufacturer of the reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent.
Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces 11 Smoking and Health Litigations
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. continues to face 11 Smoking and
Health Litigations brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil, according to the company's Consolidated
Financial Statements as of December 31, 2013, and 2012 and for
Each of the Three Years in the Period Ending December 31, 2013
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 6,
2014.

These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by
individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class
of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in
these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade
practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in
these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory
and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses
raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a
claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the
risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.
As of December 31, 2013, there were a number of smoking and
health cases pending against the company, its subsidiaries or
indemnitees, as follows:

     (i) 62 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina
(24), Brazil (24), Canada (2), Chile (4), Costa Rica (2), Greece
(1), Italy (3), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared
with 76 such cases on December 31, 2012, and 75 cases on December
31, 2011; and

    (ii) 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on December 31, 2012 and 10 such cases on December 31,
2011.

In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive
relief. The verdict and post-trial developments in this case.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor
of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,
2007, the company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the
Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i)
damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and
their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") nationwide, and their
relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only.
In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo
where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that
these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the
Seventh Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases,
finding that they are based on different legal claims and are
progressing at different stages of proceedings. This case was
returned to the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the
company's subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December
2010. In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the
merits. In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau
v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in
September 1998, the company's subsidiary and other Canadian
manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual
smoker, is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for each
member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class
was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled
that the federal government would remain as a third party in the
case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed
defendants' third-party claims against the federal government.
Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the present pace, trial is
expected to conclude in 2014, with a judgment to follow at an
indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial
proceedings.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,
Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the
company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an
individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and punitive damages
for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain
smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. In
February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government
would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the
Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against
the federal government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the
present pace, trial is expected to conclude in 2014, with a
judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion
of the trial proceedings.

In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), severe asthma and mild reversible lung disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco
products. In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed
defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action in this
case while he pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or
cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary motions
are pending.

In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company,
its subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in this case is
anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan.

In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus
infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and
family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco
products. To date, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No
activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan
class action.

In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007,
and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have
filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class
action.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
he does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future.


PHILIP MORRIS: Oral Hearing in Lights Case Set for Sept. 2014
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have appealed the denial of class certification in a
lights case filed against Philip Morris International Inc. and an
oral hearing has been scheduled for September 2014, according to
the company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of December
31, 2013, and 2012 and for Each of the Three Years in the Period
Ending December 31, 2013 filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2014.

Lights Cases:

These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a
class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs
seek various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive
relief, and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised
include lack of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the
risk, and statute of limitations.

As of December 31, 2013, the following lights cases were pending
against the company's subsidiaries or indemnitees:

(i) 1 case brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs in Israel,
compared with 2 such cases on December 31, 2012 and December 31,
2011, respectively; and

(ii) 2 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Chile (1) and
Italy (1), compared with 7 such cases on December 31, 2012, and 9
such cases on December 31, 2011.

In the class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip
Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa,
Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the company's subsidiary and the
company's indemnitees (PM USA and former importer) are
defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported class action
claiming that the class members were misled by the descriptor
"lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are safer than
full flavor cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the purchase
price of lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for each
class member. Hearings took place in November and December 2008
regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary
to allow it to proceed as a class action. The parties' briefing
on class certification was completed in March 2011. In November
2012, the court denied class certification and dismissed the
individual claims. Plaintiffs have appealed and an oral hearing
has been scheduled for September 2014.


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Another Suit Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pawel Bubel and Michael Shea, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00162-WGY (D. Conn., February 7, 2014)
seeks overtime pay for individuals holding the position of
"Managed Repair Representative" employed by Progressive during
the past three years.  MRRs comprise a specialized subset of
Progressive's broader Claims Generalist Associates position.

According to the complaint, the case is related to and follows on
the heels of a similar lawsuit now pending in the District Court
against Progressive for another subset of its CGA employees
called File Owners, Carlone v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
Co., Docket Number 3:12-cv-00207 (presently before Judge William
Young).  In Carlone, the plaintiffs claim that File Owners are
entitled to overtime pay.  In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek
to represent MRRs.  The Plaintiffs contends that both classes, in
this case and in Carlone, have been victims of Progressive's
December 2006 decision to classify all CGAs as exempt from
overtime.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an Ohio corporation
headquartered in Mayfield Village, Ohio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          Erick Ignacio Diaz-Vazquez, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                  ediaz@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq.
          QUINN LAW FIRM, LLC
          204 S. Broad St.
          Milford, CT 06460
          Telephone: (203) 877-5400
          Facsimile: (203) 877-5416
          E-mail: apantuso@quinn-lawfirm.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Removed "Melik-Mushgambaryan" Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Armen Melik-Mushgambaryan v.
RadioShack Corporation, et al., Case No. BC532416, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles-Central District to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00975-CAS-JCG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alisa Goukasian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALISA GOUKASIAN
          127 South Brand Boulevard, Suite 220A
          Glendale, CA 91204
          Telephone: (818) 242-4601
          Facsimile: (818) 242-2962
          E-mail: agoukasian@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James S. McNeill, Esq.
          Peter Zlomke Stockburger, Esq.
          Robert Anthony Cocchia, Esq.
          MCKENNA LONG AND ALDRIDGE LLP
          4435 Eastgate Mall, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (916) 595-5400
          Facsimile: (916) 959-5450
          E-mail: jmcneill@mckennalong.com
                  pstockburger@mckennalong.com
                  rcocchia@mckennalong.com


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Removed "Myers" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Cariann Myers, et
al. v. County of San Bernardino, et al., Case No. CIVDS 1315424,
was removed from the Superior Court of the state of California
for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00245-JGB-DTB
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege two causes of action and seeks recovery of
damages available under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aarin A. Zeif, Esq.
          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          GOULD AND ASSOCIATES
          17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 669-2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544-0800
          E-mail: aarin@wageandhourlaw.com
                  michael@wageandhourlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara S. Van Ligten, Esq.
          Christine Diaz-Herrera, Esq.
          Nate J. Kowalski, Esq.
          ATKINSON ANDELSON LOYA RUUD & ROMO
          12800 Center Court Drive, Suite 300
          Cerritos, CA 90703
          Telephone: (562) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
          E-mail: bvanligten@aalrr.com
                  cdiazherrera@aalrr.com
                  nkowalski@aalrr.com


SANOFI PASTEUR: Court Tosses "Weitzner" Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Caputo denied a motion to dismiss the case
captioned ARI WEITZNER and ARI WEITZNER, M.D., P.C., Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SANOFI PASTEUR, INC. formerly known as AVENTIS PASTEUR INC., and
VAXSERVE, INC., formerly known as VACCESS AMERICA INC.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-2198, (M.D. Penn.).

Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) filed by Defendants Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. and
Vaxserve, Inc.

The Plaintiffs filed this complaint against Defendants on
November 26, 2011 for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(c). Plaintiffs
brought these claims on behalf of themselves and all persons or
entities similarly situated, but Plaintiffs have yet to file a
motion for class certification. The Defendants made an Offer of
Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.
Defendants sought dismissal of the Plaintiffs' class complaint,
arguing that their Rule 68 Offer of Judgment moots both
Plaintiffs' individual claims and the putative class claims.

"Absent undue delay," held Judge Caputo, "a motion for class
certification under Rule 23 relates back to filing of the class
complaint. Since there was no undue delay here regarding the
filing of a motion to certify a class, Defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be denied."

A copy of the Court's March 12, 2014 Memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/so0cpdfrom Leagle.com


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to face the suit In re
Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-
JAH-RBB, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 28, 2013.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various
statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's
sale of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into
in previously pending government proceedings associated with such
sales. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported
class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the United
States who purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential,
punitive, and treble); reimbursement, restitution, and
disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred; injunctive and
declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
costs and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to vigorously
defend the consolidated action.


SHAC LLC: Sent Class Members Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Luna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Shac, LLC dba Sapphire Gentlemen's Club, a Nevada
corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-00607-HRL (N.D. Cal., February 7,
2014) alleges that the Defendant has violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages that
advertise its products and services -- entertainment events -- to
unwilling consumers, including the Plaintiff, invading their
right to privacy.

Shac, LLC, doing business as Sapphire Gentlemen's Club, is a
Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Las
Vegas, Nevada.  The Company is authorized to conduct business,
and does conduct business, within the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
          Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq.
          David Zelenski, Esq.
          Christine M. Pham, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
                  abigail@jlglawyers.com
                  david@jlglawyers.com
                  christine@jlglawyers.com


STANLEY BLACK: Sued Over Misleading Ultrasonic Wave Gizmo Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Black & Decker's "ultrasonic wave" gizmo for cockroaches,
mice and vermin doesn't work as advertised, a class action claims
in Cuyahoga County Court, Courthouse News Service has reported.


SWIFT ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Spill in Lake Grande
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Swift Energy Co. ruined
oyster beds in Lake Grande Ecaille Bay when its vessel caused an
oil spill by hitting a wellhead, an oysterer claimed in a
Louisiana federal class action filed in February.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Obtains Initial Approval of Securities Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Graham C. Mullen granted preliminary
approval of a settlement in IN RE SWISHER HYGIENE, INC.
SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION United States District
Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division, MDL NO. 3:12-MD-
2384-GCM.  A copy of the March 11, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/2QVGJU from Leagle.com.

For purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Consolidated
Class Action will be maintained and proceed as an opt-out class
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) by
Lead Plaintiffs, as class representatives, on behalf of the Class
defined as: Any and all record and beneficial holders of Swisher
common stock, their respective successors in interest,
successors, predecessors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs,
assigns or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of
them, and each of them, together with their predecessors and
successors and assigns, who purchased on the NASDAQ stock
exchange or otherwise acquired shares of Swisher common stock in
a transaction that took place within the United States or its
territories at any time between and including March 1, 2011 and
March 28, 2012.  Excluded from the Class are: Individuals named
as defendants in the Consolidated Class Action, Swisher's current
and former directors and officers and their immediate family
members, and any entity controlled by Swisher's current and
former directors and officers. Also excluded from the Class is
any Person who excludes themselves by filing a timely Request for
Exclusion.

The Court authorized the Lead Counsel to retain the firm of A.B.
Data, Ltd. as claims administrator to supervise and administer
the notice and claims procedures.

A hearing will be held by the Court on August 6, 2014, at 11 a.m.
in Courtroom 3 at the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, United States Courthouse,
Charles R. Jonas Federal Building, 401 West Trade Center,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 to, among other things, determine
whether the Class should be certified pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), and determine whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate and
in the best interests of the Class.


T.RAD CO: Faces Suit Over Price-Fixing of ATF Warmers
-----------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. T.RAD Co., Ltd., Case No.
2:14-cv-10593-MOB-DRG (E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) is brought
against T.RAD and unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers and
suppliers of Automatic Transmission Fluid Warmers for engaging in
a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise,
maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the
market and customers in the United States for ATF Warmers.

"ATF Warmers" are devices located in the engine compartment of a
vehicle that warm the automatic transmission fluid.

T.RAD Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  T.RAD manufactures, markets,
and sells ATF Warmers throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'Neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


TARGET CORP: Faces Another Class Suit in Pennsylvania Over Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
North Districts Community Credit Union, individually and on
behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial
institutions v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00175-AJS
(W.D. Pa., February 7, 2014) arises from the data breach at
Target stores in late 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  akoropey@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert R. Leight, Esq.
          John R. Brumberg, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          301 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-2000
          Facsimile: (412) 263-4222
          E-mail: RRL@Pietragallo.com
                  JRB@Pietragallo.com


TARGET CORP: Has More Time to Respond to Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
NELLIE CHRISTENSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TARGET, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01136-CW-DBP, (D. Utah) is a
diversity class action matter that was referred to the Court
under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A).  The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants unlawfully failed to prevent a data breach that
exposed Plaintiffs' credit card information.

On February 12, 2014, Defendant Target moved to stay this matter
pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) on whether to transfer this matter and eighty
similar matters into a multidistrict litigation. On February 20,
2014, Target filed an expedited motion to extend its deadline to
respond to Plaintiffs' complaint.

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead entered a memorandum decision on
March 12, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/b1S0DQfrom Leagle.com, granting the request.

Judge Pead said Target's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs'
complaint until 30 days after the Court rules on the pending
motion to stay.  "Granting such an extension will give the Court
more time to thoroughly consider the motion to stay," he said.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. to Consider Propoxyphene Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued an Order dated Feb. 10, 2014, ruling that, on the
vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, the cases against
TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., will be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3.  The three-judge
panel opinion in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 13-
56310, shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the
Ninth Circuit.  Judge M. Margaret McKeown did not participate in
the deliberations or vote in this case.

The cases are:

     (1) JUDITH ROMO; VINCENT TALDONE; ROBIN TAYLER; MARGARET
TAYLOR; RANDY TAYLOR; RAY TEETS; LAWRENCE TELLS; KATHRYN
TEMCHACK; CHARLES TERRY; VERONICA TERRY; ROBERTA THORNE; MARGARET
TIVIS; LINDA TODD; DELORES TOOHEY; DEBRA TOURVILLE; DENA TSOUALS;
ALLEN TURNER; CAROLYN TURNER; WANDA TURNER; STARLET TYRONE;
GLORIA UNDERWOOD; HENRY UNDERWOOD; JANICE VANISON; WILLIAM
VERHEYEN; CHARLES VILDIBILL; SHARON WALLGREN; PAM WALSH; SHARON
WALSH; KEESHA WARRIOR; LATANGA WASHINGTON; DARLENE WATT; JAMES
WEISS; WESLEY WELBORNE, III; DEBRA WHEELER; MARSHA WHITT; CAROLYN
WHYNO; CECILIA WILCKENS; SANDRA WILEMON; STELLA WILKERSON-CLARK;
JOANN WILLIAMS; JOYCE WILLIAMS; ROSE WILLIAMS; SHANTAS WILLIAMS;
MARY WILSON; WOLFSON; JUANITA WOODSON; LYNNE WYSOCKY, single
individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 13-56310, D.C. No. 5:12-cv-02036-
PSG-E (9th Cir.); and

     (2) MARGALIT CORBER; RENE CARO; STEVE DANTZLER; LINDA
SOWARDS; LORI HUISMAN; JOHNNY GEORGE, SR.; TERRY PERRY; WILLIAM
RACKLEY; ANGELA YOUNG; PAMELA RODRIGUEZ; STEVEN SYVERSON; OLGA
CAICOYA; JANET CARROLL; ROSE CASH; ULAD CELENTANO; VIRGINIA
COSTANZO; KIMBERLY FILLIGIM; ARMELDIA SMITH; CARLA WEST; JOANNE
BIERZYNSKI, individually and as next of kin to Eleanor Wojcik;
SHARLEY MORRIS; WYOMIA TIMMONS; DEAN REINKING; DANIEL THORNE;
WENDELEN ASHBY; CARMEN BEDFORD; CLAUDE COMMODORE; JAMES HENSON;
NANCY LOCKE; MILDRED SCOTT; BILLIE BURNETT; SHEENA HALL; BRENDA
ROBERGE, individually and as next of kin to Ernest Roberge;
DEBORAH WOODSUM; RICHARD PASCUITO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 13-56306
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09986-PSG-E (9th Cir.).

Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reported in February that the
full 9th Circuit will consider whether dozens of lawsuits over
the pain drug propoxyphene should face a joint trial and federal
jurisdiction.  Overdose concerns led the Food and Drug
Administration to removed the opoid from shelves in 2010,
prompting more than 40 lawsuits in California's state courts
concerning Darvocet, Darvon and other products in which it could
be found.  In late 2012 a group of attorneys asked the California
Judicial Council for a "coordinated proceeding" of all of the
state actions.

Considering that request as a move to try the cases jointly, Teva
Pharmaceuticals, which owned the rights to the generic versions
of the drugs, removed the case to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez
disagreed in Los Angeles and sent the case back to state court,
setting up a question of first impression for the 9th Circuit.

A divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals court affirmed
Guiterrez's remand to state court in September 2013, but the
court said February 10, 2014, that the ruling will not stand and
may no longer be cited.


THELADDERS.COM INC: Ct. Narrows Claims in Breach of Contract Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss the case captioned Barbara Ward, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. TheLadders.com, Inc., Defendant, NO. 13 CIV. 1605
(JGK), (S.D.N.Y.).

This purported class action arises out of the operation and use
of a jobmatching website, TheLadders.com.  The plaintiffs,
Barbara Ward, Joseph Garcia, Robin Lynn, Timothy Morris, David
Reading, and Philip Wilton, who are former premium-paying users
of the website, allege that the defendant made false promises and
representations regarding, among other things, the quality,
specifications, and availability of job postings on the website,
and that the defendants induced subscribers to purchase resume
rewriting services through false representations.  The plaintiffs
allege claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, rescission of contract, money had
and received, common-law fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the New York General Business Law Section 349, the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, and the California Unfair Competition
Law.

The defendant moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in
its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

In an opinion and order dated March 12, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/WOoWsNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koeltl
held that the out-of-state plaintiffs have stated a claim under
GBL Section 349, and the defendant's motion to dismiss this claim
is denied with respect to these plaintiffs, but granted with
respect to plaintiff Lynn. In addition, the plaintiffs agreed at
oral argument to withdraw the claims under the Washington
Consumer Protection Act and the California Unfair Competition Law
(Counts VIII and IX) in the event that the GBL claim remains.
Therefore, the claims in Counts VIII and IX are dismissed, he
added.

Plaintiffs have not shown how the legal deficiencies can be cured
after having amended the complaint twice.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' request for leave to replead is denied.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Court Narrows Claims in Pension Fund's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In DEKALB COUNTY PENSION FUND, Plaintiff, v. TRANSOCEAN LTD., et
al., Defendants, NO. 10 CIV. 07498 (LGS), (S.D. N.Y.), before the
Court is the Defendants' motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims as time barred by Section 14(a)'s three-year statute of
repose.

The Bricklayers and Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund
(Bricklayers) commenced this action against the Defendants on
September 30, 2010, asserting claims of an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement that was distributed to shareholders
of GlobalSantaFe Corp. (GSF) on October 2, 2007, in connection
with a proposed merger between GSF and Transocean Inc. The proxy
statement allegedly contained false representations and material
omissions regarding Transocean's compliance with environmental
laws, which came to light after Transocean's Deepwater Horizon
drilling rig exploded on April 20, 2010. The explosion and the
subsequent oil spill caused a sharp decline in Transocean's share
price and, according to the Complaint, "the worst environmental
disaster in American history."

Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell, in an opinion and order dated
March 11, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/V07wyWfrom Leagle.com, granted the motion, saying
the statute of repose begins to run at the time of the violation,
which, for a Section 14 claim, is when the relevant proxy
statement was issued.  He said the three-year period ran on
October 2, 2010, three years after the Defendants' issuance of
the proxy statement.  Because Plaintiff did not even appear in
this action until December 3, 2010, its Section 14(a) claim must
be dismissed as untimely, Judge Howell concluded.


VISA CANADA: Credit Card Fee Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Crawford, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a
multi-billion dollar class-action lawsuit challenging the fees
paid by merchants on credit card transactions has been approved
to go ahead in a British Columbia court.

The two B.C. law firms that launched the action, Branch MacMaster
LLP and Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, say the Supreme Court of
British Columbia has granted the class action status.

The lawyers filed the suit in 2011 on behalf of Mary Watson, a
Vancouver furniture store owner, who claims the credit card
companies and banks conspired to force retailers to accept all of
their credit cards, even if some cards charge them higher
processing fees than others.

Named in the suit are credit card companies Visa Canada Corp. and
MasterCard International Inc., as well as Canada's largest banks:
Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, BMO Financial Group,
the Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
National Bank of Canada and the Federation des caisses Desjardins
du Quebec.

At issue in the proceedings are approximately $5 billion in fees
paid by merchants annually to accept Visa and MasterCard credit
card transactions, the firm says.

Parallel proceedings are underway in Ontario, Quebec,
Saskatchewan and Alberta, but were being held in abeyance pending
the decision in British Columbia.

"The claims advanced in the other jurisdictions are very similar
and were designed to collectively capture the claims of all
Canadian merchants," said Reidar Mogerman --
rmogerman@cfmlawyers.ca -- of Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, in
a statement.

"We hope that this positive decision will result in the Canadian
banks, Visa and MasterCard responding to merchants' concerns
about how high these fees are set.  Changes have already occurred
in many other countries to address this problem, and we believe
it is time for Canada's banks to respond as well."

A settlement has already been negotiated with Bank of America,
which will now be forwarded to the B.C. court for approval.

The claims have not been proven in court.  The class action seeks
to represent all Canadian merchants who processed a credit card
payment dating back to March 2001.

Under the current model, credit card companies and banks take a
percentage fee from the merchant that varies depending on the
type of card the customer uses.

More basic credit cards have lower fees, while cards that collect
points and other rewards often charge retailers higher fees.  The
suit claims that merchants are prohibited from charging consumers
more for transactions paid for on premium credit cards, and are
forced to eat the costs themselves.


VISA INC: Wal-Mart Files Suit Following Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Wahba, writing for Reuters, reports that Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. has sued Visa Inc for $5 billion, accusing the credit and
debit card network of excessively high card swipe fees, several
months after the retailer opted out of a class action settlement
between merchants and Visa and MasterCard Inc.

Visa declined to comment on the suit, filed on March 25 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where
Wal-Mart is headquartered.

Visa and other card networks charge retailers fees, called swipe
fees or interchange fees, each time a shopper uses a debit or
credit card to pay.

In December, a federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., approved a $5.7
billion class action settlement between merchants and Visa and
MasterCard despite the objections of thousands of retailers that
complained it was inadequate.

Wal-Mart, Amazon.com Inc, and Target Corp were among those opting
out of the monetary components of the settlement to have the
freedom to seek damages on their own.  Those businesses
complained about a broad litigation release in the settlement.
The release forces all merchants who accepted Visa or MasterCard,
and those who will in the future, to give up their right to sue
the credit card companies over rules at issue in the case or
similar ones they may make in the future.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, is seeking damages from
price fixing and other antitrust violations that it claims took
place between January 1, 2004 and November 27, 2012.  In its
lawsuit, Wal-Mart contends that Visa, in concert with banks,
sought to prevent retailers from protecting themselves against
those swipe fees, eventually hurting sales.

"The anticompetitive conduct of Visa and the banks forced Wal-
Mart to raise retail prices paid by its customers and/or reduce
retail services provided to its customers as a means of
offsetting some of the artificially inflated interchange fees,"
Wal-Mart in court documents.

"As a result, Wal-Mart's retail sales were below what they would
have been otherwise."

When asked whether Wal-Mart would file a suit against Mastercard,
a spokesman for the retailer said the company would not discuss
its litigation plans publicly.

Wal-Mart contends that that the way Visa set swipe fees violated
antitrust regulations and generated more than $350 billion for
card issuers over the nearly 9-year period in question, in part
at the expense of the retailer and customers.

The case is in re: Wal-Mart Stores, U.S. District Court, Western
District of Arkansas, No. 05101.


WARNER MUSIC: Suit Over Digital Music Downloads in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated suit over pricing of digital music
downloads have filed amended pleadings after the partial
dismissal of the suit, and the case is currently in discovery,
according to Warner Music Group Corp.'s Feb. 6, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General
of the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
the company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking
information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded
music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent
to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty
putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing
of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the
Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended
complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among
record companies to delay the release of their content for
digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices
for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory, statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008,
the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all
defendants, including us. However, on January 12, 2010, the
Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and
remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10,
2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for
Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court
granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.
Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain, for the class of internet download
purchasers. The parties have filed amended pleadings complying
with the court's order, and the case is currently in discovery.


WARNER MUSIC: Oct. 2 Final Hearing on Music Download Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on final approval of the settlement reached in the
Music Download Putative Class Actions is scheduled for October 2,
2014, according to Warner Music Group Corp.'s Feb. 6, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California
between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which
were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the
Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for
certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording
contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on
their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of
other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on
a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had
breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case
through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording
artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all
of the major record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to
have the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case
applied to their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable
response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to
be appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs'
counsel moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1,
2012 order, the court consolidated the cases and appointed
interim co-lead class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated,
master complaint on August 21, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. As part of the settlement,
the Company will make available $11.5 million (less attorneys'
fees, costs, and costs of claims administration and class notice)
to compensate class members for past sales of downloads and
ringtones. On January 23, 2014, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. The hearing on final approval of the
settlement is scheduled for October 2, 2014.


WEST ASSET: Accused of Negligently Calling Class Members' Phones
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hastings and Jill Hastings, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. West Asset Management, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00300-GPC-NLS (S.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) is
brought for damages, injunctive relief, and other available
remedies, resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions
in negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiffs on their
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

West Asset Management, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in
Nebraska.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew Michael Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jessica R.K. Dorman, Esq.
          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: jessica@westcoastlitigation.com
                  josh@westcoastlitigation.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Debbie P. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN AND ISRAEL
          1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 758-1891
          Facsimile: (619) 296-2013
          E-mail: dpk@sessions-law.biz


WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Illegally Obtaining Consumer Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Esayas Gezahegne, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., a
California Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00592-PJH (N.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) is brought on behalf of
individuals, who executed online authorization forms permitting
the Defendant to obtain a consumer report as part of the
employment application process at any time from January 28, 2009,
until the present, challenging the Defendant's uniform policy to
obtain consumer reports on the basis of legally invalid
authorization form that contained language constituting a waiver
of claims against those who obtain the consumer reports.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc., is a Corporation based in
Austin, Texas, and doing business in California and throughout
the United States.  The Company operates numerous natural foods
supermarkets located throughout the state of California and the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          Michael Malk, Esq.
          MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 203-0016
          Facsimile: (310) 499-5210
          E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christian Joseph Rowley, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com


ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS: Class in Electronic Check Scheme Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge certified a class of California payday loan
applicants who say a bank and a payment processor helped ZaaZoom
Solutions rip them off using unauthorized electronic checks,
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
in February.

Lead plaintiff Amber Marsh sued ZaaZoom and its alleged
accomplices in 2011, claiming they "lured" her into applying for
a payday loan online and then used her bank information to enroll
her in online coupon membership programs without her permission.

ZaaZoom allegedly used remotely created checks, or RCCs, drawn on
the applicants' accounts to pay for the membership programs.

On Dec. 2, 2013, U.S. District Judge William Orrick entered
default judgment against ZaaZoom Solutions, Zaza Pay, MultiEcom,
Online Resource Center, Automated Electronic Checking and Data
Processing Systems.  A month later, the judge preliminarily
approved a $527,750 settlement of the claims against the First
Bank of Delaware, one of the two defendant banks.

Separate motions to dismiss whittled the allegations to five
claims against payment processor Jack Henry & Associates, three
of them falling under the unlawful, fraudulent and unfair prongs
of California's Unfair Competition Law, and two federal claims
for conversion and negligence.  Marsh's federal negligence claim
against the First National Bank of Central Texas also survived.

In his Feb. 7 ruling, Orrick granted Marsh's motion for class
certification, saying the defendants had ignored red flags.
According to the ruling, ZaaZoom had hired Jack Henry to draft
and deposit the checks into accounts at both banks, earning a
commission for each check deposited.

"Jack Henry deposited over 116,000 RCCs as a processor for
ZaaZoom defendants, of which at least 61,000 were returned as not
payable, resulting in a return rate of more than 53 percent,"
Orrick wrote in the 26-page opinion.

Meanwhile, the depository banks were inclined to ignore warning
signs because they collected overdraft fees for the returned
checks, he said.

"The processors and depository banks ignored suspicious signs of
potential wrongdoing, such as the fact that the ZaaZoom
defendants' checks had a return rate over 100 times the national
average," Orrick wrote.

He also noted the "astronomically" high check numbers, such as
check No. 1,261,849, which he described as "higher than the
number of checks any actual person would issue."

Though Orrick limited class certification to a group of
California residents, he said Marsh could file an amended motion
for nationwide class certification in March "that addresses the
deficiencies identified in this order by, among other things,
identifying the state of residency for proposed class members,
explaining with particularity whether any other state's laws
apply and how they relate to California law."

The case is Amber Kristi Marsh, et al. v. First Bank of Delaware,
et al., Case No. 11cv05226WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


                             *********

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  * * *