CAR_Public/140417.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 76

                             Headlines


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Portion of Plaintiffs Expert's Testimony Barred
ADT LLC: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Saegh" Suit Claims
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Removed "Simpson" Suit to N.D. Illinois
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Action Dismissal
BUTTERFLY LABS: Faces Suit Over Sales & Advertising Practices

CAMBREX CORPORATION: Mylan Submits Surety Bond in Suit Over APIs
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Sued for Using False Practices to Collect Debts
CNINSURE INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
COTY INC: Faces Securities Suit Over 2013 Initial Public Offering
CUSPC LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

CVS CAREMARK: "Lauriello" Lawsuit Over 1999 Settlement Stayed
CVS CAREMARK: Suit Over Retail Pharmacy Networks Consolidated
CVS CAREMARK: NH Court Tosses New Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
DART CHEROKEE: High Court to Hear Appeal to Transfer Class Action
DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Windshield Washers

DFC GLOBAL: Being Sold to Little to Lone Star, Suit Claims
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in "Steinfeld" Case
DRESSMAN BENZINGER: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ECOLAB INC: Removed "Schneider" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois
EPICOR SOFTWARE: $18MM Fund Earmarked to Settle Suit Over Sale

EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Judge Okays $2.9MM OT Class Action Settlement
FIRST NATIONAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Chemical Spill
GALLUP INC: "Fox" Suit Transferred From California to Florida
GENERAL MOTORS: Sutts Strosberg Files Power Steering Class Action

HANGTIME INC: Removed "Goodman" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois
HAWAII: 9th Cir. Vacates Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Korab" Class Action
HUNTSMAN CORP: Md. Court Okays Accord in TiO2 Antitrust Suit
HUNTSMAN CORP: Buyers of TiO2-Made Products Sue in Calif.
HURONIA REGIONAL: Former Residents to Receive Compensation

LEAR CORP: Can't Pursue Interlocutory Appeal in Antitrust Suit
LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Privacy Invasion
LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES: Invades Privacy of Class Members, Suit Says
MANPOWER INC: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in "Willner"
MARIAH RESOURCES: Accused of Pervasive Sexual Harassment in Cal.

MOTT'S LLP: "Rahman" 2nd Amended Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
MT GOX: Two Australians Join Class Action Over Bitcoin Losses
NEW ORLEANS: Judge Certifies Police Officers' OT Class Action
NORTHWEST BANCORP: Facilities Don't Cater to Disable, Suit Claims
PALISADES COLLECTIONS: Accused of Violating TCPA in California

PEPSICO INC: Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi Have Carcinogen, Suit Says
PG&E CORP: Pays Out $520MM to Claimants in San Bruno Accident
PG&E CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit by Customers in California
SAFEWAY INC: Loses Bid to Nix "Club Card" Holders' Class Action
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: MWD Specialists Seek to Recover Overtime

SINGLE TOUCH: Plaintiff in "Ibey" Consumer Suit Dismisses Case
SOLARCITY CORP: Faces Securities Class Action
SANDUSKY WELLNESS: Court Denies TCPA Class Certification Motion
SUTTER HEALTH: UEBT Files Class Action Over Illegal Overcharges
TARGET CORP: Faces "Schafer" Suit in Wisconsin Over Data Breach

TARGET CORP: Credit Unions, Bank Sue Over 2013 Data Breach
UMPQUA BANK: Settles Claims on Using Software to Maximize Fees
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Heard

* Jamaica's FSC Revises Guidelines to Combat Ponzi Schemes


                             *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Portion of Plaintiffs Expert's Testimony Barred
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the high-stakes wage dispute hanging over Apple and other tech
giants will feature much of the proffered expert testimony,
though a federal judge scolded workers for attempting to
"sandbag" the defense with new analysis.

Five software engineers lead the consolidated class action
alleging that a poaching ban maintained stable internal salary
structures at Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and
Disney Pixar from 2005 to 2009.  Workers say the companies
reached the "gentleman's agreements" via CEO-to-CEO emails, which
included the late Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley
CEOs.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh had refused last year to strike
expert reports from both parties, which included testimony for
the class by economist and statistician Dr. Edward Leamer, who
said the alleged agreements had a widespread, adverse effect on
pay.

The plaintiffs said that the Justice Department, which concluded
that the agreements "disrupted the normal price-setting
mechanisms" and thereby suppressed compensation, has corroborated
Leamer's analysis.

Koh also previously preserved a report by defense expert Dr.
Kevin Murphy, whom the plaintiffs accused of relying on
information from "handpicked declarants."

In doing so the judge had mentioned her "concerns that
plaintiffs' examples, though compelling, may not be sufficient to
show that all or nearly all class members were affected by the
anti-solicitation agreements without additional documentary
support or empirical analysis."

The plaintiffs claimed the attack on Leamer, whom the defendants
deemed "unreliable," relied "on factually incorrect and
unscientific assumptions" put forth by Murphy.

Koh agreed April 4, 2014, however, to strike part Leamer's
testimony under a 1993 Supreme Court decision. Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. requires trial courts to perform a
"gatekeeping" function to determine the admissibility of expert
witness testimony.

In her 48-page ruling, Koh slams the plaintiffs for touting a new
theory by Leamer, months after his opening report, in violation
of a Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requirement that an expert
witness's opening report contain "a complete statement of all
opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for
them" together with "the facts or data considered by the witness
in forming them."

Leamer argued for the first time in December 2013 that so-called
"null hypothesis testing" should be used to assess the
reliability of his regression model, Koh found.

"Plaintiffs will not be allowed to 'sandbag' defendants with new
analysis that should have been included at the very least in
Dr. Leamer's opening merits report," she wrote.

Koh nevertheless rejected an argument by the defendants "that
plaintiffs should not be able to rely on Dr. Leamer's model as
evidence that each class member was injured -- i.e., that
Dr. Leamer's regression is irrelevant to the issue of classwide
impact."

"This court already concluded, when ruling on plaintiffs' first
class certification motion, that Dr. Leamer's conduct regression
was a reasonable methodology capable of showing that the anti-
solicitation agreements caused 'generalized harm to the class,'"
Koh wrote.

Having rejected part of the motion to exclude, Koh also denied
the defendants summary judgment.

"Defendants' sole argument in support of their joint motion for
summary judgment is that '[w]ithout Dr. Leamer's expert report
and testimony, plaintiffs have no evidence of classwide impact or
damages and cannot prove the essential elements of their
antitrust claim,'" Koh wrote.


ADT LLC: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Saegh" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Amar Saegh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADT, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00216-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.,
February 13, 2014) accuses the Company of negligently contacting
the Plaintiff and the class on their cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading their privacy.

ADT, LLC, is a corporation whose state of incorporation and
principal place of business is in the state of Florida.  The
Company is a home and business security services provider across
the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D 1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  gouya@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric L. Zalud, Esq.
          BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN AND ARONOFF LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 2300
          Cleveland, OH 44114-2378
          Telephone: (216) 363-4178
          Facsimile: (216) 363-4588
          E-mail: ezalud@beneschlaw.com

               - and -

          Rassa Lea Ahmadi, Esq.
          ARCHER NORRIS
          4695 MacArthur Court Suite 350
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-8816
          Telephone: (949) 975-8200
          Facsimile: (949) 975-8210
          E-mail: rahmadi@archernorris.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Removed "Simpson" Suit to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co. removed the class action lawsuit captioned
Simpson, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., Case No.
2006L-9945, from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
01040 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Joshua Piell, Esq.
          1431 McHenry Road, #213
          Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
          Telephone: (847) 955-1276
          E-mail: david@consumerprotectionlaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Amlot, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          Facsimile: (312) 876-7934
          E-mail: mark.hanover@dentons.com
                  tiffany.amlot@snrdenton.com

               - and -

          Bryan Thomas Butcher, Esq.
          Cornelius Edward McKnight, Esq.
          Nathan Pear Karlsgodt, Esq.
          MCKNIGHT, KITZINGER & PRAVDIC, LLC
          117 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 301
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 463-9400
          Facsimile: (312) 589-5586
          E-mail: bryan@butcherlawoffices.com
                  nmcknight@mkmplaw.com
                  nathan.karlsgodt@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Halldin, Esq.
          HARRISON & HELD, LLP
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 332-1111
          Facsimile: (312) 332-1150
          E-mail: jhalldin@harrisonheld.com


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael M. Rosensaft, Esq. -- michael.rosensaft@kattenlaw.com --
at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, reports that on March 28, the US
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court's
dismissal of a shareholder class action against BioMimetic
Therapeutics Inc., finding that plaintiffs had failed to
sufficiently allege that the orthopedics company had lied about
the progress of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of
Augment, a bone injury treatment.

Shareholders alleged that throughout the class period, the
company was aware of numerous deficiencies in Augment's clinical
trials, but nevertheless spoke optimistically to investors about
the device's prospects for FDA approval.  Plaintiffs also argued
that defendants modified the patient population used to analyze
its clinical trial results in a way that allowed the company to
report more favorable results than if the original population was
used.

The District Court granted BioMimetic's motion to dismiss,
finding that under the pleading requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), plaintiffs failed to
adequately support their claims that BioMimetic had conducted
inferior clinical trials and had deceived investors about their
progress and results.  A plaintiff only clears the high hurdle
imposed by the PSLRA if a reasonable person would deem the
inference of scienter at least as strong as any opposing
inference.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the company
could have legitimately believed that the statistical results it
achieved in clinical trials would be sufficient to obtain
approval by the FDA. It noted that several factors indicated that
BioMimetric rightfully expressed optimism about the device's
prospects and found that the complaint failed to set forth facts
that would prove otherwise.

Kuyat et al. v. BioMimetic Therapeutics Inc. et al., No. 13-5602
(6th Cir. 2014).


BUTTERFLY LABS: Faces Suit Over Sales & Advertising Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Wood, Esq. -- noah@woodlaw.com -- at The Wood Law Firm LLC
on April 7 disclosed that customers from across the country have
joined together and filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the
sales and advertising practices of Butterfly Labs.  The lawsuit
against BF Labs, Inc., which does business as Butterfly Labs
seeks compensation for customers who pre-paid Butterfly Labs for
Bitcoin mining equipment and who did not receive the equipment
they paid for, or received the equipment far after Butterfly Labs
represented the equipment would ship.

Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment system and digital currency.
Bitcoins are created by "mining", a process where miners receive
transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins in return for
verifying and recording payments into a public ledger.  By
design, mining is a computationally intensive process which today
requires purpose-built computer chips to be cost effective.

The complaint, filed in the United State District Court for the
District of Kansas located in Kansas City, seeks to recover the
pre-payments made to Butterfly Labs and the losses customers
sustained due to Butterfly Labs' conduct.  The lawsuit alleges
Butterfly Labs required customers to pre-pay for orders of ASIC
based Bitcoin mining hardware, and used portions of customer
pre-payments to make loans to shareholders and purchase a house
and automobile for a shareholder.  Because the computational
difficulty of Bitcoin mining increases over time, by the time
some consumers finally received their equipment, the equipment
had become worthless because mining with the equipment was no
longer cost effective.

"Bitcoin is an exciting and promising new technology.
Unfortunately this also makes it an attractive area for people
running scams and frauds," stated attorney Noah Wood one of the
lawyers for the customers.  "Stopping the bad actors and staying
vigilant against consumer fraud is absolutely necessary for the
successful development of the Bitcoin ecosystem."

According to the complaint, Butterfly Labs may have collected
over $25 million in customer pre-payments.  The lawsuit also
alleges Butterfly Labs, despite telling customers that Butterfly
Labs did not mine bitcoins itself, used equipment customers had
already paid for to earn mining income for itself under the guise
of "testing" such hardware.  The complaint states this "testing"
served "to enrich Defendant at the detriment of its customers by
both denying the customers' use and benefit of the equipment they
have already paid for, as well as increasing the overall mining
difficulty required to generate future bitcoins."

The case is Alexander et al. v. BF Labs, Inc., Case Number 2:14-
CV-02159 (D. Kansas).  The customers are represented by Noah Wood
and Ari Rodopoulos.  A copy of the lawsuit and further
information is available from the Wood Law Firm, LLC at
http://is.gd/MUheZl


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Mylan Submits Surety Bond in Suit Over APIs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Laboratories, Inc. has submitted a surety bond underwritten
by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632,000
suits arising from exclusive license agreements between the
Cambrex Corp and Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical
ingredients (API), according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court"). Suits were also
commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The
suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four
health care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court
entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and
Cambrex in the total amount of $19,200,000 payable jointly and
severally, and also a punitive damage award against each
defendant in the amount of $16,709,000. In addition, at the time,
the District Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a
total of approximately $7,500,000 in prejudgment interest. The
case is currently pending before the District Court following a
January 2011 remand by the Court of Appeals where briefing
related to whether the court has jurisdiction over certain self-
funded customer plaintiffs has been completed and the parties are
currently waiting for a ruling by the court.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415,000 to Mylan in exchange for a
release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in
related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the
ongoing matter. Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by
a third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632,000. In
the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex
expects any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan
under the indemnity described.


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Sued for Using False Practices to Collect Debts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yisroel Kupferstein, an individual; on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Certified Credit & Collection
Bureau, a New Jersey Corporation; Joanne M. Possumato,
Individually and In Her Official Capacity; and John and Jane Does
Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 3:14-cv-00947-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.,
February 13, 2014) accuses the Defendants of using false,
deceptive, and misleading practices in connection with their
attempts to collect alleged debts from the Plaintiff and others.

Certified Credit & Collection Bureau is a New Jersey for-profit
corporation headquartered in Borough of Somerville, Somerset
County, New Jersey.  Certified Credit collects, and attempts to
collect, debts incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, for
personal, family, or household purposes on behalf of creditors
using the U.S. Mail, telephone, and Internet.

Joanne M. Possumato is a principal owner, officer, director,
shareholder, compliance officer, or managing partner of Certified
Credit.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          THOMASSON LAW, LLC
          101 Hudson Street, 21st Floor
          Jersey City, NJ 07302-3929
          Telephone: (201) 479-9969
          Facsimile: (855) 479-9969
          E-Mail: andrew@thomassonllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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


CNINSURE INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNinsure Inc., an independent insurance intermediary company
operating in China, on April 8 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has
preliminarily approved the proposed agreement to settle a class
action lawsuit against the Company that was initially filed on
October 17, 2011 and later consolidated on August 13, 2012.  The
claim against several officers of the Company was previously
dismissed on June 24, 2013.

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, which is subject to
final approval by the Court and class notice administration, the
Company has agreed to pay $6.625 million to the settlement fund
to resolve all claims asserted on behalf of purchasers of its
American depository shares during the period from March 2, 2010
through and including November 21, 2011.  The payments will be
covered by the Company's director and officer liability and
company reimbursement insurance.

The proposed settlement agreement contains no admission of
liability, fault or wrongdoing by the Company.  The Company
denies any and all of the allegations made against it by the
class in the litigation and has agreed to settle this matter
solely to eliminate the uncertainties, risks, costs and burdens
of further protracted proceedings.  The settlement agreement
should not be construed as an admission by the Company or any of
its directors or officers with respect to any claim of fault,
liability, wrongdoing or damage.

"We believe the settlement is in the best interest of the Company
and our shareholders as it avoids unnecessary expenses and
distractions from a time-consuming litigation process," said
Mr. Chunlin Wang, CNinsure's chief executive officer.  "We are
pleased to put this matter behind us so that we can focus on the
development of our business going forward."


COTY INC: Faces Securities Suit Over 2013 Initial Public Offering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Stricker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Coty Inc., Michele Scannavini, Sergio
Pedreiro, James E. Shiah, Lambertus J.H. Becht, Bradley M. Bloom,
Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Peter Harf, M. Steven Langman,
Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer, Jack Stahl, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Lazard Capital
Markets LLC, Piper Jaffray Companies, RBC Capital Markets, LLC,
BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Credit Agricole Securities (USA)
Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., ING Financial Markets LLC,
Moelis & Company LLC, RBS Securities Inc., Sanford C. Bernstein &
Co. LLC, Santander Investment Securities Inc., Ramirez & Co.,
Inc., Telsey Advisory Group LLC, The Williams Capital Group,
L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-00919-RJS (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2014)
arises under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 relating to
Coty's June 13, 2013 initial public offering of common stock.

Coty Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Coty.
The other Defendants were underwriters for Coty's IPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


CUSPC LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhama Neisler, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. CUSPC, LLC, d/b/a Coyote Ugly, Case No. 8:14-cv-00379-RAL-TGW
(M.D. Fla., February 13, 2014) is brought for unpaid overtime
compensation, minimum wages and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

CUSPC, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company that operates
Coyote Ugly locations in Tampa, Panama City and Destin, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


CVS CAREMARK: "Lauriello" Lawsuit Over 1999 Settlement Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in a suit filed on behalf of participants in the
1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative
lawsuits against CVS Caremark Corporation are stayed by statute
pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the Alabama
Supreme Court, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello,
purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of
various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against
Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies
that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar
lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in
Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark
and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement.

This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but
McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello
action. Following the close of class discovery, the trial court
entered an Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil
Procedures 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also
be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August
15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class counsel.
The defendants' appeal and plaintiffs' cross-appeal are pending
before the Alabama Supreme Court. The proceedings in the trial
court are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and
cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court.


CVS CAREMARK: Suit Over Retail Pharmacy Networks Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated action against CVS Caremark Corp. over
allegations it violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing
and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans
is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and
maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In
August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action
against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to
arbitration based on the contract terms between the pharmacies
and Caremark. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North
Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs,
Inc., filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal
court against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case
against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was
transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a
separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue
arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments
in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the
decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and
staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the
appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling
arbitration of the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in
the Bellevue case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit
an immediate appeal of the reinstated order compelling
arbitration and pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. In November 2012, the Third Circuit Court reversed the
district court ruling and directed the parties to proceed in
federal court. Motions for class certification in the coordinated
cases within the multidistrict litigation, including the North
Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending, and the court has
permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing. The
consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation.


CVS CAREMARK: NH Court Tosses New Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire denied a renewed motion of CVS Caremark Corporation to
dismiss a lawsuit filed against it, according to the company's
Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Plaintiffs
subsequently amended the lawsuit to allege a class period
beginning October 30, 2008. The lawsuit names the Company and
certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of
securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the
Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of insider
trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed
in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and
certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which was stayed
pending developments in the related securities class action,
includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud,
insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further
alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at
allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In
January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June 2012,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities
class action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court's
ruling on the motion to dismiss. In May 2013, the First Circuit
Court of Appeals vacated the prior ruling and remanded the case
to the district court for further proceedings. In December 2013,
the district court denied the Company's renewed motion to dismiss
the lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed until the
Company answers the securities class action complaint.


DART CHEROKEE: High Court to Hear Appeal to Transfer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will consider
the requirements for transferring class-action lawsuits from
state courts to federal courts.

The justices on April 7 agreed to hear an appeal from a Michigan
energy company that asserts it should be allowed to move a class-
action case from Kansas state court to federal court.  Federal
law allows such transfers in cases involving more than $5
million.

A group of royalty owners sued the Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
Co. alleging they were underpaid royalties on oil and gas wells.
The plaintiffs did not seek a specific damage amount, but the
company claimed it would far exceed $5 million.

A federal judge rejected the transfer request because the company
did not offer any evidentiary support.  The company says the law
does not require detailed evidence.


DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Windshield Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Denso Corporation, Asmo Co., Ltd.,
Denso International America, Inc., Asmo North America, LLC, Asmo
Manufacturing, Inc., Mitsuba Corporation, and American Mitsuba
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-10673-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
February 13, 2014) is brought on behalf of a proposed class of
direct purchasers of Windshield Washers for damages under the
antitrust laws of the United States.

The term "Windshield Washers" include components like the pump,
hoses, nozzle and tank necessary to deliver washer fluid to
vehicle windows.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants conspired to rig bids,
and to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices of Windshield
Washers sold in the United States from at least January 1, 2000,
through the present.

The Defendants are manufacturers of Windshield Washer Systems and
components thereof for installation in motor vehicles
manufactured or sold in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          100 West Long Lake Road, Suite 111
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          Facsimile: (248) 971-2600
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jjagher@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4510
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
                  msilverman@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com

Defendants Mitsuba Corporation and American Mitsuba Corporation
are represented by:

          George A. Nicoud, III, Esq.
          Joel S. Sanders, Esq.
          Leslie A. Wulff, Esq.
          Stuart McPhail, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 374-8473
          E-mail: TNicoud@gibsondunn.com
                  jsanders@gibsondunn.com
                  lwulff@gibsondunn.com
                  smcphail@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Philip D.W. Miller, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alton, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 849-5300
          E-mail: PMiller@gibsondunn.com


DFC GLOBAL: Being Sold to Little to Lone Star, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that DFC Global is selling itself
too cheaply through an unfair process to Lone Star Funds, for
$9.50 or $367, shareholders claim in Chancery Court in
Wilmington, Del.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in "Steinfeld" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW STEINFELD and WALTER BRADLEY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL
SERVICES, et al., Defendants, NO. C 12-01118 JSW, (N.D. Cal.), is
before the Court on motions for for final approval of a class
action settlement and for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
costs, and service awards filed by Plaintiffs, Andrew Steinfeld
and Walter Bradley.

In separate rulings dated March 31, 2014, copies of which are
available at http://is.gd/9HkuS6and http://is.gd/xJ4JYGfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Jeffrey S. White:

* granted the motion for final approval, concluding that the
  Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The
  Settlement Agreement provides for "Prospective Practice
  Changes," by which Settlement Class Members can submit a
  revocation request to end all unwanted automated or auto-dialed
  telephone calls from Defendants. The Settlement Agreement also
  provides for monetary relief in the form of an $8.7 million
  fund, which includes funds to pay Settlement Class Members who
  submit claims, a possible cy pres distribution, and "Settlement
  Costs."

* overruled the objections it received to the requested fee award
  and granted the motion for attorneys fees and costs in the
  amount of $2,175,000, and the incentive awards in the amount of
  $2,000 for each named Plaintiff.

The Court dismissed the action, with prejudice.

Andrew Steinfeld, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Meyer, David
P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA, Jonathan David Selbin, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi, LIEFF,
CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LL, Matthew Ryan Wilson, Meyer
Wilson Co., LPA, Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie
PLLC, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Ankcorn Law Firm & Nicole Diane Sugnet,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Discover Financial Services, Defendant, represented by Julia B.
Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo, Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti, Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP & Shannon E. Ponek, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

DFS Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo, Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP &
Shannon E. Ponek, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

Discover Bank, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo, Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP &
Shannon E. Ponek, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.


DRESSMAN BENZINGER: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Green, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Dressman Benzinger Lavelle PSC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00142-SJD
(S.D. Ohio, February 13, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald Scott Weiss, Esq.
          7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600
          West Bloomfield, MI 48322
          Telephone: (248) 737-8000
          Facsimile: (248) 737-8003
          E-mail: rweiss@ohiolemonauto.com


ECOLAB INC: Removed "Schneider" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Schneider v. Ecolab Inc., Case
No. 2014-CH-00193, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-01044 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims, on behalf of himself and a putative
class, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are alleged
to be Route Sales Managers employed by the Defendant but not paid
appropriate overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Scott Lubin, Esq.
          Andrew Charles Murphy, Esq.
          John Auchter, Esq.
          John Robert McInerney, Esq.
          Patrick Doyle Austermuehle, Esq.
          Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
          17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com
                  amurphy@ditommasolaw.com
                  jauchter@ditommasolaw.com
                  jrm@ditommasolaw.com
                  paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com
                  vdt@ditommasolaw.com

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
          55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209
          Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
          E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Anthony Ybarra, Esq.
          Catherine Sarah Lindemann, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 372-5520
          E-mail: jybarra@littler.com
                  clindemann@littler.com


EPICOR SOFTWARE: $18MM Fund Earmarked to Settle Suit Over Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Epicor Software Corp. has reached an agreement in a suit related
to the proposed acquisition of Legacy Epicor by funds advised by
Apax Partners, L.P. that if approved by the Court, would create a
fund of $18 million, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In connection with the announcement of the proposed acquisition
of Legacy Epicor by funds advised by Apax in April 2011, four
putative stockholder class action suits were filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, and two such suits
were filed in Delaware Chancery Court. The actions filed in
California were entitled Kline v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed Apr. 6, 2011); Tola v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed Apr. 8, 2011); Watt v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed Apr. 11, 2011), and Frazer v. Epicor Software et al.,
(filed Apr. 15, 2011). The actions filed in Delaware were
entitled Field Family Trust Co. v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed Apr. 12, 2011) and Hull v. Klaus et al., (filed Apr. 22,
2011). Amended complaints were filed in the Tola and Field Family
Trust actions on April 13, 2011 and April 14, 2011, respectively.
Plaintiff Kline dismissed his lawsuit on April 18, 2011 and
shortly thereafter filed an action in federal district court.
Kline then dismissed his federal lawsuit on July 22, 2011.

The state court suits alleged that the Legacy Epicor directors
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, among
others, by seeking to complete the sale of Legacy Epicor to funds
advised by Apax through an allegedly unfair process and for an
unfair price and by omitting material information from the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 that
Legacy Epicor filed on April 11, 2011 with the SEC. The
complaints also alleged that Legacy Epicor, Apax Partners, L.P.
and Element Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the directors in
the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought
certification as a class and relief that included, among other
things, an order enjoining the tender offer and merger,
rescission of the merger, and payment of plaintiff's attorneys'
fees and costs. On April 25, 2011, plaintiff Hull filed a motion
in Delaware Chancery Court for a preliminary injunction seeking
to enjoin the parties from taking any action to consummate the
transaction. On April 28, 2011, plaintiff Hull withdrew this
motion.  On December 30, 2011, Hull dismissed his Delaware suit.

On May 2, 2011, after engaging in discovery, plaintiffs advised
that they did not intend to seek injunctive relief in connection
with the merger, but would instead file an amended complaint
seeking damages in California Superior Court following the
consummation of the tender offer. On May 11, 2011, the Superior
Court for the County of Orange entered an Order consolidating the
Tola, Watt, and Frazer cases pursuant to a joint stipulation of
the parties. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on
September 1, 2011, which made essentially the same claims as the
original complaints.  Plaintiffs Kline and Field Family Trust
have both joined in the amended complaint.  The company filed a
demurrer (motion to dismiss) to this amended complaint on
September 29, 2011. The demurrers were heard on December 12,
2011, and the Court overruled them. The Defendants answered the
Complaint on December 22, 2011.  On June 22, 2012, the court
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissed
Mr. Hackworth as a defendant.

After the parties had completed fact discovery and begun expert
discovery, plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to
add two new defendants, the Company's former chief financial
officer and the Company's former financial advisor, Moelis &
Company. On February 22, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs
leave, and plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed. On
April 5, 2013, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the
Court dismissed Legacy Epicor from this action with prejudice. On
April 29, 2013, the Court overruled demurrers by the new
defendants to the Third Amended Complaint.

In light of the amendment of the complaint and the addition of
the two new parties, the prior case schedule and trial date have
been amended. Pursuant to a stipulation from the parties, the
Court has continued the trial date to April 28, 2014.

Although the company believes this lawsuit is without merit and
are prepared to vigorously defend against the claims, the parties
engaged in a mediation on October 21, 2013.  Following the
mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the action, subject to the approval of the Court.  If
approved by the Court, a settlement fund of $18 million will be
created by the various defendants. As of December 31, 2013, the
company recorded a $7.8 million liability which is included in
the company's unaudited consolidated balance sheet within accrued
expenses and other current liabilities, which represents its
portion of the settlement.


EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Judge Okays $2.9MM OT Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
approved a $2.9 million class action settlement on April 4 in a
lawsuit brought against Equinox Holdings Inc. on behalf of
hundreds of workers who claimed the health club operator denied
them proper overtime pay and meal breaks, an attorney for the
plaintiffs said.

Judge Richard Rico conferred final approval on the pact at a
hearing on April 4, said Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe LLP's David
Lowe, who added that there were 276 people in the class and that
the company had reclassified membership sales advisers -- who the
suit said had been miscategorized as exempt from overtime pay
requirements -- in 2012.

"We're happy when we point out a violation and the company takes
the necessary steps to correct it so that employees are properly
compensated going forward," Mr. Lowe said on April 7.

Named plaintiffs Shirlene Leigh and Joanna Sheen filed their
complaint in June 2011, seeking to represent a class of
membership sales advisers who worked for the defendants --
Equinox Holding and several subsidiaries -- going back four
years.

Member of the would-be class were misclassified as exempt from
California's overtime pay requirements, and thus not paid for all
the overtime hours they worked, the complaint said.  In addition,
the defendants didn't provide meal breaks or keep adequate work
or payroll records as required by law, Leigh and Sheen claimed.

Membership sales advisers had consistently spent most of their
time on "nonexempt tasks" such as selling health club memberships
and services such as spa treatments, locker space and training
sessions, the complaint said.  The plaintiffs and those similarly
situated routinely worked long hours, the complaint said, adding
that there are roughly 100 putative class members.

Equinox operates about 12 health clubs in California, all of
which are fully owned subsidiaries of Equinox Holdings and employ
about four membership sales advisers, according to the complaint.

Both named plaintiffs formerly worked for the defendants in their
Palos Verdes and South Bay locations, and Leigh also worked for
the defendants in Century City, Calif., the plaintiffs said.

The deal calls for class counsel to get up to 33.3 percent, or
$975,000, from the gross settlement amount to cover fees.  The
two class representatives are in line for enhancement payments of
up to $15,000 in light of the time and energy they spent on the
case, court papers said.

The class covers membership advisers who worked for the
defendants in California between June 16, 2007, and June 30,
2012.

Equinox is represented by Frank M. Liberatore --
LiberatF@jacksonlewis.com -- Chad D. Bernard --
BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- and Shagha Balali --
BalaliS@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis LLP

The plaintiffs are represented by David A. Lowe and John T.
Mullan of Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe LLP.

The case is Shirlene Leigh and Joanna Sheen v. Equinox Holdings
Inc., case number BC463577, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


FIRST NATIONAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00210-CRE (W.D. Pa., February 13, 2014) alleges
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection
with accessibility barriers at various properties owned and
managed by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff has a mobility disability and is limited in the
major life activity of walking.

Defendant First National Bank of Pennsylvania is headquartered at
One F.N.B. Boulevard, Hermitage, PA 16148. Defendant is a public
accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section12181(7)(F).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          David B. White, Esq.
          Lyle D. Washowich, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          106 Isabella Street
          Four Northshore Center
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212-3001
          Telephone: (412) 995-3210
          Facsimile: (412) 995-3305
          E-mail: dbwhite@burnswhite.com
                  ldwashowich@burnswhite.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Chemical Spill
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports
that another potential class action has been filed in the wake of
January's chemical spill that contaminated the drinking water of
more than 300,000 West Virginians.

Summer and Robert Johnson of Charleston are listed as the
plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit filed March 25 in Charleston.
Freedom Industries, West Virginia American Water, American Water
Works and Eastman Chemical are named as defendants.

WVAWC's intake facility along the Elk River is just more than a
mile downstream from the Freedom Industries site where an
estimated 10,000 gallons of crude MCHM leaked Jan. 9.  More than
300,000 residents in parts of nine counties were without tap
water for days, and many still are wary of using the water.

Now, more than 50 complaints have been filed in various state and
federal courts related to the chemical spill.  Freedom Industries
filed for bankruptcy Jan. 17.

In the Johnson complaint, filed by Charleston attorneys Stuart
Calwell, D. Christopher Hedges and Alex McLaughlin of The Calwell
Practice LC, the plaintiffs accuse Freedom Industries of
negligence for failing to maintain proper storage facilities for
the crude MCHM and for failing to make itself or information
readily available after the leak.  They also accuse WVAWC of
negligence for failing to understand the potential threats to the
water supply, for failing to maintain adequate water reserves,
for failing to maintain proper filtration reserves, for failing
to take appropriate actions after learning of the chemical leak
and for failing to properly flush its water treatment facility
and water supply system.

They also accuse Eastman -- which produces the crude MCHM -- of
negligence for not having a product data sheet for the crude
MCHM. They also say Eastman should have known that crude MCHM, as
a waste byproduct of its chemical processes and not a standalone
product, was not being properly stored by Freedom.  They also
claim Eastman could have disposed of the crude MCHM as a solid
waste product.

"Eastman knew or should have known that the only business that
would pay even a small sum for the receipt of Crude MCHM as a
'product' to be distributed was the kind of business that Freedom
Industries and the Etowah River Terminal have been demonstrated
to have been: cut-rate businesses operating with short-term
profit horizons, on the margins of legality, and with little
regard for chemical industry standards and public safety," the
complaint states.  "Eastman knew or should have known that there
was a real and substantial danger that the Crude MCHM it was
'selling' as a 'product' would be stored improperly or otherwise
mishandled and end up involved in an environmentally catastrophic
release and contamination like the one that occurred.

"A reasonably prudent person or company, knowing what Eastman
knew or should have known about the retail market for its waste-
like Crude MCHM and knowing what Eastman knew or should have
known about operations at the Etowah River Terminal, would have
disposed of its crude byproduct as a waste . . . and thereby
avoided the unnecessary risk of an environmentally catastrophic
release like the one that occurred.

"Eastman's negligence was a proximate cause of the chemical
spill, as a result of which plaintiffs and all similarly situated
residential customers of American Water were instructed not to
use their tap water for any purpose other than toilet flushing
and fire fighting for five to eight days.  The water continued to
be impure, with an unpleasant odor and irritating quality, for
weeks or even months thereafter."

As potential class representatives, the plaintiffs seek class
status and seek compensatory and punitive damages.  That includes
damages for loss of use of residential tap water, loss of the use
and enjoyment of their property, annoyance and inconvenience,
lost earnings, incidental expenses, court costs, attorney fees
and other relief.

West Virginia Southern District case number 2:14-cv-13164


GALLUP INC: "Fox" Suit Transferred From California to Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Ann Fox v. Gallup Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00163, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The Florida
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-20538-RSR to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          411 Camino del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dora Faye Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO, P.A.
          44 West Flagler Street, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 379-0400
          Facsimile: (305) 379-9626
          E-mail: dfk@lgplaw.com

               - and -

          Felicia Y. Yu, Esq.
          Raagini Shah, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          E-mail: fyu@reedsmith.com
                  rshah@reedsmith.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sutts Strosberg Files Power Steering Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and McKenzie Lake Lawyers
LLP have launched a national class action in the Superior Court
of Justice against General Motors Company ("GM") and General
Motors of Canada Ltd. ("GMC").  The lawsuit seeks damages arising
from a recall of more than 145,700 vehicles in Canada that may
experience a sudden loss of electric power steering that may
occur at any time while driving.

On March 31, 2014, GMC announced that it informed Transport
Canada that if the power steering is lost, the subject vehicles
will revert to a manual steering mode, but would require greater
driver effort at low vehicle speeds, which could result in an
increased risk of a crash.

Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., one of the lead counsels in this
action said: "Some of these motor vehicles are twice damned
because of the electrical power steering defect, and because of
the ignition switch defect.  Sadly, each of these cars has lost
value.  GM and GMC must pay the lost value and other damages to
the class."

The national class action was commenced on April 3, 2014 on
behalf of all people who owned one of the following vehicles as
of March 31, 2014:

MAKE                               MODEL            MODEL YEARS:
INCLUSIVE
Chevrolet                          Malibu           2004 to 2009

Chevrolet                       Malibu Maxx         2004 to 2006

Chevrolet                          Cobalt           2010

Chevrolet                           HHR             2009 to 2010

Pontiac                              G6             2005 to 2009

Saturn                              Ion             2004 to 2007

Saturn                              Aura            2008 to 2009

Harvey Strosberg, Q.C., has been recognized as one of the
foremost class action litigators in Canada. Sutts, Strosberg LLP
is a leading class action law firm that has recovered over $1.5
billion for its clients.

Anyone who owns one of the above GM vehicles is encouraged to
contact one of the following lawyers:

Sutts, Strosberg LLP
Harvey Strosberg, QC
519-561-6228
harvey@strosbergco.com

Sutts, Strosberg LLP
Jacqueline Horvat
519-561-6245
jhorvat@strosbergco.com

Sutts, Strosberg LLP
Alex Constantin
519-561-6231
aconstantin@strosbergco.com


HANGTIME INC: Removed "Goodman" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Goodman v. Hangtime, Inc., Case
No. 14-CH-00957, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01022 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq.
          John C. Ochoa, Esq.
          Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com
                  jochoa@edelson.com
                  meisen@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hong-an Vu, Esq.
          Patrick S. Thompson, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733-6000
          E-mail: hvu@goodwinprocter.com
                  pthompson@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Louis David Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael Patrick McBride, Esq.
          THE BERNSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 N. Clark Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 645-6091
          Facsimile: (866) 929-7392
          E-mail: lbernstein@law-ldb.com
                  mmcbride@law-ldb.com


HAWAII: 9th Cir. Vacates Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Korab" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered
an opinion in the case styled TONY KORAB; TOJIO CLANTON; KEBEN
ENOCH, each individually and on behalf of those persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. KENNETH FINK, in his official
capacity as State of Hawai'i, Department of Human Services, Med-
QUEST Division Administrator and PATRICIA MCMANAMAN, in her
official capacity as Director of the State of Hawai'i, Department
of Human Services, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 11-15132, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/FjVHZNfrom Leagle.com

In this case, the district court ruled that the Hawai'i
Department of Human Services is constitutionally required to set
up a state-only funded program that completely 'fills the void'
created by the Federal Welfare Reform Act's discrimination
against aliens.

In its April 1, 2014 ruling, the Ninth Ciruit vacated the
district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing
Hawai'i from reducing state-paid health benefits for Compact of
Free Association Residents because Hawai'i is not obligated to
backfill the loss of federal funds with state funds and its
decision not to do so is subject to rational-basis review.

Lee Ann N.M. Brewer (argued) and John F. Molay, Deputy Attorneys
General, Honolulu, Hawai'i for Defendant-Appellant.

Paul D. Alston -- palston@ahfi.com -- (argued), Zachary A. McNish
-- zmcnish@ahfi.com -- and J. Blaine Rogers -- BRogers@ahfi.com -
- Alston, Hunt, Floyd, & Ing, Honolulu, Hawai'i; Catherine
Leilani Aubuchon -- caubuchon@bhhawaii.net -- and Margery S.
Bronster -- mbronster@bhawaii.net -- Bronster Hoshibata,
Honolulu, Hawai'i; M. Victor Geminiani -- victor@lejhawaii.org --
Lawyers for Equal Justice,  Honolulu, Hawai'i, for Plaintiffs-
Appellees.

Susan K. Serrano, Honolulu, Hawai'i for Amici Curiae Japanese
American Citizens League-Honolulu Chapter, National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People-Honolulu Branch, and Kokua
Kalihi Valley Comprehensive Family Services.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Md. Court Okays Accord in TiO2 Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland approved a
settlement an antitrust suit filed against Huntsman Corporation
by U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide, according to
the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The company was named as a defendant in consolidated class action
civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that
the company and its co-defendants and other asserted co-
conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in
the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The
other defendants named in this matter are DuPont, Kronos and
Cristal (formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court
certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased
titanium dioxide directly from defendants (the "Direct
Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. The company and all other
defendants settled the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court
approved the settlement on December 13, 2013. The company paid
the settlement in an amount immaterial to the company's combined
financial statements.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Buyers of TiO2-Made Products Sue in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation faces antitrust suit filed in California by
purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide, according to
the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The company was named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by purchasers of products
made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making
essentially the same allegations as the Direct Purchasers. The
Opt-Out Litigation and Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to
recover injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages
allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. The
company is not aware of any illegal conduct by the company or any
of the company's employees.

Meanwhile, on November 22, 2013, the Company was named as a
defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser
who opted out of the Direct Purchasers class litigation (the
"Opt-Out Litigation"). It is possible that additional claims will
be filed by other Direct Purchasers who opted out of the class
litigation.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Former Residents to Receive Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Settlements have been reached in class action lawsuits involving
the Huronia Regional Centre, Rideau Regional Centre, and
Southwestern Regional Centre which were residential facilities
operated by the Province of Ontario that provided care and
support to persons with developmental disabilities from 1876 to
2009.

The lawsuits say that some residents of these Centres were harmed
or hurt because the Province did not protect them.  The Province
denies these claims and the Court has not been asked to decide
whether the Classes or the Province is right.  Instead, both
sides have agreed to Settlements.  The Settlements do not mean
that any law was broken or that the Province did anything wrong.

The Court appointed the law firm of Koskie Minsky LLP from
Toronto, Ontario to represent the Classes as "Class Counsel."  In
a statement, Class Counsel Kirk Baert said, "All former residents
who suffered harm are encouraged to make confidential claims for
compensation.  We also hope that family members, friends, support
workers or anyone else in the former resident's support network
will spread the word and help the former residents make claims
for compensation that will help better their lives today."

The Settlements affect people as follows:

Anyone who lived at Huronia at any time between 1945 and 2009,
who was alive as of April 21, 2007; or

The estates of former residents who lived at Huronia at any time
between 1945 and 2009, but who passed away after April 21, 2007.

Anyone who lived at Rideau between September 1, 1963 and March
31, 2009, who was alive as of September 24, 2008; and

The estates of former residents who lived at Rideau between 1963
and 2009, but who died after September 24, 2008.

Anyone who lived at Southwestern between September 1, 1963 and
October 31, 2008, who was alive as of December 29, 2008; and

The estates of former residents who lived at Southwestern between
1963 and 2008, but who died after December 29, 2008.

The Settlements have been approved and are final, meaning that
compensation is available to eligible Class Members from
Settlement Funds totaling $67.719 million, which are being paid
for by the Province.  The compensation that Class Members who
were harmed can receive will depend on the level of harm
suffered. Class Members may receive up to $42,000.  Class Members
have to submit a Claim Form to receive compensation.  Claim Forms
are available by calling 1-866-879-4915 (TTY: 1-877-627-7027) and
at the following websites:

www.HuroniaClassAction.ca
www.RideauClassAction.ca
www.SouthwesternClassAction.ca

Class Members who did not previously remove themselves from the
class action will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of
the Court, and cannot sue the Province about the legal claims in
this case.  Being part of the Class will not impact the residence
or services and support received by Class Members from community
based agencies funded by the Province.

Class Members do not have to pay any legal fees to file a claim.

Some Class Members may have difficulty reading, so Class Counsel
is asking for the help from family members, caregivers and
friends of former residents in getting information to them.
Please show any information you see to people who are impacted by
these lawsuits or to their caregivers.

More detailed information on these lawsuits are available at the
websites listed above; by calling toll-free 1-866-879-4915 (TTY:
1-877-627-7027); or by writing to the email addresses or mailing
address provided below:

Huronia Settlement
huronia@crawco.ca
3-505, 133 Weber Street North
Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 3G9

Rideau Settlement
rideau@crawco.ca
3-505, 133 Weber Street North
Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 3G9

Southwestern Settlement
southwestern@crawco.ca
3-505, 133 Weber Street North
Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 3G9

Class Members can also receive help filing out their Clam Forms
by using the above contact information.


LEAR CORP: Can't Pursue Interlocutory Appeal in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan denied the motion of Lear Corporation to certify an
order for interlocutory appeal against the denial to dismiss an
antitrust suit filed against it, according to the company's Feb.
11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws. Since that time, a
number of other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class
action complaints against the Company and these and other
suppliers and individuals in a number of different federal
district courts, and it is possible that additional similar
lawsuits may be filed in the future. Plaintiffs purport to be
direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs
and expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys'
fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions, for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. On May 14, 2012, three purported classes of plaintiffs
-- direct purchasers of automotive wire harnesses; automotive
dealers that indirectly purchased automotive wire harnesses or
vehicles containing such harnesses; and indirect purchasers that
purchased or leased vehicles containing automotive wire harnesses
(or purchased replacement automotive wire harnesses for their
vehicles) -- filed consolidated amended complaints in the
consolidated proceeding. With respect to the Company, the
consolidated amended complaints are substantially similar to the
individual complaints that had been filed in the various
jurisdictions. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
have these actions dismissed. On June 6, 2013, the District Court
entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss and, on
September 6, 2013, denied the Company's motion to certify the
June 6, 2013, order for interlocutory appeal.

Beginning in early 2012, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
Canadian laws related to competition. The allegations in the
complaints are substantially similar to those complaints that
have been filed in the United States.

On November 17, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking entry of an order enforcing the Company's 2009 Plan of
Reorganization and directing dismissal of the pending class
action complaints. The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on
the motion and, on February 10, 2012, ruled that claims against
the Company alleging violation of antitrust law are enjoined to
the extent that they arose prior to the Company's emergence from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009. The
bankruptcy court further held that the District Court was the
appropriate forum to address antitrust claims arising after the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The
Company appealed the bankruptcy court's decision on this issue,
and in November 2012, the appellate court ruled in favor of the
Company and remanded for consideration by the bankruptcy court
the possible effects of certain alleged antitrust claims arising
after November 9, 2009. This issue was stayed by the bankruptcy
court until a decision was entered with respect to the Company's
motion to dismiss the underlying class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. Following the order entered by the District Court on
June 6, 2013, denying the Company's motion to dismiss, the
Company renewed its request that the bankruptcy court enjoin the
antitrust class action plaintiffs, and any similarly situated
potential plaintiffs, from seeking damages against the Company
for the period prior to November 9, 2009. The bankruptcy court
heard oral argument on this matter on September 10, 2013.


LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Privacy Invasion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goli Ranekouhi; and, Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Longwood Industries, Inc., dba
Once Driven, Case No. 8:14-cv-00214-JVS-JPR (C.D. Cal.,
February 13, 2014) accuses the Company of negligently contacting
the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading their
privacy.

Longwood Industries, Inc., was incorporated in Virginia and is
headquartered in Bedford, Virginia.  The Company is a web-based
company that assists consumers in the buying and selling of used
vehicles nationwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D 1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  gouya@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          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


LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES: Invades Privacy of Class Members, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goli Ranekouhi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Longwood Industries, Inc., dba Once Driven,
Case No. 8:14-cv-00215-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) is
brought for damages and other remedies resulting from the
Defendant's alleged illegal actions in recording telephone
conversations of the Plaintiff and the class without their
knowledge or consent in violation of California's Invasion of
Privacy Act.

Longwood Industries, Inc., doing business as Once Driven, is a
corporation whose primary corporate address is in Bedford,
Virginia.  The Company is a web-based company that assists
consumers in the buying and selling of used vehicles nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D 1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  gouya@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          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


MANPOWER INC: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in "Willner"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three motions are pending in the putative class action for
violations of California labor laws styled In VERA WILLNER,
Plaintiff, v. MANPOWER INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-02846-JST,
(N.D. Cal.):

     1. Manpower moves for judgment on the pleadings or for
        summary judgment with respect to four of the five claims
        that Ms. Willner has asserted in the operative complaint.

     2. Ms. Willner moves for leave to file a fifth amended
        complaint.

     3. Ms. Willner moves for summary judgment on her claim for
        PAGA penalties in connection with Manpower's purported
        violations of California Labor Code section 226.

Each of these motions is opposed.

In his ruling dated March 29, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/20ZUCBfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Jon S.
Tigar granted in part and denied in part Manpower's motion for
judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, and both of Ms.
Willner's motions are granted.

Ms. Willner's motion for leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint
is granted, ruled Judge Tigar. Ms. Willner must file the proposed
complaint she attached to her motion within five days of the date
the order is filed.

Manpower's motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary
judgment is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

     1. Manpower is entitled to judgment with respect to Ms.
        Willner's claim for penalties under section 203 in
        connection with violations of section 201.3(b)(1).

     2. Manpower's motion for summary judgment with respect to
        Ms. Willner's claim for damages under Section 226(e) for
        violations of Section 226(a) is denied.

     3. Manpower's motion for summary judgment with respect to
        Ms. Willner's UCL claims is denied.

     4. Manpower's motion for summary judgment with respect to
        Ms. Willner's PAGA claims is denied.

Willner's motion for summary judgment on her PAGA claim for
inaccurate wage statements in violation of Section 226(a) is
granted.

Vera Willner, Plaintiff, represented by James Kan --
jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jeffrey C.
Jackson, Jackson Hanson, LLP, Kirk David Hanson, Jackson Hanson,
LLP, Laura L. Ho -- LHO@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- Goldstein Borgen
Dardarian & Ho & Lin Yee Chan -- lchan@lchb.com -- Goldstein
Demchak Baller Borgen & Dardarian.

Manpower Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Kane,
McGuireWoods LLP, Brian Edward Spang -- bspang@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods LLP & Sylvia Jihae Kim, McGuire Woods LLP.


MARIAH RESOURCES: Accused of Pervasive Sexual Harassment in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Kursar v. Mariah Resources Inc., a California Corporation;
Cory Kasinger, as an individual, James Kasinger, as an
individual, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-at-00198
(E.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was
subjected to unwelcome, severe, and pervasive sexual harassment
and discrimination by the Defendants in violation of the state of
California.

Mariah Resources Inc. is a California Corporation and the owner
and operator of an industry, business and facility doing business
in the state of California.  The Defendants operate a business
that works on wind turbine power generators throughout the United
States and other countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Cassandra D. Shaft, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
                  jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com
                  cshaft@shimodalaw.com


MOTT'S LLP: "Rahman" 2nd Amended Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston denied the motion of Mott's LLP for
dismissal of the second amended complaint filed in the case,
MOHAMMED RAHMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MOTT'S LLP,
a Delaware limited liability partnership; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, No. CV 13-3482 SI (N.D. Cal.).

Mott's Motion to Dismiss the second amended class action
complaint was scheduled for hearing on April 18, 2014.  Pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court said in an 11-page order
dated April 8 that the matter is appropriate for resolution
without oral argument and vacated the hearing.

Mott's is the manufacturer of various food products containing
the statement "No Sugar Added" on their labels and/or packaging.
The Plaintiff alleges that the use of the statement "No Sugar
Added" on Mott's 100% Apple Juice does not comply with the
applicable Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations,
specifically 21 C.F.R. Sec. 101.60(c)(2).  The Plaintiff further
alleges that defendant's failure to comply with the FDA
regulations violates California's Sherman Law, California Health
and Safety Code Sec. 109875 et seq.  The Plaintiff alleges that
he purchased Mott's Original 100% Apple Juice after reading and
relying on the product's "No Sugar Added" labeling and after
observing that a competitor's 100% apple juice did not contain a
"No Sugar Added" claim.  The Plaintiff alleges that he would not
have purchased as much of the product as he did if it did not
contain the "No Sugar Added" label.

On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in
San Francisco County Superior Court against defendants Mott's and
Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.  On July 26, 2013, defendants
removed the action to the N.D. Cal. Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1441(b) based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).  On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed Dr. Pepper.

On August 30, 2013, defendant Mott's filed a motion to dismiss,
and on September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint, mooting the motion to dismiss.  Mott's then moved to
dismiss the FAC, and on January 29, 2014, the Court granted the
motion in part, denied it in part, and granted leave to amend.

On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a second amended class
action complaint, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business
and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; (2) violation of
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California Business
and Professions Code Sec. 17500 et seq.; (3) violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California
Civil Code Sec. 1750 et seq.; (4) negligent misrepresentation;
and (5) breach of quasi-contract.

By the present motion, Mott's moves to dismiss the entire action
pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and moves to
dismiss certain causes of action for failure to state a claim.

As an initial matter, Mott's argues that the Court should dismiss
the action under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the
SAC raises labeling claims that fall squarely within the scope of
ongoing FDA rulemaking proceedings.  The Plaintiff argues that
the ongoing rulemaking proceedings referenced by defendant are
unrelated to the claims in his complaint.

According to the Court, at this time it is unclear whether the
proposed rule will be finalized and whether future rulemaking
would be necessary in light of the finalized rule. The Court
declines to invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction based on
speculation about what the FDA may do in the future.

The Court also held that the Plaintiff's allegations:

     -- are sufficient to explain "how" the labeling at issue
        is misleading to a reasonable consumer;

     -- are sufficient to plead economic injury; and

     -- are adequate to plead justifiable reliance.


MT GOX: Two Australians Join Class Action Over Bitcoin Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Griffith, writing for The Australian, reports that
Australians are among angry bitcoin users taking legal action to
recover millions of dollars in cash and virtual currency lost
when Japan's Mt Gox exchange crashed in February.

The Australian can reveal that at least two Australians are part
of a class action being prepared by London legal firm Selachii
aimed at recovering lost money and bitcoin.

Australians also are among those who have lost hundreds of
bitcoins.

Coffs Harbour-based Pantelis Roussakis said he had lost 222
bitcoins.  They cost him about AU$50,000 to AU$60,000 to buy and
in December, when he sought to convert them back to Australian
dollars through Mt Gox, they were valued at more than AU$260,000.

After the crash, the exchange's chief executive, Frenchman Mark
Karpeles, announced in Tokyo that Mt Gox had filed for bankruptcy
protection, having lost up to 750,000 customers' bitcoins.  The
exchange also lost 100,000 of its own bitcoins.  In cash terms
US$474 million (AU$510 million) was missing with a net liability
of US$63.6m.  That figure was revised last month when Mt Gox
reportedly found 200,000 missing bitcoins in an offline digital
wallet.

Currently the Japan entity Mt Gox KK is protected from lawsuits
under bankruptcy law and Mr. Karpeles is seeking similar immunity
under US Chapter 15 bankruptcy law for himself, the US arm of Mt
Gox and KK Tibanne, which operated the Mt Gox exchange.

Mr. Karpeles has been ordered to appear in court in Dallas,
Texas, on April 17 so he can be questioned on the bankruptcy
immunity application.  The appearance could offer a chance for
those who lost currency from Mt Gox to serve Mr. Karpeles with
legal papers.

Mr. Karpeles is reported to have sought to be questioned in
Taiwan instead.

In the meantime, class actions to help those who lost bitcoins
and hard currencies are being prepared by the Chicago-based
Edelson law firm, in Canada and in Britain.

In Seattle, a claim and counterclaim has been under way between
Mt Gox and US venture company CoinLab, which is claiming breach
of contract by the Japan-based exchange. Some potential litigants
are loath to part with money for taking legal action until the
bankruptcy immunity issue is finalized.

Selachii confirmed that it was representing at least two
Australians in legal actions it was taking with Japanese lawyers
in Tokyo.

Examiners in Japan are in the process of producing a report on
whether Mt Gox should be permanently liquidated or restored.  The
report is due by May 9.

The London-based legal firm said the action it would take would
depend on that report.

"We are opposing that Mt Gox should be granted bankruptcy," a
Selachii spokesman said.

However, the wide interest in Selachii's action has not been
reflected in litigants coming aboard.  Posters on bitcoin forums
have expressed concern about shelling out money ahead of any
legal action.

The Selachii spokesman said there had been more than 16,000
inquiries worldwide about joining the class action, yet the firm
was representing fewer than 50 at this time.

Selachii is setting an initial fee of two bitcoins ($949) to
"build a case, obtain evidence and undertake fact finding".

A Selachii post warns that establishing liability by Mt Gox "may
not necessary result in the recovery of damages" given that the
defunct exchange had filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan.

It said people should join the action only if they lost seven
bitcoins or more. Recovering a smaller number would not be worth
the cost.

Young Australian entrepreneur Karl Kloppenborg, who lost
AU$47,000 in the exchange crash, is among those waiting to see
how initial legal proceedings pan out before joining any legal
action against Mt Gox.

"There's no doubt that I will have to take out legal proceedings
at some time, which is why I am taking the time to investigate it
further," he said.

Joining the British class action is one option, but it was not
the only option.  "At the moment there's a whole lot of talk
within the bitcoin community in Australia about developing a
class action, however as it stands there's no law firm looking to
back it at the moment," Mr. Kloppenborg said.

Mr. Kloppenborg said he lost dollars rather than bitcoins.  "This
was actually raw cash, it wasn't even bitcoins, which is why I am
angrier about it.

"This is not a case of technical glitch.  If you have a good hard
look at the timeline of events that happened at Mt Gox, there are
very clear ripples in the water that show there was another thing
happening well and truly before this all happened."

He said he had sought to get his money back over a three-month
period from November last year to January.  Mt Gox told him to
queue with other people and claimed a backlog in processing
requests for cash. "What Mt Gox promised me is fairy dust," he
said.

Bitcoin Association of Australia president Jason Williams said it
was unfortunate how events had unfolded with regard to Mt Gox,
and terrible that a once trusted member of the community had to
exit in such a way.  He said Mt Gox was one of many exchanges in
the world, and was seen as "a bad actor exiting".

"There are various reputable places in Australia from where you
can purchase bitcoin, including Bit Trade Australia and CoinJar."


NEW ORLEANS: Judge Certifies Police Officers' OT Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
WVUE reports that current and former New Orleans police officers
who think they've been cheated out of overtime pay will soon be
able to join a federal class-action lawsuit.

A judge ruled on April 7 to certify the class, which means opt-in
letters will be going out to hundreds -- and possibly thousands
-- of officers next month.

Former officer Chad Perez filed the suit in 2012 after working
for the NOPD for 14 years.  He said the department regularly
shortchanged him and other officers out of overtime compensation.

Judge Carl Barbier opened up the lawsuit to any current or former
officer who believes they were denied overtime compensation
dating back to Sept. 16, 2009.  The city has 14 days to provide
the names and addresses of all officers who have worked for the
city since then.

Those officers will be notified by May 19 about the class-action
suit and will be given the opportunity to join the litigation.


NORTHWEST BANCORP: Facilities Don't Cater to Disable, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Northwest Bancorp, Inc. d/b/a Northwest
Savings Bank, Case No. 2:14-cv-00209-CRE (W.D. Pa., February 13,
2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
in connection with accessibility barriers at various properties
owned and managed by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff has a mobility disability and is limited in the
major life activity of walking.

Northwest Bancorp, Inc., doing business as Northwest Savings
Bank, is headquartered in Warren, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bridget J. Daley, Esq.
          Christian Antkowiak, Esq.
          Brian H. Simmons, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant Street, 20th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
          Telephone: (412) 562-8304
          Facsimile: (412) 562-1041
          E-mail: bridget.daley@bipc.com
                  christian.antkowiak@bipc.com
                  brian.simmons@bipc.com


PALISADES COLLECTIONS: Accused of Violating TCPA in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oneatha Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Palisades Collection, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-01113-DMG-SH (C.D.
Cal., February 13, 2014) seeks damages and any other available
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Palisades in
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey-based Palisades Collection, LLC is a
Delaware limited liability corporation and a leader in consumer
debt buying and recovery/collection.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          Arvin Ratanavongse, 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
                  aratanavongse@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL MANKIN, IV
          11 369 S. Doheny Dr. #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 776-6336
          Facsimile: (323) 207-3885
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com


PEPSICO INC: Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi Have Carcinogen, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul R. Riva and Danielle Ardagna, On Behalf Of Themselves And
All Others Similarly Situated v. Pepsico, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00340-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) alleges that during
the Class Period, the Defendant's Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi
contained 4-methylimidazole, a carcinogen found on the list of
known carcinogens, in sufficient quantities so as to require
disclosure by the Defendant.

Pepsi, however, intentionally and knowingly failed to label its
drinks to alert the Plaintiffs and California consumers or
otherwise disclose the presence of this known carcinogen, the
Plaintiffs contend.

Pepsico Inc. is a North Carolina corporation headquartered in
Purchase, New York.  Pepsico manufacturers Diet Pepsi and Pepsi
One for distribution throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 242-5642
          Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: ralph@kkbs-law.com

               - and -

          Courtland W. Creekmore, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (408) 247-4553
          E-mail: ccreekmore@scalaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Fitzgerald, IV, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          The Palm Canyon Building
          2870 Fourth Avenue, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, 9th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
                  scole@scalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7396
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6396
          E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


PG&E CORP: Pays Out $520MM to Claimants in San Bruno Accident
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has made cumulative payments of
$520 million to third-party claimants in the litigation related
to the San Bruno Accident, according to PG&E's Feb. 11, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Following the San Bruno accident various lawsuits were filed in
San Mateo County Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the
Utility to seek compensation for personal injury and property
damage, and other relief, including punitive damages. In 2011 and
2012 , the Utility entered into settlement agreements to resolve
many of the claims and In September 2013, the Utility agreed to
settle the claims of substantially all of the remaining
plaintiffs who sought compensation.  At December 31, 2013, the
Utility has recorded cumulative charges of $565 million as its
best estimate of probable loss for third-party claims related to
the San Bruno accident and has made cumulative payments of $520
million to third-party claimants.


PG&E CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit by Customers in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation continues
to face a suit filed in the San Francisco Superior Court by
individuals who seek certification of a class California
customers, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In addition, on August 23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the San
Francisco Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the Utility
(and other unnamed defendants) by individuals who seek
certification of a class consisting of all California residents
who were customers of the Utility between 1997 and 2010, with
certain exceptions.  The plaintiffs allege that the Utility
collected more than $100 million in customer rates from 1997
through 2010 for the purpose of various safety measures and
operations projects but instead used the funds for general
corporate purposes such as executive compensation and bonuses.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility contest the allegations.


SAFEWAY INC: Loses Bid to Nix "Club Card" Holders' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner and Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on April 7 refused to kill
a putative class action claiming Safeway Inc. should have warned
"Club Card" holders about product recalls, ruling the grocery
chain couldn't carve an exception out of a state negligence law
imposing a general duty of care.

In an order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, U.S.
District Judge Richard Seeborg held that Safeway didn't show a
statutory or public policy exception justifying a post-sale,
no-duty rule, and didn't show that no post-sale duty to warn
exists under California negligence law.

Safeway counsel claimed Safeway Inc. Club Card holders' motion
for certification was plagued with defects -- including problems
with standing, class definition, facts and merits issues -- that
California has no failure-to-warn statute, and that the state's
unfair competition law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act are "blunt
instruments" that don't impose such a duty on Safeway.

But the plaintiffs' counsel replied that the law is clear that
when a company has consumer information and knows it has sold a
harmful product, it can prevent harm by contacting consumers.

The April 7 order agreed, saying, "Food recalls are imposed
precisely because of the risks consumption poses to health and
safety. Safeway does not point to any laws or mores indicating
approval of a grocer refraining from contacting customers after a
sale."

The plaintiffs sued Safeway in February 2011, claiming the
grocery chain should have used customer loyalty card information
to contact and inform shoppers who purchased recalled foods.

One plaintiff, Dee Hensley-Maclean of Montana, claims that she
purchased peanut butter crackers and Nutter Butter sandwich
cookies that were part of a nationwide recall of peanut butter
products tainted with salmonella.  And another plaintiff,
Jennifer Rosen of San Francisco, bought recalled eggs, according
to the initial complaint.

Both women used their Safeway Club Cards when buying the recalled
items, which meant that the store had access to their phone
numbers, email and mailing addresses, yet the retailer did not
contact either of them directly about the recalls, the complaint
said.

In June 2011, Judge Seeborg denied Safeway's motion that he
either stay or dismiss the class action while the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration makes rules under the Food Safety
Modernization Act.  Safeway had argued that primary jurisdiction
doctrine meant the FDA should get a chance to regulate under the
FSMA before the courts weigh in.

Judge Seeborg ruled on April 7 that, under California's common
law concept of strict liability, Safeway didn't have a duty to
warn of defects that were unknown and unknowable at the time of
sale.  However, he shot down Safeway's negligence defense that no
California statute, regulation or case had ever found a post-sale
duty to warn, saying many state decisions have explicitly or
implicitly recognized that a seller's duty under negligence may
extend beyond the point of sale.

The judge further ruled, regarding plaintiffs' Unfair Competition
Law claim, that Safeway hadn't provided any evidence that
plaintiffs' injuries were insubstantial or could have been
reasonably avoided.

Plaintiffs and the proposed class are represented by Stephen
Gardner and Amanda Howell of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest; Daniel T. LeBel of Consumer Law Practice of Daniel T.
LeBel; Steven A. Skalet -- sskalet@findjustice.com -- and Craig
L. Briskin -- cbriskin@findjustice.com -- of Mehri & Skalet PLLC;
James C. Sturdevant of the Sturdevant Law Firm; and Whitney Stark
-- wstark@tmdwlaw.com -- of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC.

Safeway is represented by Jesse F. Ruiz, Gabriel G. Gregg and
Bonnie Margaret Ross of Robinson & Wood Inc.

The case is Dee Hensley-Maclean et al. v. Safeway Inc., case
number 3:11-cv-01230, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division.

                           *     *     *

"They claim that, under various California consumer protection
statutes and California common law, Safeway is legally obligated
to notify its Club Card members of the Class I recalls," U.S.
District Judge Richard Seeborg explained April 7, according to
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Its motion came after it became clear that deciding the legal
question of Safeway's duty to warn "could simplify, and
potentially dispose of, the class certification issues," Seeborg
wrote.

"Safeway does not claim that after the Class I recalls are
instituted, it lacks adequate knowledge of the dangerous nature
of the recalled products to formulate a meaningful warning," the
judge wrote.  "Nor has Safeway shown it is unable to provide
warnings to ultimate consumers or even that food manufacturers
are categorically better positioned to do so."

California also does not have a "no-duty" to inform rule,
according to the ruling.

"California negligence law imposes a general duty of ordinary
care and Safeway has not shown either a statutory or public
policy exception justifying a post-sale, no-duty rule," Seeborg
wrote. "Moreover, numerous California decisions have explicitly
or implicitly recognized that a seller's duty under negligence
may extend beyond the point of sale."

Because the action can proceed under the negligence theory, the
judge saw no reason to grant the plaintiffs additional discovery
to demonstrate that Safeway "may have had reason to know of the
Class I Recalls prior to selling the recalled products."

If Safeway was aware at the time of sale of facts that would
render those representations misleading, any representations or
omissions by the store may constitute a violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Seeborg added.

The ruling also advances a claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law to the extent it is based upon Safeway's
established negligence.

The parties will appear at a case management conference May 15.


SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: MWD Specialists Seek to Recover Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrell Gentry & Romero Rias, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated v. Scientific Drilling International,
Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00363 (S.D. Tex., February 13, 2014) seeks
to recover the unpaid overtime wages owed to Scientific
Drilling's Measurement While Drilling Specialists under state and
federal law.

Scientific Drilling International, Inc., is a large oilfield
services company that operates globally.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott Robert McLaughlin, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          1401 McKinney, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-4200
          Facsimile: (713) 752-4221
          E-mail: smclaughlin@jw.com


SINGLE TOUCH: Plaintiff in "Ibey" Consumer Suit Dismisses Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Early Neutral Evaluation was held in Elizabeth Ibey v. Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. and Single Touch Interactive Inc., resulting in
the Plaintiff dismissing the case with prejudice, according to
Single Touch Systems Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 29, 2013, the company was served a first amended
complaint for Elizabeth Ibey v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Single
Touch Interactive Inc. The complaint is a class action pending in
the United States District Court, Southern District of California
and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff was seeking damages and injunctive relief. The
company filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on September 19, 2013.
In December 2013, Plaintiff requested and the parties agreed to a
continuation of the scheduled hearing on the Motion to Dismiss.
An Early Neutral Evaluation was held on January 14, 2014
resulting in the Plaintiff dismissing the case with prejudice
which occurred on January 31, 2014.


SOLARCITY CORP: Faces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------
The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. on April 7 disclosed that a
lawsuit was filed on behalf of certain purchasers of SolarCity
Corp. common stock over alleged violations of Federal Securities
Laws by SolarCity Corp. in connection with certain allegedly
false and misleading statements.

If you purchased a significant amount of shares of SolarCity Corp
(SCTY) between March 6, 2013 and March 18, 2014, and/or if you
purchased SCTY shares in March 2013 or earlier and currently hold
any of those shares, you have certain options and for certain
investors are short and strict deadlines running.  SCTY investors
should contact the Shareholders Foundation at
mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554.

The plaintiff claims that that the defendants made allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
SolarCity Corp. lacked adequate controls over financial
reporting, that SolarCity Corp. misclassified its reported
expenses, that SolarCity Corp.'s prior financial statements
required restatement, and that as a result of the above,
SolarCity Corp's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 3, 2014, SolarCity Corp announced a delay in the filing
of its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
and the expected restatement of its 2012 consolidated financial
statements.  Then on March 18, 2014, SolarCity Corp provided more
information regarding its restatement.  That same day, SolarCity
Corp informed investors that its prior financial statements for
the annual periods ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 should
no longer be relied upon.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of SolarCity Corp publicly traded securities between
March 6, 2013 and March 18, 2014.


SANDUSKY WELLNESS: Court Denies TCPA Class Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard M. Haggarty, Esq. -- Richard.Haggerty@dbr.com -- at
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP reports that a district court in the
Northern District of Ohio recently denied a plaintiff's motion
for class certification in a TCPA blast fax case, finding that
the proposed class failed to meet the commonality requirement
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2).  Specifically,
the court noted that "the proposed class includes entities that
requested the facsimiles and/or had prior business relations"
with the defendants and that the faxes sent to those entities did
not violate the TCPA.

Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Wagner Wellness, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:12 CV 2257, 2014 WL 1224418 (N.D. Ohio), alleged that
Wagner Wellness, Inc., and its owner, Robert Wagner, had violated
Section 227 of the TCPA by purchasing a list of fax numbers from
a company called infoUSA and sending unsolicited advertisements
via fax to market a wellness and weight loss program.  See 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(C) (making it unlawful "to use any
telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send,
to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement"
unless certain exceptions apply).

During Robert Wagner's deposition, however, he testified that
Wagner did not purchase all of the fax numbers from infoUSA.  As
the court pointed out, "Mr. Wagner's testimony establishes that
his company had other sources for obtaining the facsimile numbers
used, including obtaining contacts at medical conferences."
Opinion at *5.

Sandusky Wellness moved for class certification and defined the
proposed class as follows: "All persons who (1) on or after
September 5, 2008, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages
inviting attendance at a Physicians Wellness and Weight Loss
Program, and (3) which did not display a proper opt-out notice."
Id. at *2.

In determining whether the proposed class met the requirements
for certification, the court focused on the commonality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).  As the Supreme Court held in Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, a plaintiff's "claims must depend
upon a common contention -- . . . [which is] of such a nature
that it is capable of classwide resolution -- which means that
the determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue
that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one
stroke."  Id. at *4 (quoting Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2451, 2551
(2011)).  The Supreme Court emphasized that district courts must
employ a "rigorous analysis" of the plaintiff's claim and that
the central inquiry is "the capacity of a classwide proceeding to
generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the
litigation."  Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551.

In considering Sandusky Wellness's proposed class, the court
pointed out that the TCPA does not prohibit all faxing of
advertisements.  "Rather, it only prohibits the sending of an
'unsolicited advertisement' unless certain conditions apply, such
as 'the unsolicited advertisement is from a sender with an
established business relationship with the recipient."  Opinion
at 4 (quoting 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(C)(i)).

Because Mr. Wagner's testimony established that the proposed
class included entities that either requested the faxes or had
prior business relationships with Wagner, the proposed class did
not meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

The Sandusky Wellness opinion demonstrates the importance of the
Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on class certification with
respect to putative TCPA class actions.  If plaintiffs do not
propose classes in which all members have claims that generate
common answers under the TCPA, defendants will be able to argue
that the commonality requirement is not met and that the proposed
class should not be certified.


SUTTER HEALTH: UEBT Files Class Action Over Illegal Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT) filed a class action
lawsuit on April 7 against Sutter Health for violations of
California's antitrust and unfair competition statutes.  The
suit, brought in the San Francisco County Superior Court (case
#14-538451), alleges that illegal restrictions in Sutter Health's
anticompetitive contracts resulted in substantial overcharges by
its hospitals that would not be possible in a free, competitive
market.

"This lawsuit was filed to stop a healthcare conglomerate from
improperly using its market power to insulate its hospitals from
competition by high quality, lower-priced competitors.  We expect
to recover the resulting illegal overcharges that Sutter
inflicted on California businesses and return the funds to the
entities that paid them," said Richard Grossman --
rgrossman@pillsburylevinson.com -- UEBT's lead counsel from the
San Francisco law firm of Pillsbury & Coleman LLP.

UEBT is an employment benefits trust that pays most of the
healthcare costs incurred by the members of the United Food and
Commercial Workers union (UFCW) and their dependents in Northern
California.  UEBT is operated for the benefit of its 60,000
participants by representatives from UFCW and the unionized
grocery and retail industry employers that fund the healthcare
benefits provided to their employees.

The suit alleges that Sutter imposes contract terms that make it
impossible for health plans to substitute quality competing
hospitals for Sutter's higher-cost hospitals in locations where
substitution would benefit their healthcare provider networks.
It accuses Sutter of imposing illegal contract terms that
prohibit any effort to incentivize health plan participants to
choose a more cost-effective competing hospital over a higher-
priced Sutter hospital.  It also alleges that Sutter deliberately
hides its higher prices from the self-funded health plans that
later will have to pay them.  As a result, UEBT and other
similarly situated entities have no alternative other than to pay
Sutter's illegally inflated healthcare prices.

Sutter is the largest healthcare provider in Northern California.
It has a chain of at least 27 hospitals as well as physicians'
organizations with more than 5,000 members; medical research
facilities; home health, hospice, and occupational health
networks; and long-term care centers.

Pillsbury & Coleman LLP is lead counsel for UEBT and the proposed
class of California employers and healthcare trusts that self-
fund the healthcare employment benefits they provide to their
workers. UEBT also is represented by Farella Braun & Martel LLP,
Davis Cowell & Bowe LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC


TARGET CORP: Faces "Schafer" Suit in Wisconsin Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kas Schafer, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Integrity First Bank, on its
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Target Corporation, and Target.com, Case No. 3:14-cv-00105-wmc
(W.D. Wis., February 13, 2014) arises from the data breach at
Target stores in late 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric J. Haag, Esq.
          ATTERBURY, KAMMER & HAAG, S.C.
          8500 Greenway Blvd., Suite 103
          Middleton, WI 53562
          Telephone: (608) 821-4600
          Facsimile: (608) 821-4610
          E-mail: ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Modl, Esq.
          AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
          2 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 200
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-5661
          Facsimile: (608) 257-5444
          E-mail: mmodl@axley.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John C. Scheller, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
          P.O. Box 1806
          Madison, WI 53701-1806
          Telephone: (608) 283-2276
          E-mail: jcscheller@michaelbest.com


TARGET CORP: Credit Unions, Bank Sue Over 2013 Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Employees Credit Union, KC Police Credit Union, and American Bank
of Commerce, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated payment card issuers v. Target Corporation, Case No.
3:14-cv-00549-N (N.D. Tex., February 13, 2014) alleges violations
of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members are financial
institutions and other entities that issued over 40 million Visa
and MasterCard branded credit cards and debit cards (including
REDcards, Target's proprietary payment cards) that were
compromised by an ongoing and continuous data breach within
Target's point-of-sale system and internal network of systems,
from November 27, 2013, through December 15, 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
          THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
          First City Building
          505 Orleans St., Suite 505
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 833-7700
          Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
          E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
          WELLER, GREEN TOUPS & TERRELL, LLP
          2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400
          Beaumont, TX 77702
          Telephone: (409) 838-0101
          Facsimile: (409) 838-6780
          E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com

               - and -

          G. Robert Blakey, Esq.
          PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITUS
          NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL
          7002 East San Miguel Ave.
          Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (574) 514-8220
          E-mail: blakey.1@nd.edu

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott Edwards, Esq.
          Giovanna C. Tarantino Bingham, Esq.
          HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER & KERN LLP
          6688 N Central Expwy., Suite 1000
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 369-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 369-2118
          E-mail: sedwards@hdbdlaw.com
                  gtarantino@hdbdk.com


UMPQUA BANK: Settles Claims on Using Software to Maximize Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that as their trial date approached, a class has settled claims
that Umpqua Bank uses special software to maximize the amount of
overdraft fees it charges.

The parties have until May 19 to move for preliminary approval of
the settlement, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said in a April 4,
2014, order vacating the trial schedule.

"The court is in receipt of the parties' joint request to vacate
the case schedule in light of the parties' settlement of this
action," he wrote.

Lead plaintiff Amber Hawthorne filed the federal complaint in San
Francisco in December 2011, alleging that Umpqua employs
sophisticated software that "maximizes the number of overdrafts,
and thus, the amount of overdraft fees charged per customer."
She also called Umpqua's account agreement misleading and said
the bank "provides inaccurate balance information to its
customers through its electronic network," informing them "that
they have a positive balance when, in reality, they have a
negative balance, despite the bank's actual knowledge of
outstanding debits and transactions."

Tigar had pared down the claims for trial this past November, and
the parties settled after Hawthorne filed a third amended
complaint in January.

"The court sets a case management conference on May 28, 2014,
which will automatically be vacated if the stipulation of
dismissal is timely filed," he wrote.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Heard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts conducted a hearing on a motion by Vertex
Pharmaceuticals Incorporated to dismiss a securities suit filed
against it by the City of Bristol Pension Fund, according to the
company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On September 6, 2012, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the caption City of Bristol
Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al.,
naming as defendants the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges that the
company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact in the company's public disclosures during the
period from May 7, 2012 through June 28, 2012, all in violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed the City of
Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of Bristol's
attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on February 11, 2013. The company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on April 12, 2013. On May 28, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint. On June 27, 2013, the company filed a reply in further
support of the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint.

The court conducted a hearing on the company's motion to dismiss
on November 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, as well as disgorgement of
the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
company's common stock.


* Jamaica's FSC Revises Guidelines to Combat Ponzi Schemes
----------------------------------------------------------
Avia Collinder, writing for The Jamaica Gleaner, reports that the
Financial Services Commission (FSC) says it is formulating
guidelines that will set a cap on investments made by members of
investment clubs as one way of cracking down on fraudulent
activity, typically referred to as Ponzi schemes.

Laurence Crossley, manager of Securities at the FSC, also told a
forum that the revised Securities Act allows pursuit of civil
action in the Supreme Court to recover the monies of individuals
who have been defrauded.

"We can pursue a class action lawsuit with the object of repaying
monies lost," said Mr. Crossley.

"Once the money is paid into a court-ordered fund, all who can
prove their claim can be compensated to the extent of their loss.
The FSC can take on responsibility for payment or employ an
outside payment agency."

The assets of fraudsters, such as homes and cars, can also be
annexed for repayment, and the FSC can, through the court, block
the sale or disposal of such assets.

Prior to the amended law, the FSC was "100 per cent reliant" on
the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action against "bad
actors", said presenters at the FSC forum, but now the financial
watchdog is said to have a range of civil actions it can pursue.

The FSC said that at the height of the operation of unregulated
financial schemes, many of the operators claimed that they were
investment clubs, and as such, clamored for special treatment
under the law.  With limited legal recourse, the FSC opted to
publish the names of the unregistered entities and intermittently
issued warnings to the public, most of whom were unsophisticated,
small investors with limited knowledge of finance, that they
participating in the schemes at their own risk.

That loophole is now effectively closed, the regulator said.

The law now bars clubs and club members from soliciting funds
from the public at large, while pending regulations will place a
maximum limit on annual contribution by members, according to
Andrea Lewis-Jones, the FSC's senior analyst for investment
management.

Investment clubs which seek exemption under the Securities Act
can have no more than 20 members who are all making equal
contributions -- none more than the other -- at intervals.  The
club will be prevented from having salaried managers and must
give to all members equal participation and voting rights.  Those
who travel on the investment club's business or engage in other
activities which incur an expense, can recoup these costs, but
may not be paid for their efforts.

Mr. Crossley also said persons who participate in Ponzi schemes,
as well as those who manage the schemes, are liable for fines and
imprisonment.

"Persons who knowingly or recklessly participate can be
prosecuted.  Persons who encourage others to participate commit
an offence as well," he said, adding that fines for the offences
range up to $10 million, and prison terms up to 10 years.


                             *********

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  * * *