CAR_Public/140424.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 81

                             Headlines


ALLEN SCHOOL: Fails to Pay for OT Hours Worked, Suit Says
ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO: Lyndsay Markley Files Sexual Abuse Suit
ARCTIC GLACIER: June 12 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
ARS NATIONAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Force-Placed Insurance Suit Settled for $228MM

BEROTH OIL: Northern Beltway Landowners Can't Pursue Class Action
BP PLC: Judge OKs Formation of Panel to Audit Oil Spill Claims
CARRIER IQ: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Privacy Suit Denied
DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Notice Did Not Satisfy WARN Exceptions
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fails to Reinvestigate "Inquiry," Suit Says

FOXFIRE PRINTING: 7th Circuit Affirms Attorneys' Fees Award
GENERAL MOTORS: "Baker" Family Joins Class Action Over Car Crash
GLOVAL INC: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, "Constenla" Suit Says
HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Court Won't Upset Class Action Settlement
JENNIFER SHAFFER: Court Okays Class Cert. Bid in "Johnson" Suit

LONG BEACH, CA: Police Officers' Class Action Settlement Pending
MACY'S INC: Accused of Violating ADA Over Inaccessible POS Device
MERION CORP: Sued by Wait Person in N.J. Over FLSA Violations
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
MILESTONE CAPITAL: Sued Over Accessibility Barriers at Facilities

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: June 9 Trial Set in Antitrust Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: No New Ruling on Concussion Litigation
NAT'L HOCKEY: Faces Class Action Over Culture of Violence
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for June 20
PFIZER INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit Alleging Lipitor-Related Injury

PFIZER INC: Faces "Calvin" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Sued in California Over Injury Related to Lipitor
SAKS FIFTH: Sued for Failing to Own Blind-Accessible POS Devices
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Shumpert" Suit Over Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "LaFontaine" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes

SKECHERS USA: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Wade" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Wuertz" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Paalman" Suit Over Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Wilbert" Suit Over Toning Shoes

SKECHERS USA: Faces "McEvoy" Suit Over Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Stewart" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Burks-McLaughlin" Suit Over Toning Shoes
STEWART'S SHOPS: Faces Class Action Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
SUMMER BAY: Dist. Court Certifies "Lowell" Suit as Class Action

SYED ALI: Court Narrows Claims in "Sandoval" Class Action
TELUS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Texting Fees
TIMBERCORP: High Court Dismisses Investor Class Action
TRANSLINK: Faces Class Action Over Upcoming Compass Card System
U-HAUL CO: Removed "Marquand" Suit to M.D. Florida

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Attempts to Save Arbitration Agreement
UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
VOICELOGIC: Sent Fax Ads Without Prior Express Consent, Suit Says
WELLS FARGO: Sued in California Over Foreclosures, Late Fees

* Financial Services Industry May Face "Massive" Class Action


                             *********


ALLEN SCHOOL: Fails to Pay for OT Hours Worked, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Eddie L. Whitten, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Allen School, Case No. 1:14-cv-00986-ARR-SMG
(E.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Company willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees for all of
their overtime hours worked.

Eddie L. Whitten worked for the Defendant at their Allen School
location in Brooklyn, New York, as a non-exempt admissions
representative.

Allen School serves students in various locations in New York,
Arizona and online.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Building 2, Suite 220
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO: Lyndsay Markley Files Sexual Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the Archdiocese of Chicago on
behalf of a man who alleges that the former Paster, Daniel
McCormack, sexually abused him as a 12-year old boy.

Lyndsay Markley is the Attorney representing the alleged victim,
John C. Doe, and she filed the lawsuit (attached) at Cook County
on Friday, April 18.

John C. Doe is not the first victim -- Daniel McCormack pleaded
guilty in 2007 to multiple counts of criminal sexual assault and
the Archdiocese of Chicago reached a $3.15 million settlement
with another of his victims in January 2014.

Lyndsay Markley says that what is particularly horrifying about
this case is how many complaints were ignored by the Archdiocese:

"This is a case about the Archdiocese's repeated failure to take
action against a known sexual abuser, allowing McCormack
unfettered access to hundreds of children whose lives are now
forever changed."

"How is the Catholic Church potentially liable for sexual abuse
by one of its pastors? There are many answers to why any business
could be responsible for the conduct of its employee, but one
important one here is that evidence indicates that the Catholic
Church was advised on a number of occasions that McCormack was
molesting young boys -- in 1997 (while McCormack was in Seminary
college), 1999, 2003 and 2005."

"Instead of taking any action to prevent McCormack from being
around minors, he was actually promoted throughout the seminary.
In 2000, after repeated concerns, he was transferred to Chicago's
St. Agatha's Parish, which included coaching a basketball team of
minor boys! In our lawsuits, attorneys are attempting to make the
Catholic Church take accountability for its failure to
investigate these claims and take action to ensure that the
children were protected.  That is one reason the Catholic Church
may be liable."

While McCormack was a Seminarian (at priest college from 1986-
1994), complaints were made about him fondling his fellow
students in the middle of the night while they were passed out
and that he engaged in sexual conduct with a minor boy while on a
church-sponsored trip to Mexico.  These complaints were not only
ignored by the Archdiocese, MccCormack was ordained in 1994 upon
graduation.

In 1998, the Archdiocese assigned Pastor McCormack to St.
Joseph's Seminary, a school, and Holy Family Parish.  In 1999,
the principal of Holy Family School informed the Archdiocese that
McCormack may have sexually abused a young boy. The complaint was
ignored.  In 2000, Pastor McCormack was promoted to the pastor of
St. Agatha's Parish which included a school campus (Our Lady of
the West Side).  In 2003, a woman contacted one of the
Archdiocese office's and advised them that McCormack was sexually
abusing a young boy.  No investigation into this call occurred.

In August of 2005, the Chicago Police Department questioned
McCormack in relation to allegations of sexual abuse made by a
5th grade boy.  In October of 2005, the Archdiocese' Advisory
Board made the recommendation that McCormack finally be removed
from the priesthood for the "safety of children".  The
Archdiocese ignored this mandate and McCormack remained a pastor
at St. Agatha's until January of 2006.

Unafraid, McCormack proceeded to rape another young boy, John C.
Doe, giving rise to the case filed by Lyndsay Markley in Cook
County on Friday, April 18.  The next step of the case will see
video evidence deposition (trial testimony) of defendant,
Cardinal Francis George, scheduled for May 29.

                      About Lyndsay Markley

Chicago-based Attorney, Lyndsay Markley, has dedicated her legal
practice to fighting on behalf of persons who suffered injuries
or death as the result of the wrongful or careless conduct of
others. For her work as a victims' advocate, Ms. Markley has
received an array of accolades, including selection to the Top
100 Trial Attorneys in Illinois and a Top 40 Under 40 Trial
Attorney for 2012-2014 by the National Association of Trial
Lawyers.  She has also been acknowledged by her colleagues as an
Illinois' Rising Star in 2013 -2014 (SuperLawyers' Magazine) and
as a Top Women Lawyer in Illinois in 2014 by Super Lawyers and
Chicago Magazine.


ARCTIC GLACIER: June 12 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
In re Arctic Glacier International Inc., et al.
Case No. 12-10605 (KG) (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, D. Del.) Jointly
Administered

IF YOU BOUGHT PACKAGED ICE FROM A RETAILER

Your Rights May Be Affected By A Court Approved Settlement

This Notice is provided pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7023 and an
Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.  A class action lawsuit alleges that Arctic
Glacier, Home City Ice, and Reddy Ice conspired to fix and raise
the price consumers paid for Packaged Ice.  "Packaged Ice" is ice
sold in bags.  On February 27, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court
approved a settlement of a bankruptcy proof of claim based on the
lawsuit against one of the Companies, Arctic Glacier.  Home City
Ice and Reddy Ice previously agreed to separate settlements.

Pursuant to the Settlement, you may be entitled to a cash payment
if you bought from a retailer Packaged Ice made by Arctic
Glacier, Home City Ice, or Reddy Ice (or any of their
subsidiaries or predecessors) between January 1, 2001 and March
6, 2008 in any of the following states: AZ, CA, IA, KS, ME, MA,
MI, MN, MS, NE,
NV, NM, NY, NC, TN, and/or WI.  Copies of the Order approving the
Settlement, as well as notices describing in full the procedures
for submission of a Claim Form may be obtained, free of charge,
at www.arcticindirectpurchaser.com ; www.icesettlements.com ; or
www.amcanadadocs.com/arcticglacier

TO RECEIVE A CASH PAYMENT, YOU MUST COMPLETE, SIGN, AND RETURN
THE CLAIM FORM PROVIDED BELOW, WHICH MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER
THAN JUNE 12, 2014 OR HAND DELIVERED, OR SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL OR
FACSIMILE, SO THAT IT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED NO LATER THAN JUNE 12,
2014 AT 4:00 P.M. (PREVAILING EASTERN TIME) AT THE ADDRESS BELOW.
CLAIM FORM PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMPLETED CLAIM FORM ONLINE AT
WWW.ARCTICINDIRECTPURCHASER.COM OR MAIL IT TO:

Arctic Glacier Settlement Processing Center
c/o UpShot Services LLC
7808 Cherry Creek South Drive, Suite 112
Denver, CO 80231
Email: info@arcticindirectpurchaser.com
Toll Free: 855-226-8304
Fax: 720-249-0882

FAILURE TO SUBMIT YOUR COMPLETED CLAIM FORM BY JUNE 12, 2014 AT
4:00 P.M. (PREVAILING EASTERN TIME) OR TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED
INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW MAY RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF YOUR
CLAIM. YOU MAY SUBMIT ONLY ONE CLAIM FORM PER HOUSEHOLD.

1. Print Your Name:
2. E-Mail:
3. Street Address:
   City, State and Zip Code:
4. Phone Number:
5. Please state the number of bags of Packaged Ice made by either
Arctic Glacier, Home City Ice or Reddy Ice that you purchased
from a retailer in the Claims States during the Settlement
Period.
Please check only one box.

I purchased 3 0r more bags; or
I purchased more than 10 bags and have proof of purchase
specify total number of bags:

TO RECEIVE $6.00 you must claim purchase of three or more bags.

TO RECEIVE MORE THAN $6.00 you must claim purchases of more than
ten bags, and provide proof of purchase for each bag in excess of
ten bags.  You will receive $6.00 for the first ten bags and
$0.60 for each additional bag.  Failure to include Proof of
Purchase for Claims in excess of ten bags will limit your
recovery to $6.00.  Submission of false or fraudulent claims will
result in the Claim being rejected in its entirety.

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, in connection with
this federal action, that I purchased the above-referenced number
of bags of Packaged Ice stated above.

Dated

Signature of Claimant:

Questions? Visit www.ArcticIndirectPurchaser.com or Call 855-226-
8304


ARS NATIONAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Malky Horowitz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-01010-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Force-Placed Insurance Suit Settled for $228MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
even though they have agreed to settle a proposed class-action
Lender insurance lawsuit for $228 million, co-defendant Bank of
America nonetheless doesn't think it did anything wrong,
according to a statement released by a spokesperson when the
settlement was revealed.  And while the announced settlement did
not clarify if the defendants were required to admit to any
wrongdoing, the brief statement pretty much says it all.

"Bank of America believes that its lender-placed hazard insurance
practices comply fully with state and federal law," bank
spokesman Richard Simon said, in a statement. "Nevertheless, in
order to put an end to this litigation, we have reached a
settlement that is acceptable to all parties."

QBE Insurance Corp., the other defendant in the Force-placed
insurance lawsuit, did not comment.  But if Bank of America fully
complied with state and federal law, as the statement implies,
then it did so while simultaneously violating state and federal
laws, including the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), or so it was alleged by plaintiffs.

Rather than go to trial, it appears that Bank of America and QBE
will pony up $228 million to make it all go away.  The
settlement, reached in Miami federal court, is just the latest in
a string of large settlements stemming from Forced-Placed
Insurance Lawsuits that accuse banks and insurance carriers of
inflating premiums unnecessarily on lenders insurance.

The latter is a product that banks, when holding a mortgage on a
property, will apply to an asset if and when the homeowner either
fails to maintain the proper insurance coverage or allows
insurance to lapse.  With a financial stake in the property,
mortgage holders (the bank) are understandably unhappy with such
a situation and will take steps to impose a Force-Place insurance
policy on the asset, a function that is a protected right within
any mortgage agreement.  To wit, the homeowner is required to
carry adequate insurance.  Failing that, the bank has the
authority to place insurance on the asset to protect the
investment.

More money for less coverage

Many homeowners have found that not only are the forced-placed
insurance terms far more costly than conventional insurance, the
amount of coverage is often less than conventional products.
Many a force-placed insurance lawsuit has claimed that this is
due to an alleged cozy relationship between the banks holding the
mortgages and the insurance carriers providing the insurance
products.  There have been allegations of kickbacks, with the
costs of those kickbacks passed along to the consumer by way of
inflated premiums.

There have been several settlements. The latest $228 million
settlement agreed to by Bank of America and QBE -- while claiming
to have complied with all state and federal laws -- is just the
latest installment in a serial nightmare for affected homeowners.

The proposed Force-Place insurance class action was filed in 2012
and covers Bank of America clients who were dealt lenders
insurance between January 2008 and February of this year.  Class
members are expected to recover hundreds, and in some cases,
thousands of dollars from the settlement, say Forced-Place
Insurance attorneys conversant with the settlement revealed on
April 3 in US District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, according to a report by Reuters.

The settlement places Bank of America amongst other banks having
settled similar lawsuits in recent months, including JPMorgan
Chase, Citibank and HSBC Bank USA.

The case is: Cheryl Hall et al v Bank of America N.A. et al, US
District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 12-cv-
22700


BEROTH OIL: Northern Beltway Landowners Can't Pursue Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Young, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that the
North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled 5-2 that property owners
in the path of the proposed Northern Beltway can't pursue their
demands in a class-action lawsuit.

Writing for the majority on the seven-judge panel in the case
Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Department of Transportation, Justice
Barbara Jackson said that while a Forsyth County trial court had
made some mistakes in how it reached a decision to reject class-
action status, it was nonetheless proper for the land claims to
be heard individually because of the different circumstances of
each claim.

The eight landowners who filed suit against the N.C. Department
of Transportation in 2010 claimed that by designating their
properties as being in the path of the Northern Beltway around
Winston-Salem, the state had in effect taken their land without
compensation.  The landowners wanted their lawsuit to cover about
800 other property owners in the path of the beltway by declaring
that all of them were part of a class and should be included in
the same legal action.

The state's highest court disagreed: "Not all of these 800
property owners have the same property interests and
expectations," Justice Jackson wrote.  Quoting the trial court,
Justice Jackson said that "Some . . . are improved and some are
not.  Some are residential and some are commercial."  Justice
Jackson went on to say that "the individual factual issues tied
to each parcel of land far outnumber the common issues amongst
all 800 property owners."

The state Supreme Court decision by no means ends the litigation,
since the Forsyth County trial court has not heard the remaining
part of the case.  As well, there are dozens of other landowners
who have filed suit along the same lines as the original eight,
all represented by attorney Matthew Bryant.  Mr. Bryant said that
while he is disappointed in the failure of the court to grant
class-action status, he remains "confident that the owners will
ultimately prevail" when the trial court hears the cases in
Forsyth County.

Although the state still plans to build the beltway -- the first
segment is under construction -- state officials have said that a
lack of money has prevented the purchase of all the land in the
path of the beltway.  A lawsuit filed by beltway opponents in
1999 resulted in a court order that barred the state from moving
forward on the beltway for another 11 years.

The beltway opponents filing the latest round of lawsuits want to
force the state to buy their properties.  They allege that their
lands are under a cloud because of the designation of the beltway
path, a cloud that substantially restricts their ability to
either use the property or sell it.

In a partial dissent, two of the seven justices said that the
trial court applied the wrong legal standard in determining
whether a class existed, and that the case should be sent back to
the lower court with instructions to resolve the question
according to the proper standard.  As well, the dissenting
justices said that by making each landowner proceed individually,
a risk arises that people will be treated differently by the
courts when they are in the same situation.


BP PLC: Judge OKs Formation of Panel to Audit Oil Spill Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge overseeing the $9.2 billion Deepwater
Horizon settlement has approved creation of a committee headed by
a local law professor to audit oil-spill claims.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier on April 16 approved the
appointment of P. Raymond Lamonica, a professor at Louisiana
State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, as chairman of the
committee.  Mr. Lamonica has served as special counsel to
Louisiana and as general counsel to the LSU system.  He was U.S.
attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana from 1986 to 1994.

Judge Barbier also appointed two accounting executives to the
committee: Lloyd Tate, former managing partner of Deloitte &
Touche's Louisiana practice, and D. Larry Crumbley, an accounting
professor at LSU.

Mr. Lamonica declined to comment.  BP spokeswoman Ellen Moskowitz
and Nick Gagliano, spokesman for claims administrator
Patrick Juneau, did not respond to requests for comment.

BP PLC has continued to allege that Mr. Juneau has misinterpreted
the settlement's terms, resulting in awards to businesses that
suffered no economic damages from the 2010 spill.

Former FBI agent Louis Freeh, appointed as special master to
investigate potential fraud in the claims process, concluded that
three former top administrator's office figures had violated
conflict-of-interest policies, in part by visiting a New Orleans
bar that received $500,000 in oil-spill claims.  All three have
resigned.

The audit committee, according to a motion filed on April 15 by
lawyers for Mr. Juneau, will review reports by two accounting
firms and recommend an internal quality-control process designed
to find and correct claims errors.

According to the motion, the accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen
LLP has been doing financial audits for the claims office for the
past two years, with its next report due this month.  Another
accounting firm, McGladrey LLP, was retained in October to
recommend improvements to the claims process to ensure accuracy.
During a Feb. 4 meeting with claims officials, McGladrey staff
recommended that the office create the audit committee.


CARRIER IQ: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Privacy Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order denying a motion to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit captioned IN RE CARRIER IQ,
INC. CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION, NO. C-12-MD-2330 EMC, (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs in this case are 18 individuals from thirteen
different states who filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint against (1) Carrier IQ, Inc. (CIQ); (2) HTC America,
Inc. and HTC Corporation (HTC); (3) Huawei Device USA, Inc.; (4)
LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc.
(LG); (5) Motorola Mobility LLC; (6) Pantech Wireless, Inc.; and
(7) Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung). All defendants, except for CIQ,
are manufacturers of mobile devices (Device Defendants or OEM
Defendants). Plaintiffs have asserted claims against Defendants
pursuant to both federal and state law. Essentially, Plaintiffs'
claims are for (1) unauthorized interception and transmittal of
their private information and (2) breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability. Before the Court was a motion to compel
arbitration, which was brought by all Defendants except Motorola.

The Court rejected the Defendants' contention that they are
entitled to invoke the arbitration provisions in the wireless
customer agreements. "Equitable estoppel being inapplicable,
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is therefore denied,"
ruled Judge Chen.

A copy of the District Court's March 28, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/KoZZHYfrom Leagle.com.

Patrick Kenny, an Arizona resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Justin Sharp, a California resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Jeremy Feitelson, an Iowa resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Greg Feitelson, a Kentucky resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Eric Steiner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law
LLP.

Eric Thomas, a Texas resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Benjamin Lancaster, a Pennsylvania resident, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Daniel Pipkin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon,
Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon
& Warshaw LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP &
William James Newsom, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Chad Ulrich, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon,
Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon
& Warshaw LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and
Penny, LLP & William James Newsom, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Rowena Silvera, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea S. Hirsch,
Herman Gerel, LLP, Christopher V. Tisi, Herman Gerel, LLP, Mark
G. Crawford, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph & Millican & Steven
James Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph & Millican.

Andrew Sanders, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea S. Hirsch,
Herman Gerel, LLP, Christopher V. Tisi, Herman Gerel, LLP, Mark
G. Crawford, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph & Millican & Steven
James Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph & Millican.

Jennifer Sue Patrick, an individually and on behalf of herself
and for the benfit of all with the Commmon and General Interest,
any persons injured and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Ira P. Rothken, Rothken Law Firm, LLP, Jared
Robinson Smith, Rothken Law Firm & John R. Parker, Jr., Kershaw
Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP.

Scott Lewis, an individually and on behalf of himself and for the
benfit of all with the Commmon and General Interest, any persons
injured and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Ira P. Rothken, Rothken Law Firm, LLP, Jared Robinson Smith,
Rothken Law Firm & John R. Parker, Jr., Kershaw Cutter &
Ratinoff, LLP.

Lindsay Padilla, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Heather Marie Baker, Kirtland
& Packard, LLP, Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland & Packard LLP &
Michael Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP.

Steven Watts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Heather Marie Baker, Kirtland
& Packard, LLP, Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland & Packard LLP &
Michael Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP.

Eliezer Pilowsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Heather Marie Baker, Kirtland
& Packard, LLP, Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland & Packard LLP &
Michael Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP.

Rodney Shively, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory B Scarlett,
Wasserman Comden Casselman Esensten LLP & Melissa Meeker Harnett,
Wasserman Comden Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P..

Justin Conley, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Cates, Cates
Law Firm-Swansea.

Brandon Ivy-Perry, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Cates,
Cates Law Firm-Swansea.

Laura Lebryk, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Cates, Cates Law
Firm-Swansea.

Jeremy Bain, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Cates, Cates Law
Firm-Swansea.

Joseph Cosme, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze.

Craig Schmidt, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Wayne Wilson,
Dolan Law Firm, Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Haggard Parks Haggard &
Lewis, Manuel Dobrinsky, Attorney at Law, Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL, David A. Straite, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA, Ralph N.
Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP & Randy Rosenblum, Attorney at Law.

Leron Levy, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Wayne Wilson, Dolan
Law Firm, Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Haggard Parks Haggard & Lewis,
Manuel Dobrinsky, Attorney at Law, Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL, David A. Straite, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA, Ralph N.
Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP & Randy Rosenblum, Attorney at Law.

Ilya Torchinsky, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL & Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA.

Hayley Medrano, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL & Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA.

Lisa McClaskey, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL & Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA.

John Leinicke, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL & Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA.
Margaret Elliott, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze.

Elizabeth Lammert, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze.

Lisa Rosenburg, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze.

Jeffrey Pacilli, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US
LLP.

Saima Mian, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP.

Amandeep Singh, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US
LLP.

Marilyn Robledo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US
LLP.

Dylan T Ferreira, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Longo, Law
office of John T. Longo.

Joshua Libby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E. Klein, Roddy Klein &
Ryan, Kevin Costello, Roddy Klein & Ryan & Shennan Alexandra
Kavanagh, Roddy, Klein and Ryan.

Erin Janek, Plaintiff, represented by Steven J. Stolze, Holland,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Christopher M Ellis, Bolen Robinson &
Ellis, LLP, Eric Davis Holland, Holland, Groves, Schneller and
Stolze, Kevin Douglas Wilkins, Holland, Groves, Schneller &
Stolze, Llc, Shane M Mendenhall, Bolen, Robinson & Ellis & Steven
Lee Groves, Holland Groves Schneller Stolze.

Jeffrey Wilson, individually and on behalf of the class,
Plaintiff, represented by Judy L. Cates, Cates Law Firm-Swansea.

Melissa J. Link, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Wasylyk, Law
Offices of Peter Wasylyk.

Daniel Schlanger, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael M.
Weinkowitz, Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman Esqs.

Chad Maron, individually and on behalf of the class, Plaintiff,
represented by David S Ratner, Morelli Ratner, P.C..

Thomas Naudus, individually and on behalf of the class,
Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli Ratner, P.C..

Israel Olivares, individually and behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Joseph H Malley, Law Office of Joseph H.
Malley, PC.

Clarissa Portals, individually and behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Joseph H Malley, Law Office of Joseph H.
Malley, PC.

Sam Stoltenbury, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lee Low, Kotchen and
Low LLP.

Amber Westenberger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lee Low, Kotchen and
Low LLP.

Peter Medine, individually and behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Marc Lawrence Godino, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Marc I. Gross, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom
& Gross LLP, Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz Grossman
Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP.

Colleen Fischer, a Wisconsin resident, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Kurt Fairfield, a Wisconsin resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

David Sarafian, a California resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

David Williams, a California resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Stephanie Wirth, a California resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

John Swafford, a Florida resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.
Luke Szulczewski, an Illinois resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Richard Rosenfeld, a Kentucky resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Michael Zemartis, a New Jersey resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Timothy Dodson, a Texas resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Evan Brooks, a Washington resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Marcus Neal, a Washington resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Brian Sandstrom, a Washington resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

John Woods, a Washington resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Leonard Hobbs, a Nevada resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Kenneth Tishenkel, an Ohio resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.
Josephine Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Byron Hardin,
Newport Trial Group, Ryan Mark Ferrell, Newport Trial Group &
Scott J. Ferrell, Newport Trial Group.

Lawrence Regis House, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa
Meeker Harnett, Wasserman Comden Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P..

Dao Phong, an individual, on behalf herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Punzalan,
Punzalan Law, P.C., Danielle A Stoumbos, Finkelstein Thompson LLP
& Rosemary M. Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Edward Shumate, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel,
Kiesel Law LLP.

Yonatan Wadler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel,
Kiesel Law LLP, Jay P. Salzman, Schoengold & Sporn, PC & Paul O.
Paradis, Horwitz Horwitz & Paradis.

Adam Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law
LLP.

Daniel Massey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law
LLP.

Laureen Briggs, as an individual and on behalf of the class,
Plaintiff, represented by Dale Bernardo Ratner, Dale Bernardo
Ratner, Esq. & David S Ratner, Morelli Ratner, P.C..

Robert Kleer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher Collins, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Frank James Janecek, Jr., Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Michael Allan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP.

Matthew Thornton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel,
Kiesel Law LLP.

Matthew Hiles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Helen U Kim, Arias, Ozzello &
Gignac LLP, J. Paul Gignac, Arias, Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Peter J.
Bezek, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP & Robert A. Curtis, Foley
Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP.

Mark Laning, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
simiarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell
Strange, Strange & Carpenter & Joseph H Malley, Law Office of
Joseph H. Malley, PC.
Matthew Branson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Gabriel Dash
Zeldin, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP & Hamilton
P. Lindley, Goldfard Branham, LLP.

Amy Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Louis Rosenthal,
Attorney at Law & Peter J. McNulty, McNulty Law Firm.

Dennis Patrick, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Reginald Von
Terrell, The Terrell Law Group.

James Douglas White, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
Russell Strange, Strange & Carpenter & Joseph H Malley, Law
Office of Joseph H. Malley, PC.

Andre Lavertue, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Andrew Chavez,
Chavez & Gertler LLP & Nance Felice Becker, Chavez & Gertler LLP.

Roseanne Castro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situtated, Plaintiff, represented by James Byron
Hardin, Newport Trial Group, Ryan Mark Ferrell, Newport Trial
Group & Scott J. Ferrell, Newport Trial Group.

Accident Investigative Services, Inc., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman.

Cameron Jones, individually and on behalf of all others simiarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric J. O'Bell, Law Offices
of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC & Paul Marett Brannon, Brannon Law Firm,
L.L.C..

George Howell, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC &
Joseph C Bourne, Gustafson Gluek PLLC.

Andy Kacmarcik, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Blake Anthony Strautins, Barnow and Associates,
P.C., Corey M Mather, David J Syrios, Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Guri
Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Shpetim Ademi.

Jerimiah Thomas Moree, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Burton Rosenblatt,
Ely Bettini Ulman et al, Eric Davis Holland, Holland, Groves,
Schneller and Stolze, Steven Lee Groves, Holland Groves Schneller
Stolze & Steven J. Stolze, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze,
LLC.

Jay Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Pankin, Law Offices
of David I. Pankin, P.C..

David Yastrab, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard Daskal, Lynch Daskal
Emery LLP.
William White, IV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew F. Knopf,
Newsome Law Firm & C. Richard Newsome, Newsome Law Firm.

Curtis Dubberly, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Marc A. Wites,
Wites & Kapetan, P.A. & Jonathan Stephen Burns, Wites & Kapetan
PA.

Ryan McKeen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter M. Van Dyke, Eagan,
Donohue, Van Dyke & Falsey, LLP.

Vlad Twerskoi, individually and on behalf of all others simlarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland, Holland,
Groves, Schneller and Stolze & Richard Joseph Arsenault, Neblett
Beard & Arsenault.

Mario Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by D. Scott Kalish, John R.
Climaco, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox, & Garofoli, Co., LPA,
John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli -
Cleveland & Patrick G. Warner, David P. Meyer & Associates Co.,
LPA.

Ashley L. Jones, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox, & Garofoli, Co., LPA, John A.
Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli -
Cleveland, Kip T. Bollin, Thompson Hine - Cleveland & Patrick G.
Warner, David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA.

Caprice Ieyoub, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rebecca S Tinio, Susman
Godfrey, Warren T Burns, Susman Godfrey LLP, Arthur M Murray,
Murray Law Firm, Daniel H Charest, Susman Godfrey LLP, Korey
Arthur Nelson, Murray Law Firm, Stephen B. Murray, Murray Law
Firm & Terrell W. Oxford, Susman Godfrey L.L.P..

Richard Lucarelli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David M Finn, Milner Finn
Price.

Elizabeth Fosson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Germain,
Rosman & Germain LLP.

Matthew Fosson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Germain,
Rosman & Germain LLP.

Duane Frisbie, Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli
Ratner, P.C..

Jannet Linder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Collins, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Frank James Janecek, Jr., Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Melissa Slater, Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli
Ratner, P.C..

Samuel Slaughter, Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner,
Morelli Ratner, P.C..

Caryl Wolff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Gudmundson, Attorney at
Law, Daniel L. Germain, Rosman & Germain LLP, David M.
Cialkowski, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Paula Michelle Roach, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Rearden, LLC.

Kristina Cerrone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael M.
Weinkowitz, Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman Esqs & Charles E.
Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman.

Lisa Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Brian R Strange, Strange and Carpenter.

Felipe Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Brian R Strange, Strange and Carpenter.

Mark Rottschafer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E.
Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Christopher M Ellis,
Bolen Robinson & Ellis, LLP, Eric Davis Holland, Holland, Groves,
Schneller and Stolze, Jon D. Robinson, Bolen, Robinson & Ellis,
LLP, Scott L. Keniley, The Keniley Law Firm, Shane M Mendenhall,
Bolen, Robinson & Ellis, Steven Lee Groves, Holland Groves
Schneller Stolze & Steven J. Stolze, Holland, Groves, Schneller &
Stolze, LLC.

Robert Spradley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell
Strange, Strange & Carpenter & Brian R Strange, Strange and
Carpenter.

Cheryl Eakins, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis D. Johnson, Jr.,
Johnson & Brown, PC.

Michael Siegel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Larry Daniel Drury,
Larry D. Drury, LTD..

Kenneth Cassine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub,
Seeger Weiss LLP, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Jamie E. Weiss, Eric
D. Freed Law Office & Jason S Rathod, Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP.

Vishal Shah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub, Seeger Weiss
LLP, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Gary E. Mason,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Jamie E. Weiss, Eric D. Freed Law
Office & Jason S Rathod, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP.

Carrier IQ, Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Rodger R. Cole, Fenwick & West LLP, Christopher E. Carey,
Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker, Carey & Hymel, Eugene J. Podesta,
Jr., Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, James Christie,
Christie Pabarue Mortensen & Young, Jennifer Jane Johnson,
Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer J Johnson, Fenwick & West LLP - San
Francisco, CA, Molly Roberta Melcher, Fenwick and West LLP, Tyler
Alexander Baker, Fenwick & West LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby,
Fenwick & West LLP.

HTC America Inc, a Washington corporation, Defendant, represented
by Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq., Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP,
Albert G. Bixler, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Catherine
A. Miller, Freeborn & Peters, Ellen D. Bailey, Eckert Seamans, J
Thad Heartfield, The Heartfield Law Firm, Jennifer Amy Baker,
Roshka DeWulf & Patten PLC, Michael Benjamin Alexander, Preis &
Roy, PLC, Rosemarie T Ring, Munger Tolles and Olson, Ross Eric
Morrison, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Sean F. O'Shea, O'Shea
Partners LLP & Warren L. Soffian, Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.

Samsung Electronics America Inc, a New York corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lance Allan Etcheverry, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Shouying Sheryl Leung, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP.

Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lance Allan Etcheverry, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, R. Patrick Vance, Jones Walker, Eugene
J. Podesta, Jr., Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz,
Kerry Sachiko Kumabe, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP &
Shouying Sheryl Leung, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom
LLP.

Peter Lowden, Defendant, represented by Cameron Wayne Wilson,
Dolan Law Firm, Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Haggard Parks Haggard &
Lewis, Manuel Dobrinsky, Attorney at Law, Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL, David A. Straite, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA, Ralph N.
Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP & Randy Rosenblum, Attorney at Law.

Motorola Mobility, Inc., Defendant, represented by Krista M.
Enns, Winston & Strawn LLP, Norman Kenneth Beck, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Peter Charles McCabe, III, Winston and Strawn LLP &
Scott Tadashi Sakiyama, Winston and Strawn LLP.

AT&T Mobility LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Abbott
Nicely, Mayer Brown LLP, Christopher John Kelly, Mayer Brown LLP,
Evan Tager, Mayer Brown LLP & Archis Ashok Parasharami, Mayer
Brown LLP.

Sprint Spectrum LP, Defendant, represented by Timothy L. Alger,
Perkins Coie LLP, Amanda J Beane & Kevan A. Fornasero, Perkins
Coie LLP.

Sprint Communications Company L.P., Defendant, represented by
Timothy L. Alger, Perkins Coie LLP, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Amanda J Beane & Kevan A.
Fornasero, Perkins Coie LLP.

Sprint Nextel, Defendant, represented by Timothy L. Alger,
Perkins Coie LLP, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz, Amanda J Beane & Kevan A. Fornasero,
Perkins Coie LLP.

LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeff Eric Scott, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Lori Chang, Greenberg
Traurig LLP, Rebekah Susanne Strawn Guyon, Greenberg Traurig LLP
& Ian Ballon, Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Pantech Wireless, Inc., Defendant, represented by Oluwaseun O.
Ajayi, H.C. Park and Associates, PLC.

David Ratner, Amicus, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli
Ratner, P.C..

Google Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP & Ragesh K. Tangri, Durie Tangri LLP.


DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Notice Did Not Satisfy WARN Exceptions
-------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District Court of New York issued a memorandum
opinion and order granting plaintiff's motion to strike
affirmative defenses in the adversary proceeding styled VITTORIA
CONN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v.DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-12321
(MG), ADV. PROC. NO. 12-01672 (MG).

Vittoria Conn, on behalf of herself and other former employees of
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP in this certified class action adversary
proceeding, sought to impose WARN Act liability on the Dewey
bankruptcy estate because Dewey terminated employment of the
class without providing the 60 or 90 days' advance notice
required by federal and New York law, respectively. Dewey's
answer to the complaint asserted affirmative defenses including
two that are the subject of the pending motion for partial
summary judgment or, in the alternative, for judgment on the
pleadings -- first, the "faltering company" exception to
liability, and, second, the "unforeseeable circumstances"
exception to liability.  The statutory predicate for a WARN
defendant to trigger either of these affirmative defenses is (1)
shortened notice to employees (i.e., "as much notice as is
practicable" when less than the required 60 or 90 days' notice is
given) that (2) must include a "brief statement" explaining why
these particular Exceptions to liability apply in the
circumstances.

The Plaintiff's counsel argued that the shortened notice --
including the required brief statement -- must be in writing.
Dewey's counsel acknowledged that the shortened notice must be in
writing but argued that the required brief statement need not be
included in the written notice. It is undisputed that a written
notice was given, and that it did not include the required brief
statement. Dewey argued that two separate letters plus oral
statements made at one or more meetings when some but not all
employees were present suffices to satisfy the notice
requirement. The issue for the Court, therefore, is straight-
forward: must the required brief statement be included in the
written notice before a WARN Act defendant may rely on the
faltering company or unforeseeable circumstances affirmative
defenses?

Judge Glenn concluded that the answer is YES; the notice --
including the required brief statement -- must be in writing.
Since the required brief statement was not included in the
written notice that was given here, the motion for summary
judgment or for judgment on the pleadings striking the first and
second affirmative defenses is granted, he said.

"Dewey does not qualify for the WARN Exceptions," ruled Judge
Glenn. "Dewey provided written WARN notices on shortened time.
Those notices did not contain the necessary brief statements for
Dewey to satisfy the WARN Exceptions. Although Dewey attempted to
supplement the WARN notices with firmwide meetings delivering the
brief statements, the Court rejects the argument that those
meetings complied with the WARN Acts' provisions. The facts here
demonstrate why an employer should not be permitted to deliver
the brief statements separately: not all class members attended
the meetings, and what was said is subject to dispute. Dewey's
position raises the type of post-hoc, litigation-oriented
argument that the WARN Acts' bright lines are intended to avoid."

A copy of the Bankruptcy Court's April 10, 2014 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/KSaB9X from
Leagle.com.

Outten & Golden LLP, Jack A. Raisner, Esq., 3 Park Avenue, 29th
Floor, New York, New York 10016, Attorneys for Vittoria Conn.

Goulston & Storrs, P.C., Joshua M. Davis, Esq. --
jdavis@goulstonstorrs.com -- Elizabeth K. Levine, Esq. --
elevine@goulstonstorrs.com -- 400 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, Attorneys for Dewey & Lebouef LLP, as
Defendant in Adv. Pro. No. 12-01672-mg.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fails to Reinvestigate "Inquiry," Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Edward Steed, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and Amy Summers, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00437-SCJ-ECS (N.D. Ga., February 14, 2014) is a
consumer class action brought for alleged willful violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Equifax, a consumer
reporting agency.

Despite the requirement that Equifax reinvestigate any
information that is disputed by a consumer, Equifax routinely
fails to reinvestigate "inquiry" information that is disputed by
a consumer, Mr. Steed alleges.

Equifax Information Services, LLC is a Limited Liability Company
that regularly conducts substantial business in the state of
Georgia, and which has its principal place of business in
Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          108 East Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 204
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jimfeagle@aol.com
                  jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Kris Skaar, Esq.
          Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          P.O. Box 1478
          331 Washington Ave.
          Marietta, GA 30061-1478
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          E-mail: krisskaar@aol.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com


FOXFIRE PRINTING: 7th Circuit Affirms Attorneys' Fees Award
-----------------------------------------------------------
David M. Poell, Esq., and Shannon S. Petersen, Esq., at Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton, report that In Americana Art China
Company, Inc. v. Foxfire Printing & Packaging, Inc., 743 F.3d 243
(7th Cir. Feb. 18, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's attorneys' fees
award in a class action settlement arising from the defendant's
faxing of thousands of unsolicited advertisements in violation of
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  In doing so, the
Seventh Circuit reaffirmed the district court's discretionary
power to use the lodestar method, rather than the percentage
method, to determine an appropriate fee award for class counsel.
The Seventh Circuit held that the lodestar methodology was
properly applied and permissible under the circumstances.

In this case, the plaintiff and defendant's insurer had reached a
proposed class settlement totaling $6.1 million, which was
approximately equal to the number of faxes sent (110,853) times
the per-fax damages figure offered by the insurance company
($55.03).  The proposed settlement allowed for an attorneys' fee
award of one-third the total settlement value: $2,033,333.33.
Although 24,389 of the 28,879 class members were successfully
notified of the settlement, only 1,820 returned a claim form, a
claim rate of 7%.  Concerned about an inequitable distribution of
attorneys' fees in light of the final payout to class members,
the district court applied the lodestar method instead of the
one-third percentage method requested by class counsel.  The
district court accepted the lodestar amount submitted by class
counsel and applied a risk multiplier of 1.5 to arrive at the
final fee award of only $1,147,698.70 -- a reduction of
$885,634.63 from the percentage amount requested in the proposed
settlement.

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's fee award, arguing that
the district court both misapplied the lodestar method and erred
in refusing to use the percentage method.  In affirming the
attorneys' fee award based on the lodestar method, the Seventh
Circuit reasoned that the district court did not abuse its
discretion because it properly considered the lodestar amount
submitted by class counsel and the risk multiplier warranted by
the contingent nature of the case.  The Seventh Circuit also
endorsed the district court's rationale in trying to award
attorneys' fees more equitably in light of the actual amount paid
to the class, stating "that is exactly what we have suggested a
district court should do."  The Seventh Circuit firmly rejected
plaintiff's argument that the district court committed legal
error by choosing the lodestar method over the percentage method
in a class action.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Baker" Family Joins Class Action Over Car Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Desrosiers, writing for QMI Agency, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors by the
family of a young man killed because his airbag didn't deploy.

Nick Baker was 22 where he was killed in a car crash on Oct. 18
2012, just three days after his birthday.  On March 31, more than
18 months after Nick's death, the Bakers received a letter
addressed to their son.  It was a recall notice from GM involving
the 2006 Saturn Ion Nick had been driving the night of his
accident.  The airbag in Nick's vehicle hadn't deployed at the
time of the crash.

The Bakers and their lawyer, Russel Molot have partnered with
Toronto-based firm Rochon Genova LLP, and filed the class-action
lawsuit against GM and some of its subsidiaries.  The lawsuit,
which has yet to be certified, will seek $500 million in punitive
damages.


GLOVAL INC: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, "Constenla" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Alejandro Constenla and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Gloval Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20573-KMM
(S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) alleges that the Defendant
willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gloval Inc. is a foreign corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert G. Post, Esq.
          POST & ROMERO
          3195 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 400
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-0014
          Facsimile: (305) 445-6872
          E-mail: rgp@postandromero.com


HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Court Won't Upset Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the New Jersey Supreme Court will not disturb a class-action
settlement between Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey
and about 17,000 dentists alleging improper claims processing and
violations of state prompt-payment laws.  Nor will the court
consider a request to enhance counsel fees, which leaves the
plaintiffs' law firm, Roseland's Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman,
about $190,000 short of what it was seeking.

The court's April 8 decision, declining to hear appeals in Kirsch
v. Horizon, leaves intact the 2012 agreement by which Horizon
sets aside $2.85 million and makes maximum payments of $167 to
each class member.  The company also agrees to adopt business
initiatives designed to increase transparency in claim payments,
reduce the dentists' administrative office overhead and improve
customer relations.

Petitions to the court had been filed by two dentists, Dr. Gary
Krugman and Dr. Barry Raphael, who objected to the agreement,
which they called a "meager monetary settlement" for the dentists
involved with only "minor business reforms" of no quantifiable
value.

"It's disappointing," says one of the objectors' lawyers, Barry
D. Epstein of Rochelle Park.  "We believe there were important
public policy issues involved."

Mr. Epstein acknowledges that the objectors were victorious in at
least one respect: getting the enhanced fee sought by Mazie
Slater eliminated.

The settlement was reached after seven years of litigation.  As
part of the agreement, Horizon also agreed to set aside a maximum
of $2.5 million for counsel fees.  Essex County Superior Court
Judge Paul Vichness approved Mazie Slater's application for 3,035
hours at $600 per hour, total $1.821 million.  He added another
$488,713 in costs, bringing the total to $2,309,713.

Mazie Slater then sought a 25 percent enhancement amounting to
$455,250, of its base fee, meaning that the $2.5 million set
aside by Horizon for counsel fees and costs would have been
exhausted. Judge Vichness approved the enhancement but the
objectors appealed.  Appellate Division Judges Allison Accurso,
Jane Grall and Ellen Koblitz affirmed approval of the settlement
in an unpublished opinion last Oct. 7, saying Judge Vichness did
not abuse his discretion.

But the appeals court overturned the fee enhancement. Citing the
Supreme Court's rulings in Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 343
(1995), and Walker v. Giuffre, 209 N.J. 124 (2012), the judges
said contingency enhancements are "only available in those cases
that our Legislature has selected for statutory fee-shifting so
as to achieve its broader public purposes of attracting counsel
to socially beneficial litigation."  This was not such a case,
they said.

The appeals court also chided two feuding former law partners for
trying to "upend settlements involving thousands of plaintiffs
with the aim of depriving the other of fees."

Horizon had agreed not to oppose or appeal any fee award below
the $2.5 million cap and took no position on appeal.

"Although objectors and class counsel make a show of contesting
the merits of the settlement, the real dispute is over the fees,"
the judges said, finding the objectors were "prompted by class
counsel's estranged former partner."

Mazie Slater was formed in 2006 when David Mazie --
dmazie@mskf.net -- led a defection from Nagel, Rice & Mazie, a
firm headed by Bruce Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com

The parting was acrimonious and Messrs. Mazie and Nagel remained
bitter rivals.

Mr. Nagel's firm is now Nagel Rice.  He was not the objectors'
attorney of record, but there was no dispute that he had prompted
the objection, the appeals court said.

The appeals court blamed Messrs. Mazie and Nagel equally, but
Mr. Mazie said at the time that he had objected to only one of
Mr. Nagel's settlements while Nagel has objected to three of his.

Mr. Nagel said at the time Mazie Slater created the acrimonious
situation by having one of its lawyers attend a hearing and
criticize the terms of settlement of one of its class actions.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Eric Katz -- ekatz@mskf.net
-- of Mazie Slater, declined to comment.


JENNIFER SHAFFER: Court Okays Class Cert. Bid in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller issued an order granting,
among other things, a motion for class certification filed in the
lawsuit captioned SAM JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER SHAFFER, et
al., Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-1059 KJM AC, (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed this civil rights action seeking relief under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.  On November 1, 2013, the
magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were
served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties
that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to
be filed within 14 days.

Judge Mueller's March 31, 2014 order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Cqzn95from Leagle.com, provides that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 1, 2013 are
   adopted in full.

2. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted.

3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and
  denied in part.

4. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for May 1,
   2014 at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom Three.
5. At least 21 calendar days before the Status Conference is
held,
   parties will confer as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 26 and Local Rule 240(b), and submit a Joint Status
   Report.

Sam Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Keith Allen Wattley --
kwattley@uncommonlaw.org -- UnCommon Law.

Jennifer Shaffer, Defendant, represented by Heather M Heckler,
Office Of The Attorney General & Megan R. O'Carroll, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.

Matthew Cate, Defendant, represented by Heather M Heckler, Office
Of The Attorney General & Megan R. O'Carroll, Attorney General's
Office of the State of California.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Defendant, represented by Heather M
Heckler, Office Of The Attorney General & Megan R. O'Carroll,
Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Cliff Kusaj, Ph. D., Chief Psychologist, Defendant, represented
by Heather M Heckler, Office Of The Attorney General & Megan R.
O'Carroll, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Richard Hayward, Staff Psychologist, Defendant, represented by
Heather M Heckler, Office Of The Attorney General & Megan R.
O'Carroll, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Thomas Powers, Commissioner, Defendant, represented by Heather M
Heckler, Office Of The Attorney General & Megan R. O'Carroll,
Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Al Fulbright, Deputy Commissioner, Defendant, represented by
Heather M Heckler, Office Of The Attorney General & Megan R.
O'Carroll, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.


LONG BEACH, CA: Police Officers' Class Action Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Stewart, writing for Orange County Register, reports that
after taking a hiatus for the primary election, the Long Beach
City Council was set to reconvene on April 15 to discuss settling
a class-action lawsuit with city police officers, rebuilding the
Alamitos Bay Marina and demolishing the Belmont Plaza Pool.

The settlement involves nine police officers who were part of a
class-action lawsuit, and the city would pay $43,405.56 to the
plaintiffs, plus $101,983.16 in attorney fees.  The lawsuit
accused the city of violating the Fair Labor Standards act by not
paying officers for the time they spent putting on and taking off
their uniforms before and after their shift and involved 790
officers.

The case was settled by giving them 25 hours of vacation time,
but the nine officers decided to "opt out" of the original
settlement. Now, however, they're agreeing to the same terms as
the earlier settlement.


MACY'S INC: Accused of Violating ADA Over Inaccessible POS Device
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Kafati, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Macy's, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20579-CMA
(S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) accuses the Defendant of failing
to design, construct, and own or operate Point of Sale Devices
that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind
people, including the Plaintiff.

Macy's, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Boese, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Anderson, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com
                  tanderson@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marie Therese Vento, Esq.
          Sheila Marie Cesarano, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 1500 Miami Center
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347-7318
          Facsimile: (305) 347-7876
          E-mail: tvento@shutts.com
                  scesarano@shutts.com


MERION CORP: Sued by Wait Person in N.J. Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Guzman v. The Merion Corp. a/k/a Merion Caterers, Inc.,
and Vinny Mazzella, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00963-RBK-AMD
(D.N.J., February 14, 2014) is brought as a collective action on
behalf of similarly situated wait persons, who suffered damages
as a result of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Merion Corp., also known as Merion Caterers, Inc., is in the
event planning/catering business.  Merion is headquartered in
Cinnaminson, Burlington County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Building 2, Suite 220
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory S. Hyman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK LLP
          1777 Sentry Park West
          Dublin Hall, Suite 100
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (215) 461-1100
          Facsimile: (215) 461-1300
          E-mail: ghyman@kdvglaw.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 11 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Northern District of California, and
docketed under 3:14-cv-01160, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
MagnaChip securities between January 30, 2013 and March 11, 2014,
both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased MagnaChip securities
during the Class Period, you have until May 12, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation designs and manufactures
analog and mixed-signal semiconductor products for high-volume
consumer applications.  MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation
provides its products and services to consumer electronics OEMs,
subsystem designers, and contract manufacturers through a direct
sales force, as well as through a network of authorized agents
and distributors in the United States, Korea, Taiwan, China,
Japan, Hong Kong, and Macau.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked
adequate controls over financial reporting; (ii) the Company was
improperly recognizing revenues; (iii) the Company's prior
financial statements required restatement; and (iv) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On Jan. 27, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company
announced that it would postpone its fourth quarter 2013 earnings
release and investor conference call, previously scheduled for
Tuesday, January 28, 2014, to provide additional time for the
Company to complete its review of its financial results for the
fourth quarter and full year 2013.  On this news, MagnaChip
securities declined $1.41 per share, or over 8%, to close at
$16.16 per share on January 28, 2014.

On March 11, 2014, the Company issued a press release announcing
the need to restate its prior financial statements, as well as
identifying material weaknesses in its internal controls.  On
this news, the Company's shares fell as much as $1.83, or about
13%, to as low as $12.50 in intraday trading on March 11, 2014.

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


MILESTONE CAPITAL: Sued Over Accessibility Barriers at Facilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Amelio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Milestone Capital Corporation; Milestone Hotel
Partners; Milestone Hospitality Management; and, Milestone
Development Group, Case No. 1:14-cv-00273-SHR (M.D. Pa.,
February 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, in connection
with accessibility barriers at various properties owned and
managed by the Defendants.

Mr. Amelio has a mobility disability and is limited in the major
life activity of walking.  Specifically, he has damage to his
spinal cord, which has caused him to rely on a wheelchair for
mobility.

Milestone Capital Corporation, Milestone Hotel Partners,
Milestone Hospitality Management, and Milestone Development Group
are headquartered at in Baltimore, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, 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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason G. Benion, Esq.
          Sarah C. Yerger, Esq.
          POST & SCHELL, PC
          17 North Second Street, 12th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601
          Telephone: (717) 612-6054
          E-mail: jbenion@postschell.com
                  syerger@postschell.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: June 9 Trial Set in Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, Aaron Vehling and Dan Ivers, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on April 11 declined to
dismiss student athletes' class action claims that the National
Collegiate Athletic Association violated antitrust laws by not
paying players for the use of their names and likenesses, ruling
that free speech rights did not bar the claims.

In a 48-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken rejected
the NCAA's argument that its First Amendment rights preempted the
players' demands for a portion of the revenue generated by its
licensing of televised sporting events.  Judge Wilken questioned
how the NCAA could bar some broadcasters from games through
exclusive licenses if they were a form of protected speech.

"The First Amendment does not guarantee media organizations an
unlimited right to broadcast entire college football and
basketball games," the opinion said.

The decision means the long-running case will be heard before a
jury, barring an unexpected settlement.  Opening arguments are
currently scheduled to begin on June 9.  The written opinion
follows Judge Wilken's ruling at oral arguments in February that
she would not grant complete summary judgment to either side.

Judge Wilken also constrained the NCAA's possible defenses at
trial, ruling that it could not argue that not paying players for
their likenesses increased competition by boosting support for
women's sports and less prominent men's sports.  The NCAA had
argued that the restriction increases overall revenue, netting
less popular sports more money.

But Judge Wilken found that this was not a procompetitive
justification because it did not address competition among
Division I basketball and football teams, the relevant market for
the case.  The NCAA could also support less popular teams through
less restrictive policies, such as giving those teams a greater
share of licensing revenue.

NCAA Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy contested the court's
finding.

"The NCAA and member schools are committed to addressing areas
for improvement in the current system," he said in a statement.
"But efforts to twist legitimate concerns about the current
system into a rationale for paying student-athletes would do far
more harm than good and would severely diminish the opportunities
for academic and athletic achievement student-athletes benefit
from today."

The opinion laid out guidelines for two of the NCAA's other
possible defenses.  The NCAA had claimed the restriction
increases competition between teams because it prevents richer
teams from using their money to gain a recruiting advantage.
Judge Wilken found the NCAA's evidence "self-serving" and that it
will have to show empirical evidence that maintaining competition
impacts consumer demand in order to make that argument at trial.
The NCAA will also have to show there were not less restrictive
ways to maintain that competition.

Similarly, the NCAA will have to show how its restrictions
improve the educational missions of colleges, increasing their
competition for students, in order to argue a defense that its
policy integrates education and athletics.

The litigation over the NCAA's use of athletes' likenesses dates
back to 2009, when former UCLA basketball standout Ed O'Bannon
Jr. filed a putative class action claiming the organization had
profited off his and other athletes' likenesses on television and
in licensed video games, while the athletes themselves were
barred from being compensated.  In November, the court certified
the class, which consists of current and former college athletes
who played for NCAA Division I men's football and basketball from
1953 to present, according to court documents.  But the court
denied certification to a subclass that sought potentially
billions in past damages allegedly caused by not being able to
reap the benefits of collectively licensing their images. The
April 11 opinion denied plaintiffs' request to revisit the
ruling, finding that even if new information lifted one barrier
to class manageability, other barriers still existed.

Several former athletes, including basketball legends
Bill Russell, who played for the University of San Francisco, and
Oscar Robertson, a former University of Cincinnati athlete,
comprised the suit originally, but in July 2013 six active
athletes joined them.  They alleged in an amended complaint that
the NCAA's rules regarding amateur status prevented athletes from
profiting off the use of their names and likenesses.

The suit originally named video-game maker Electronic Arts and
the Collegiate Licensing Company, but the companies escaped in
September by agreeing to pay thousands of current and former NCAA
student-athletes a combined $40 million.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael D. Hausfeld, Michael P.
Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- Hilary K. Scherrer --
hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com -- and Sathya S. Gosselin --
sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP and Robert B. Carey
-- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Leonard W. Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com --
and Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The NCAA is represented by Glenn D. Pomerantz --
Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com -- Kelly M. Klaus -- Kelly.Klaus@mto.com
-- Rohit K. Singla -- Rohit.Singla@mto.com -- and Carolyn Hoecker
Luedtke -- Carolyn.Luedtke@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP and Gregory K. Curtner, Robert J. Wierenga and Kimberly K.
Kefalas of Schiff Hardin LLP.

The case is In re: NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing
Litigation, case number 4:09-cv-01967, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: No New Ruling on Concussion Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer,
reports that the federal judge handling the NFL concussion
litigation clarified on April 17 that she has issued no new
rulings in the case.

An order filed earlier last week reiterated her January opinion
that denied preliminary approval to the $760 million settlement
agreement reached by the National Football League and the former
players who sustained various types of brain injuries while they
played for NFL teams.

In January, U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania had ordered the parties to divulge the
data on which the settlement had been based because she wasn't
convinced that there would be enough money to cover all of the
former players, which could number as many as 20,000.

The short, one-sentence order issued on April 16 had prompted
some plaintiffs lawyers in the case to speculate that the judge
was underlining her January opinion.  However, she clarified that
it "was not a new decision by the court, but simply a
housekeeping and electronic filing entry of the same order the
court already entered on Jan. 14."   The "order does not reflect
any new ruling or new concerns by the court," the judge said.

"The parties are continuing to work with the court and its
special master to address the issues raised in the court's order
dated Jan. 14," Judge Brody said.

                           *     *     *

In a prior report, Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal
Intelligencer, said that in a one-sentence order April 16, Judge
Brody again declined to approve the accord, but also denied class
action status to some groups of plaintiffs.  The latest order
amplifies a January opinion in which Judge Brody ordered the
parties to divulge data on which the settlement had been based
because she wasn't convinced that there would be enough money to
cover all of the former players who sustained various types of
brain injuries while they played for National Football League
teams.

"We didn't know how long it would take," said Michael McCann,
director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the
University of New Hampshire School of Law.  The "judge made it
clear that they need to be more precise in their math and
projections," he said.

Considering the size of the potential class of 20,000 members,
Judge Brody had said in her January opinion, "Even if only 10
percent of retired NFL football players eventually receive a
qualifying diagnosis, it is difficult to see how the monetary
award fund would have the funds available over its life span to
pay all claimants at these significant award levels."

More than 4,500 retired players filed suits, which were
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in
2012 to Judge Brody's court, and the settlement class is likely
to include more than 20,000 members, according to Judge Brody's
January opinion.

In December, the judge had appointed Perry Golkin to be the
special master tasked with helping to assess the integrity of the
settlement.  She ordered the documentation from the economists
and actuaries whose work the settlement was based on to be given
to Mr. Golkin.

"The appointment is warranted because of the expected financial
complexity of the proposed settlement," Judge Brody had said.
The judge didn't have all of the information undergirding the
settlement three months ago, so it's not surprising that there
hasn't yet been a new agreement, said Thomas V. Girardi of
Girardi Keese in Los Angeles, who is on the plaintiffs executive
committee.  "She's been getting additional information and
weighing it," Mr. Girardi said.

Mr. McCann said he thinks a new settlement agreement will be
reached later this year and it will ultimately involve a larger
lump sum of money and include more specificity on the delivery
mechanisms.

Judge Brody has signaled her preference for settling the case.
In a two-page order announcing the accord reached in August,
Judge Brody said, "From the outset of this litigation, I have
expressed my belief that the interests of all parties would be
best served by a negotiated resolution of this case."

"The settlement holds the prospect of avoiding lengthy, expensive
and uncertain litigation, and of enhancing the game of football,"
she had said.

When she denied preliminary approval in January, Judge Brody had
said, "I am primarily concerned that not all retired NFL football
players who ultimately receive a qualifying diagnosis or their
related claimants will be paid."  But she tempered her concern by
saying, "There is nothing to indicate that the settlement is not
the result of good-faith, arm's-length negotiations between
adversaries."

The settlement was announced at the end of August, after Judge
Brody had sent the parties to mediation with a retired federal
trial judge from the Tenth Circuit, Layn Phillips.

Lawyers for the former football players who brought the suit had
characterized the settlement as being quite unique at the time it
was announced.  The last similarly-scaled injury classwide
settlement that came through the Eastern District was the suit
against the diet drug called Fen-Phen.

The proposed settlement, which included no admission of liability
on the part of the NFL, devoted $75 million to baseline medical
exams for any of the nearly 20,000 former players who are likely
to be eligible for the class settlement.  The bulk of the money,
$675 million, was to be kept in a fund from which players could
draw according to a weighted assessment of their condition.

"Despite the potential benefits of class actions, their binding
effect on absentee parties remains a significant concern,"
Judge Brody had said in her January opinion.

After the action is resolved, class members can't litigate the
same claims against the defendant, Judge Brody explained.


NAT'L HOCKEY: Faces Class Action Over Culture of Violence
---------------------------------------------------------
Katie Moisse, writing for ABC News, reports that a new lawsuit
that accuses the NHL of putting profits before safety is littered
with images of bloodied, toothless hockey players.  The class
action suit, filed on April 9 in federal court in New York on
behalf of nine former players, claims the league "fosters a
culture of 'enforcers' and 'goons.'"

"[The players] have suffered and will continue to suffer serious
health problems as a result of the NHL's sophisticated use of
extreme violence to bring fans to the game in hockey arenas, on
television, the radio and the Internet," the lawsuit claims.

The nine former players are Dan LaCouture, Dan Keczmer, Jack
Carlson, Richard Brennan, Brad Maxwell, Michael Peluso, Tom
Younghans, Allan Rourke and Scott Bailey.  Mr. LaCouture, 36, was
involved in 52 fights and "suffers from headaches, irritability,
sensitivity to light, change of personality, and depression,"
according to the lawsuit.  Mr. Peluso, 48, was involved 179
fights in NHL games and is one of just four players to incur over
400 penalty minutes in a single season, the suit states.

The 110-page complaint includes 51 images ranging from grainy
black-and-whites to high-resolution broadcast screen grabs.  Some
images capture bench-clearing brawls in action, while others show
injured players being carried off the ice.

A spread of six images from the 2010 documentary, "Broad Street
Bullies" shows one player with blood streaming down his face and
another grinning with no front teeth.

"Popular culture has reflected the fused association between
extreme violence and the NHL in many different media," the
lawsuit reads, citing the goalie mask-wearing killer in "Friday
the 13th" as an example of hockey's culture of violence.

The complaint also calls out "incidents" from nearly a century
ago, including the "the Coutu Incidents" of 1925, in which
Wilfrid Arthur Coutu incurred a measly $50 fine after severing
another player's ear, and "the Richard Incident" of 1955, in
which Maurice Richard was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame
six years after punching a referee in the face.

But the bulk of the complaint criticizes the NHL for failing to
protect players from the dangers of head trauma -- a claim that
mirrors a class action filed by former NFL players that resulted
in a $765 million settlement last summer.

The complaint is the second class action suit filed against the
NHL. The league's deputy commissioner Bill Daly said he intends
to "defend the case vigorously."

"While the subject matter is very serious, we are completely
satisfied with the responsible manner in which the League and the
Players' Association have managed Player safety over time,
including with respect to head injuries and concussions," he said
in a statement.

A growing body of research has linked repeated head trauma to
chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE -- a disorder marked
memory loss, impaired judgment, aggression and depression. At
least four NHL players have been diagnosed with CTE after death,
including New York Rangers enforcer Derek Boogaard, who died from
a drug overdose in 2011.

Paul Anderson, a Kansas City, Mo.-based attorney who founded
NFLConcussionLitigation.com, said the graphic new class action
"certainly has merit," but went "overboard."

"I think using multiple pictures in a complaint is unnecessary,"
he said.  "I think they're going to lose credibility with the
judge."


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for June 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Daily Transcript, the law firm of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP reported that a hearing will be held on June 20
before U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia at the Edward J.
Schwartz U.S. Courthouse on West Broadway to determine if the
proposed $16 million settlement for the class action suit against
Novatel Wireless Inc. is fair and adequate.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit Alleging Lipitor-Related Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy A. Anderson, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation;
and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-at-00203 (E.D. Cal.,
February 14, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendants' alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies,
and medical practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
          Matthew Ramon Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
                  mlopez@lopezmchugh.com

               - and -

          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com
                  lcraig@myadvocates.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
          Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
                  vic@feazell-tighe.com
                  eleeza@feazell-tighe.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Calvin" Suit in California Over Lipitor Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Calvin, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation; and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-cv-00490-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.,
February 14, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendants' alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies,
and medical practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
          Matthew Ramon Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
                  mlopez@lopezmchugh.com

               - and -

          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com
                  lcraig@myadvocates.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
          Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
                  vic@feazell-tighe.com
                  eleeza@feazell-tighe.com


PFIZER INC: Sued in California Over Injury Related to Lipitor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Calvin, an Individual v. Pfizer Inc., a corporation; and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-at-00204 (E.D. Cal.,
February 14, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendants' alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies,
and medical practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
          Matthew Ramon Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
                  mlopez@lopezmchugh.com

               - and -

          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com
                  lcraig@myadvocates.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
          Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
                  vic@feazell-tighe.com
                  eleeza@feazell-tighe.com


SAKS FIFTH: Sued for Failing to Own Blind-Accessible POS Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Kafati, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
20578-MGC (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2014) is brought against the
Defendant for failing to design, construct, and own or operate
Point of Sale Devices that are fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, blind people, including the Plaintiff.

Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation
headquartered in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Boese, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Anderson, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com
                  tanderson@leoncosgrove.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Shumpert" Suit Over Toning Shoes
-----------------------------------------------------
Melinda Shumpert, 809 New Temple Road, Fulton, MS 38843 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00130-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "LaFontaine" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Lafontaine, 37 Phillipswood Rd., Sandown, NH 03873 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00135-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes
------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Martin, 1834 Hale Rd., Wilmington, OH 45177 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00136-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Wade" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Wade, 2949 Filbert St., Raleigh, NC 27610 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00132-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Wuertz" Suit Over Shape Up Toning Shoes
------------------------------------------------------------
Edith Wuertz, 609 Vetmor Lane, Palm Harbor, FL 34683 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00125-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Paalman" Suit Over Toning Shoes
----------------------------------------------------
Tina Paalman, 1687 Ridgeway Dr., Greenville, WI 54942 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00127-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Wilbert" Suit Over Toning Shoes
----------------------------------------------------
Megan Wilbert, 724 Union Ave., Sheboygan, WI 53081 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00124-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "McEvoy" Suit Over Toning Shoes
---------------------------------------------------
Marilynn McEvoy, 7021 Ollmeda St., Saint Joseph, MO 64504 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00134-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Stewart" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Stewart, 16614 Crimson Sargent St., Charlotte, NC 28213
v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00129-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Burks-McLaughlin" Suit Over Toning Shoes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ramonda Burks-McLaughlin, P.O. Box 6370, Gulfport, MS 39506 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00128-TBR (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of Shape-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits, including improved cardiac function and
orthopedic benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


STEWART'S SHOPS: Faces Class Action Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Kelly, writing for Watertown Daily Times, reports that a
dozen people have joined a Lewis County woman in a proposed $20
million federal class-action lawsuit against Stewart's Shops Inc.
over alleged violations of state and federal wage and hour laws.

Holly Gregory filed action on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated in U.S. District Court, Syracuse, in January
against the Saratoga Springs-based convenience-store chain, which
operates stores throughout the north country.  She claims that
hour and wage violations adversely affect about 4,500 employees
throughout 330 convenience stores in New York and Vermont.

When Ms. Gregory filed the action, she was the lone plaintiff,
but 12 people filed consents with the court last week agreeing to
join the suit.  Attorney Ryan M. Finn, Latham, who is
representing Ms. Gregory, said he believes more will follow.

"Our firm heard from more than 200 people that are interested,"
Mr. Finn said on April 11.  "I believe that as more people join,
it becomes easier for others to join."

The action must be certified by the court as a class action,
which has not yet happened.  If it becomes certified, all
employees who are believed to have been in a situation similar to
Ms. Gregory's will be notified of their option to join the suit.
Stewart's has not filed a response to the suit, as Mr. Finn was
planning to file an amended complaint by April 18 and the company
has indicated in court documents that it will respond to the
amended complaint within 30 days.

According to the suit, the company has systematically failed to
pay its workforce for all hours worked, allegedly resulting in
employees being paid below state and federal minimum wage.  It
further is claimed that the company has received a special permit
from the state Department of Labor to allow 20-minute paid meal
breaks under certain circumstances, but does not provide the
breaks or other breaks called for under state law.

Ms. Gregory, who worked at the Stewart's in West Carthage, claims
that among her duties was closing the store at 11:30 p.m., with
her scheduled day to end by 11:45 p.m.  However, she maintains
that most nights she ended up working until 12:30 a.m. or 1:00
a.m., additional time for which she was not compensated.  She
brought the issue up with her manager and assistant manager, but
was told repeatedly she would not be paid for the extra time,
according to the suit.

She also claims the company has a policy requiring employees to
show up early for their shifts to discuss work tasks so the
transition between shifts is smooth.  Likewise, employees are
expected to stay after their shifts to assist in the transition.
Ms. Gregory contends that, on average, she worked an additional
15 minutes per shift without being paid to help with the shift
changes.  The stores do not use a time clock or punch card and
employees are paid based on the hours they are scheduled to work
"and are discouraged from making changes to the schedule to
reflect time actually worked," the suit states.


SUMMER BAY: Dist. Court Certifies "Lowell" Suit as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY P. LOWELL, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUMMER BAY
MANAGEMENT, L.C., SUMMER BAY PARTNERSHIP, and JOE H. SCOTT, SR.
Defendants, NO. 3:13-CV-229-TAV-CCS, (E.D. Tenn.) is before the
Court on the Report and Recommendation (the R&R) entered by
United States Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., on
February 18, 2014.  In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Shirley
recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

After a careful review of the matter, Chief District Judge Thomas
A. Varlan issued an order holding that the Court is in agreement
with Magistrate Judge Shirley's recommendations, which the Court
adopts and incorporates into its ruling.  The Court accepts in
whole the R&R. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
granted and the proposed class is certified as a class action.

Attorneys Christopher T. Cain, Thomas S. Scott, Jr., of Scott &
Cain, and W. Allen McDonald, of Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C. are
appointed as class counsel.

A copy of the District Court's March 17, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/L4Erxrfrom Leagle.com.

Larry P Lowell, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by W. Allen McDonald,
Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C., and:

   Chris T Cain, Esq.
   Thomas S Scott, Jr., Esq.
   SCOTT & CAIN
   550 W. Main St., Suite 601
   Knoxville, TN 37902
   Telephone: (865) 525-2150

Nancy Jane Lowell, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain, Scott
& Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen McDonald,
Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C..

Bryan Wayne Bleckley, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain,
Scott & Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen
McDonald, Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C..

Jeanne Elizabeth Bleckley, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T
Cain, Scott & Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen
McDonald, Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C..

Laura Terrell Sasser, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain,
Scott & Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen
McDonald, Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C..

Marc Anthony Sasser, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain,
Scott & Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen
McDonald, Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C..

Patricia K Watts, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain, Scott &
Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen McDonald, Lacy,
Price & Wagner, P.C..

Claude N Ledgerwood, III, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain,
Scott & Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen
McDonald, Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C..

Bonita Ledgerwood, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain, Scott
& Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen McDonald,
Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C..

Eric Jiminez, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain, Scott &
Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen McDonald, Lacy,
Price & Wagner, P.C..

Jennifer Deal, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T Cain, Scott &
Cain, Thomas S Scott, Jr, Scott & Cain & W. Allen McDonald, Lacy,
Price & Wagner, P.C..

Summer Bay Management, L.C., Defendant, is represented by:

   Jeffrey R Murrell, Esq.
   Richard Alexander Johnson, Esq.
   Johnson, Murrell and Associates, P.C.
   150 Court Avenue
   Sevierville, TN 37862
   Telephone: (865)453-1091
   Facsimile: (865) 453-9934

Summer Bay Partnership, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey R
Murrell, Johnson, Murrell and Associates, P.C. & Richard
Alexander Johnson, Johnson, Murrell and Associates, P.C..

Joe H Scott, Sr, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey R Murrell,
Johnson, Murrell and Associates, P.C. & Richard Alexander
Johnson, Johnson, Murrell and Associates, P.C.


SYED ALI: Court Narrows Claims in "Sandoval" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granted in part and
denied in part a motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned RAFAEL
SANDOVAL, ET AL, Plaintiff, v. SYED ALI, ET AL, Defendant, NO.
C-13-03230(EDL), (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Rafael Sandoval and Luis Calixto allege, on behalf of
themselves and a putative class, that Defendants failed to comply
with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216,
California labor law, and California unfair competition law.
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
with prejudice, to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations, and to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.

Judge Laporte dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiffs' FLSA
claim against all Defendants except Autowest, M1 Collision Care
Centers, Inc., Bobby Ali, and Rick Ali. The Court further
dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiffs' state law claims
against all Defendants except Autowest and M1 Collision Care
Centers, Inc. The Court struck Plaintiffs' class allegations with
leave to amend and struck the word "damages" from Plaintiffs'
unfair competition claim without leave to amend. The Court
declined to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel at this stage of the
proceedings on the present record.

The Court will hold a further case management conference on
May 23, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom E,
15th Floor, in San Francisco, California. The parties' joint case
management statement is due May 16, 2014.

A copy of the District Court's March 28, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/01pbhWfrom Leagle.com.

Rafael Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by Tomas Eduardo Margain
-- margainlaw@hotmail.com -- CASA Legal, Hector R. Martinez --
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Huy Ngoc Tran --
Huy@JAWLawGroup.com -- CASA Legal, Marco A Palau --
mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Phung Hoang
Truong -- phung@jawlawgroup.com -- Justice at Work Law Group &
Stanley Scott Mallison -- stanm@mallisonlaw.com -- Mallison &
Martinez.

Luis Martin Calixto, Plaintiff, represented by Tomas Eduardo
Margain, CASA Legal, Hector R. Martinez, Mallison & Martinez, Huy
Ngoc Tran, CASA Legal, Marco A Palau, Mallison & Martinez &
Stanley Scott Mallison, Mallison & Martinez.

Bobby A. Ali, Defendant, represented by Kara L. Arguello --
kara.arguello@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen & Christine H. Long
-- christine.long@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen.

Rick Ali, Defendant, represented by Kara L. Arguello, Berliner
Cohen & Christine H. Long, Berliner Cohen.

M1 Auto Collisions Centers, Defendant, represented by Kara L.
Arguello, Berliner Cohen & Christine H. Long, Berliner Cohen.

M1 Colllision Care Centers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kara
L. Arguello, Berliner Cohen & Christine H. Long, Berliner Cohen.

Autovest Collision Repairs, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kara
L. Arguello, Berliner Cohen & Christine H. Long, Berliner Cohen.

MB Body Shop of San Francisco, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kara L. Arguello, Berliner Cohen & Christine H. Long, Berliner
Cohen.

Serramonte Auto Plaza Body Shop, Inc. Inc., Defendant,
represented by Kara L. Arguello, Berliner Cohen & Christine H.
Long, Berliner Cohen.


TELUS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Texting Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Enyeart, writing for eCanadaNow, reports that Telecom giant
Telus has lost their class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
their 177,425 customers who claimed their texting fees increased
without proper notice.  At issue was the fact that Telus
increased the fee for each incoming message to 15 cents.  The
result was higher than expected bills.  In her ruling, Justice
Marie-Anne Paquette of the Quebec Superior Court, stated that
Canada mandates a very explicit process for notifying customers
of rate changes.  Unlike the Unite States, telecoms cannot play
the "read the fine print" game.

Owing to the fact that the rate change was not made sufficiently
clear, Telus has been ordered to pay $2.6 million to customers.
Now, it is not sure if that is the amount going directly to the
customers or if that first goes to the law firm to take a chunk
of the loot first and let customers get what's left.  If all the
money were to go back to the customers (as unlikely as that is)
each would get a little more than $15 apiece.

Telus claims their customers are ninnies incapable of reading
their plainly worded notifications. Well, that's not quite how
they phrased it, but that can be the only other explanation.
Telus was adamant that they made the rate change clear to their
customers and if that is the case all 177,425 of them goofed up.
In addition, Telus says they offered their customers special rate
plans to allow them to enjoy unlimited texting.  That may be, but
the price of those deals is cost prohibitive for many.  The
telecoms have resisted any real competition and in many places
throughout Canada, the rate plans between the telecoms are nearly
identical taking price away as a reason for switching.  Telus
hasn't decided if they will appeal the ruling.


TIMBERCORP: High Court Dismisses Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Taylor, writing for Money Management, reports that investors
burned by the collapse of Timbercorp might have the option of
recovering losses from the financial planners or accountants who
advised them into the product, according to a Slater & Gordon
lawyer.

The lawyer, James Naughton, suggested the possibility of action
against planners and accountants following the failure of a class
action by investors against the failed Timbercorp.  He suggested
that investors who borrowed money from Timbercorp Finance might
still be able to recover some of their losses, despite the High
Court on April 11 dismissing a class action against Timbercorp
when it refused to grant investors leave to appeal an earlier
Victorian Court of Appeal decision.

Around 14,500 investors borrowed a total of $477.8 million from
Timbercorp Finance to invest into Timbercorp before the managed
investment scheme collapsed and was placed in liquidation in
2009. Commenting on the April 11 High Court decision, Mr.
Naughton said the High Court's decision was not the end of the
road for Timbercorp Finance investors, but suggested their
options were increasingly limited and urged that the borrowers
carefully consider their options and seek legal advice.

"One option may be for investors to consider whether they can
recover losses against their financial planner or accountant in
circumstances where the advice provided to them to invest in an
agribusiness scheme was inappropriate, especially in
circumstances where the risks of investing in their scheme were
not adequately disclosed," he said.

Mr. Naughton said the strength of these claims would depend on
the advice provided and it was important to get an objective view
on those matters before considering litigation.

"There are strict time limits that apply to investors making
claims against their advisers.  Once the time limit expires,
investors may be completely barred from bringing a claim, even if
that claim had good prospects of success," he said.

In the meantime, a group formed to represent grower borrowers
impacted by the Timbercorp collapse, the Agricultural Growers
Action Group, has called on the major creditor, the ANZ, for a
negotiated settlement.

AGA chairman Neil White said the group would continue to fight
for a negotiated settlement with the ANZ and that he was
confident of striking a deal with the ANZ bank if commercial
logic prevails.


TRANSLINK: Faces Class Action Over Upcoming Compass Card System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Meiszner and Geoff Hastings, writing for GlobalNews.ca,
report that the company behind Translink's upcoming Compass card
system is being sued in the U.S.

Translink has a $220 million contract with Cubic Transportation
Systems to operate its Compass card system which has been rolling
out in phases for months now.  Three class action lawsuits have
been launched in Chicago by people who say the system doesn't
work properly.

Chicago's card, called "Ventra," is similar to Compass and
launched last month, Some users are alleging they have been
getting double and even triple-billed when they "tap in" with the
card.  Other users are having problems scanning their cards, and
there are allegedly billing-method errors. In addition, users'
debit cards are accidentally being scanned instead of their
Venture cards.  In addition, an estimated 950,000 users have
received free rides on Chicago's transit system due to alleged
problems with the system.

Translink says they are aware of what's happening in Chicago, but
we shouldn't worry here because our system is different.

"It's a different system," says Mike Madill, spokesperson for
Translink.  "It's a debit card type of system, and they've
partnered with a financial institution to make that work. What we
are doing here in Vancouver is a closed-loop transit card."

The lawyer for the class action lawsuit, Tom Zimmerman, says
reports of problems are not uncommon.  "There are reports from
around the world -- London, Chicago, Atlanta and the other cities
-- where these Cubic systems have been installed, demonstrate
that there are problems with these rollouts," says Mr. Zimmerman.
"I can speak to Chicago for sure, that the problems persist long
after the rollout -- so you're next."

None of the U.S. allegations have been proven in court and the
company denies the claims.  As for when Metro Vancouver commuters
will be able to start using the Compass card, Translink refused
to give a timeline to Global News during interviews on April 11.
Translink says 85,000 people are already using the cards in Metro
Vancouver, and the cards will continue to be rolled out in phases
-- with the next phases scheduled to be West Coast Express riders
and U-Pass holders followed by the general public.  We just don't
know when.


U-HAUL CO: Removed "Marquand" Suit to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Marquand v. U-Haul Co.
of Florida, Case No. 14-000360-CI, was removed from the 6th
Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00402-VMC-TGW to the
proceeding.

Meggan Marquand alleges that she regularly and routinely worked
for U-Haul as a residential general manager in excess of 40 hours
per work week without overtime compensation.

U-Haul Co. of Florida, doing business as U-Haul, is a Florida
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          Rachael Lynne Wood, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: cdg@FlorinRoebig.com
                  rwood@florinroebig.com
                  fgo@florinroebig.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Michael DeMaio, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS, PC
          701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 455-3700
          Facsimile: (305) 374-0456
          E-mail: david.demaio@odnss.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Attempts to Save Arbitration Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the court
has already shot down Uber once, but the rideshare company was
set to try again on April 18 to convince a federal judge it
shouldn't have to tell new drivers about a pending class action
before binding them to arbitration.

In a motion for reconsideration, Uber Technologies Inc. argues
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen overstepped his authority in
December when he ordered Uber to change the arbitration agreement
it asks new drivers to sign.  Judge Chen can only dictate Uber's
communications with members of the potential class, not new
drivers, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner Robert Hendricks --
rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- argued on behalf of Uber.

"The court manifestly failed to consider the material fact . . .
that since the filing of the complaint Uber has issued the
challenged arbitration agreement only to prospective users of its
software application service, who are by definition not members
of the putative class," Mr. Hendricks wrote.

Uber, a car service that links drivers and riders using a
smartphone app, is under fire for claims it withheld tips
customers believed drivers were receiving and failed to reimburse
drivers for expenses.  The company inserted an arbitration clause
into its driver agreement in July, before plaintiffs filed their
case in San Francisco federal court, but after plaintiffs filed
similar suits in Massachusetts and Illinois.

Judge Chen ruled the agreement was "potentially misleading,
coercive and threaten[ed] to interfere with class member rights."
He ordered Uber to stop issuing the agreement until the company
amended it to give drivers notice of the pending lawsuit and
reasonable means for opting out of arbitration.

Judge Chen specified those requirements apply to past, current
and new drivers.

On April 18, Mr. Hendricks' team was set try to save Uber's
arbitration agreement, insisting that sending it to new drivers
does not affect the litigation because prospective drivers fall
outside plaintiffs' class definition of "drivers who have worked
for Uber."  But plaintiffs lawyers argue that, while no class has
yet been certified, their intended class encompasses all drivers
who work for Uber at least through the date of class
certification.

"Defendants' argument in support of its request for
reconsideration is based upon a flawed understanding of English
grammar," Boston-based Lichten & Liss-Riordan partner Shannon
Liss-Riordan stated in her responding brief.

Ms. Liss-Riordan continued on to give defendants a grammar
lesson, explaining the function of the present perfect tense to
describe an action that began in the past but continues into the
present.

San Francisco firm Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Oliver is also
representing plaintiffs.

In January, Judge Chen rejected Uber's request to stay his order
until after the April 18 hearing, and reiterated that Uber must
stop sending out its original arbitration agreements.

Ms. Liss-Riordan and her team accuse Uber of violating Judge
Chen's orders by continuing to send arbitration agreements to its
drivers, a claim Uber denies.  Plaintiffs have submitted a
declaration from Uber driver Guy Gottlieb, who says the company
sent him an arbitration agreement Feb. 26, almost three months
after Chen's original order.  Uber contends the Feb. 26
arbitration agreement was a one-time mistake.  Mr. Gottlieb was
suspended from Uber, and when the company reactivated his
account, it automatically sent him the same version of the
licensing agreement he originally signed, according to the
defendant's reply brief.  The agreement contained an arbitration
clause because Mr. Gottlieb first signed it before Judge Chen's
order.

Uber declined comment on the active litigation.

"I think it's very unfortunate so many companies whose practices
are being challenged are trying to use arbitration as a shield,"
Ms. Liss-Riordan said.  "I hope this court does not allow Uber to
get away with that."

Mr. Hendricks did not respond to an emailed interview request.


UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ellias Spielman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Recovery Systems, L.P., Case No.
1:14-cv-01012-JG-SMG (E.D.N.Y., February 14, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


VOICELOGIC: Sent Fax Ads Without Prior Express Consent, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Viking Realty, a corporation, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VoiceLogic; and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-01167-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal., February
14, 2014) is brought for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for transmitting one or more facsimiles
advertising the commercial availability or quality of property,
goods, or services, without having obtained prior express
invitation or permission to transmit said facsimiles.

VoiceLogic is a Canadian corporation engaged in the business of
telemarketing and providing Call Center services for the purposes
of generating sales, business leads, and event attendance.  The
Company is headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota.  The
identities of the Doe Defendants are not known at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          PRICE LAW GROUP, APC
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 907-2030
          Facsimile: (818) 205-3730
          E-mail: tom@plglawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WITHROP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4419
          Telephone: (916) 329-4740
          E-mail: andrew.bluth@pillsburylaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued in California Over Foreclosures, Late Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that Wells Fargo Bank
NA violated California consumer laws by billing late fees to, or
foreclosing on, state homeowners who had loan modification
applications pending with the bank, according to a putative class
action removed to California federal court on April 10.

The suit is among the latest based on the California Homeowner
Bill of Rights, enacted Jan. 1, 2013.  The law forbids banks from
pursuing foreclosures while simultaneously processing loan
modifications, a practice known as "dual tracking," and from
charging late fees during the process.

"Because the dual-tracking system prevents homeowners from being
evaluated for appropriate loan modifications before foreclosure,
it has resulted in many unnecessary foreclosures," the complaint
says.

Orange County, Calif., homeowners Henry and Renee Garcia
originally filed the suit in state court on March 5, claiming
that they applied for a loan modification but that the bank
charged them $840 in late fees and prepared to foreclose on the
property before the application process was complete.  The bank
later rejected the application, verbally denied their appeal, and
scheduled the home for trustee sale.

The Garcias' suit seeks to establish two classes: one for alleged
victims of dual tracking and another for homeowners who were
illegally charged late fees.  According to the complaint, the
Garcias defaulted on the mortgage for their San Juan Capistrano,
Calif., home on March 6, 2013.  They submitted a loan
modification application to Wells Fargo the next month,
communicating frequently with bank officials over the months that
followed.

While the Garcias' application was still purportedly under
consideration, Wells Fargo recorded a notice of trustee sale on
their home, moving forward with the foreclosure process in
violation of the state's consumer protection law, according to
the complaint.  The application process continued until January,
when the bank denied the Garcias' application, the complaint
says.  The Garcias appealed, but the bank denied the appeal in
February and scheduled a trustee sale of the property for March
5.

On April 10, Wells Fargo removed the case to the Central District
of California, saying that the South Dakota-based bank and the
named plaintiffs are citizens of different states, that each
class has at least 1,000 members, and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Homeowner Bill
of Rights' restrictions on dual tracking and late fees and the
California Unfair Competition Law.  The plaintiffs are seeking
class certification, unspecified damages and restitution, and
injunctive relief forbidding the bank from engaging in the
alleged activity.

Henry and Renee Garcia are represented by Vincent D. Howard and
Gregory H.D. Alumit of Howard Law PC and David M. Arbogast --
david@arbogastbowen.com -- of Arbogast Bowen LLP.

Wells Fargo is represented by Paul W. Sweeney Jr. and Kevin S.
Asfour of K&L Gates LLP.

The case is Garcia et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al., case
number 8:14-cv-00558, in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


* Financial Services Industry May Face "Massive" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hal M. Bundrick, writing for MainStreet.com, reports that
generally, the average investor makes bad decisions, earning less
-- in many cases much less -- than market returns allow.  That's
the conclusion of the 20th annual "Quantitative Analysis of
Investor Behavior," (QAIB) conducted by Dalbar.  And it might
take a "massive" class-action lawsuit to change the industry,
according to Dalbar president Louis S. Harvey.

The latest report shows a 20-year history of underperformance by
the typical mutual fund investor.  While the S&P500 has recorded
a gain of 9.22% since 1984, equity investors have seen only a
5.02% return.  Dalbar says the major cause of the performance gap
is the tendency of investors to sell low and buy high in an
attempt to time the market.  A primary reason for the behavior
may be the long-held practice for the industry to present
investment options based on past performance.

"The things that investors are looking at are not only
distracting, but destructive," Mr. Harvey says.  "The industry
doesn't want to be exposed to lawsuits or to regulatory action,
so they want to push the decisions, as much as they can, off on
the investor."

That allows the financial services industry to claim the
"investor was fully informed" and avoid any liability.

Mr. Harvey says it might take massive class action litigation,
suing the industry for "billions of dollars," before things
change.  "I see an unfair practice where the people in the know
put the decisions to the people who don't have a hope of
knowing," he says.

Rather than "chasing the performance" of last year's high-
returning investments, which rarely repeat excess returns from
one year to the next, Mr. Harvey says investors should focus on
building a better decision-making process, by focusing on four
things:

A clear goal.  That will help investors avoid taking on undue
risk, but still bear acceptable risk.  A stated goal offers a
"moderating factor" to the investment process.

The integration of capital preservation strategies into an
investment portfolio in order to help avoid drastic losses.
A firm understanding of the potential appreciation of an
investment.  "We tell investors 'this is the past performance of
an investment, and by the way, it has no bearing on what's going
to happen in the future,'" Harvey says. "How is that useful in
making a decision?"

The probability of achieving that appreciation.

"Attempts to correct irrational investor behavior through
education have proved to be futile," the report says.  "The
belief that investors will make prudent decisions after education
and disclosure has been totally discredited.  Instead of
teaching, financial professionals should look to implement
practices that influence the investor's focus and expectations in
ways that lead to more prudent investment decisions."


                             *********

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  * * *