CAR_Public/140502.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 2, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 87

                             Headlines


ACTAVIS INC: Faces Class Action Over Drug Side Effects
ABAXIS INC: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
ALASKA AIRLINES: Judge Tosses Unpaid Incentive Class Action
AMAZON SERVICES: Sued for Breaching Duty to Prime Program Members
AMWARE DISTRIBUTION: Bid for Notice of Collective Action Denied

ANGIE'S LIST: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Membership Fees
ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Court Sets Scheduling Order in Stock Suits
ATLANTIC POWER: Faces Securities Suits in Canada, United States
ATLANTIC POWER: Lead Counsel Yet to be Named in Mass. Stock Suit
ATLANTIC POWER: Faces Securities Suits in Ontario, Quebec Courts

BAXTER INT'L: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $64 Million
BAYVIEW LOAN: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Cal. Suit Claims
BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Court Defers Summary Judgment Bid Ruling
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Suit Seeks Damages Under Maryland Wage & Hour Law
BUFFALO BILLS: Settles Text Message Class Action for $3 Million

CHRISTOPHER DUNTSCH: Faces Medical Malpractice Suits
CLARK COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Over Drug Treatment Program
CLEANIS INC: Ordered to Fix Aspects of Responsive Pleading
DENSO CORP: Faces "SLTNTRST" Antitrust Class Suit in Michigan
DENSO CORP: Fixes Price of Windshield Washer Systems, Suit Says

DENSO CORP: Sued for Fixing Prices of Windshield Wiper Systems
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: EverBank Still Faces "Vathana" Suit in Cal.
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Seeks Judgment in Suit by Ark. Circuit Clerk
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: EverBank Still Faces Litigation Over MERS
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Peterson v. CitiMortgage Now Concluded

EVERBANK FINANCIAL: EverBank Still Faces TCPA Violations Suit
FORD MOTOR: Must Face Suit for Aiding South African Apartheid
GENERAL MILLS: Institutes Program to Restrict Legal Action
GOOGLE INC: Appeals Certification of Gmail Ad Class Action
HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Misrepresentation Claims Remain in Stock Suit

HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Sued for Fixing Valve Timing Controls' Prices
JP MORGAN: Sued in Ill. for Sending Unlawful Ads to Fax Machines
JUICY COUTURE: Sued for Not Having Blind-Accessible POS Devices
KR DRENTH: Fails to Pay Workers According to FLSA, Suit Claims
LIBERTY MEDIA: Suit Over Acquisition of SIRIUS Shares Continues

MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces Class Suit Arising From Security Breaches
MARICOPA COMMUNITY: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
MATTLEMAN WEINROTH: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Cadenasso" Suit Transferred to Florida Court
MONCKS CORNER: Has Inflicted Emotional Distress, Officers Claim

MONSTER BEVERAGE: Issues Statement on Class Action Settlement
MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Not Disclosing True Financial Health
NEST LABS: Sold Defective Nest Thermostat Products, Suit Claims
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit for Exploiting People With Petty Crimes
NIELSEN CO: Agrees to Pay Overtime Class Action for $1.2 Million

NIKON INC: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Defective D600 Camera Shutter
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Calls
NORTHWEST SAVINGS: Settles Suit Over Posting of Bank Transactions
OISHII THAI: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
OTTAWA: Flood Victims Seek Court Certification for C$200MM Suit

PELLA CORP: "Romig" Suit Transferred from N.Y. to South Carolina
QUALITY MEDICAL: Accused of Sending TCPA-Prohibited Fax Blasts
SAULT AREA HOSPITAL: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Data Breach
SIOUX CITY, IA: Settles Suit Over Utility Bill Franchise Fee
ST. MARK PLUMBING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Suit Claims

SUMMER INFANT: Recalls Infant Monitor Rechargeable Batteries
SUNNYVALE DEL GRANDE: Court Reverses Arbitration Denial Ruling
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Denied Arbitration in Owner-Operators' Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Fights Appeal in FLSA Violations Lawsuit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Calif. Labor Lawsuit by Drivers

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Montalvo" Certification Order on Appeal
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Cert. Ruling in Wash. Drivers Suit on Apeal
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: CRT Moves to Arbitrate E.D. Va. FCRA Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Utah Employees File Suit Against CRS
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Arbitrator Trims Down Claims v. CRS

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: CRS Denies Claims in Cal. Labor Suit
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Faces "Mitchell" Class Suit in New York
TARGET CORP: Supreme Court Won't Revive Usury Class Action
TROY CONSTRUCTION: Class Suit Seeks to Redress FLSA Violations
UNION BANK: Faces "Rubel" Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violations

UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Court Allows More Discovery in "Swelnis" Case
VALEO SA: Faces Antitrust Action Over Air Conditioning Systems
VALEO SA: Accused of Fixing Prices of Air Conditioning Systems
WASHINGTON NATIONAL: Removed "Melin" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit Over MCHM-Contaminated Wastewater

WEBSTER AVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces Mislabeling Lawsuit in S.D. Cal. Court

* Tools Needed to Authorize Class Actions v. Financial Predators


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Continues to Negotiates with GST Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Garlock Sealing Appeals Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Study Costs of Ex-Hospital Site Divided

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Pressure Yale to Revoke Degree
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocates Call for Fibro Bylaw in Saskatchewan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cedar Grove Schools Spend on Fibro Monitoring
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Florence Accepts Bid for Trust Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oroville Library Closes for Renovations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Material Probes Continue Despite Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post Office Counter Opening at Stiby Road Co-op
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dire Warning on Mr. Fluffy in Canberra Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Destroys Theatre and Studio in Lewes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGann-Mercy Closed Due to Night Fire

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Porirua Kindergarten
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FELA Suit Claims CSX Allowed Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bristol Developer Fined for Breaking Safety Code
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYCAL Consolidates 17 Fibro Trials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP70,000 Payout for Doncaster Rail Worker Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentences Handed Down for Abatement Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Much of Fanning School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Awards $202K to Artra 524(g) Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Excess Insurer Can't Intervene in Hall's Ch. 7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NLI's Bid to Enforce Confirmation Order Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNH Prohibited From Deposing Opponent's Counsel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order in Ex-Worker's Bias Suit Modified
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Widow's Death Benefits Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in Labor Law Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Ex-Bayer Corp. Worker's Suit Upheld

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Jury Verdict in "Suttner" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Opinion in "Scott" Suit Modified
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borden Denied Summary Judgment in "Proctor" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Judge Recommends Remand of PI Suit


                            *********


ACTAVIS INC: Faces Class Action Over Drug Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a Pennsylvania couple has filed a class
action complaint against the makers of testosterone therapy drugs
AndroDerm and Depo Testosterone, accusing them of aggressively
marketing their products while failing to warn users of life-
threatening side effects such as cardiac events and stroke.

In a complaint filed April 14 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Walter and Donna McGill accuse
the drug makers, including Actavis Inc., of misrepresenting
AndroDerm and Depo Testosterone as safe and effective treatment
for hypogonadism or "low testosterone," when, in fact, they can
cause cardiac events, strokes and thrombolytic events.


ABAXIS INC: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, granted preliminary approval of
a settlement that Abaxis, Inc. has reached with Plaintiff St.
Louis Police Retirement System in a shareholder class and
derivative action that Plaintiff filed on October 1, 2012 on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, and
derivatively on behalf of Abaxis, and against certain of Abaxis's
officers and directors, entitled St. Louis Police Retirement
System v. Severson, et al., Case No. 12-cv-05086-YGR (N.D. Cal.).
The Court's order granting preliminary approval of the settlement
requires Abaxis to provide notice to its stockholders of the
information about the Action contained in this press release.

The Action alleges, among other things, that the Abaxis proxy
statement in connection with the Company's 2012 annual meeting of
stockholders contained materially false and misleading statements
concerning a proposed amendment to the Company's 2005 Equity
Incentive Plan and that Defendants granted and/or received Abaxis
restricted stock units in excess of the so-called Full Value
Award limit under the Company's 2005 Equity Incentive Plan.

On October 23, 2012, the Court granted, in part, a motion for
preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff and ordered Abaxis to
make additional disclosures to Abaxis stockholders in connection
with Abaxis's 2012 annual meeting of stockholders.  Thereafter,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss, in which Defendants argued
that Plaintiff, inter alia, failed to state a claim for relief.
The parties then engaged in settlement negotiations that resulted
in the proposed settlement of the Action, the terms of which are
set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of January 16,
2014.  The terms of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation
include: (a) the adoption and/or implementation of a variety of
corporate governance measures, including, but not limited to,
measures that relate to officer and director compensation and
equity award granting procedures; (b) that the Released Claims
against the Released Persons shall be dismissed; and (c) that
Plaintiff will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.

On June 17, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., a hearing (the "Settlement
Hearing") will be held before the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, at the
Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, CA 94612, to determine: (a) whether the Court should
certify the Action as a non-opt-out class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23; (b) whether the Court should approve the proposed
Settlement; (c) whether the Court should enter an Order and Final
Judgment dismissing the claims asserted in the Action on the
merits and with prejudice and effectuating the releases described
below; (d) whether the Court should grant the application of
Plaintiff's counsel for a fee award; and (e) such other matters
as may properly come before the Court.

IF YOU WERE A HOLDER OF ABAXIS COMMON STOCK, EITHER OF RECORD OR
BENEFICIALLY, AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON AUGUST 31, 2012,
YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ACTION.

Any Abaxis shareholder who objects to the Settlement, the Order
and Final Judgment to be entered in the Action, and/or
Plaintiff's counsel's application for a fee award, or who
otherwise wishes to be heard, may appear in person or by his
attorney at the Settlement Hearing and present evidence or
argument that may be proper and relevant; provided, however,
that, except for good cause shown, no person shall be heard and
no papers, briefs, pleadings or other documents submitted by any
person shall be considered by the Court unless not later than
twenty one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing
such person files with the Clerk of the Court and delivers upon
the following counsel (delivered by hand or sent by first class
mail) (1) a written objection to the Settlement setting forth:
(a) the nature of the objection; (b) proof of current ownership
of Abaxis common stock, including the number of shares of Abaxis
common stock currently held and the date of purchase of Abaxis
common stock; and (c) any documentation in support of such
objection; and (2) if a current Abaxis shareholder intends to
appear and requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, such
shareholder must have, in addition to the requirements of (1)
above, (a) a written notice of such shareholder's intention to
appear; (b) a statement that indicates the basis for such
appearance; and (c) the identities of any witnesses the
shareholder intends to call at the Settlement Hearing and a
statement as to the subjects of their testimony, signed as
authorized by the objecting shareholder.  Such filings shall be
delivered to the following counsel:

Eric L. Zagar
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087

Jonathan M. Stein
SAXENA WHITE, P.A.
2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431

Counsel for Plaintiff St. Louis Police Retirement System

and

Thad A. Davis
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105

Counsel for Individual Defendants

PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER
THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE.  Inquiries or comments about the
Settlement or any other matters in this Notice should be directed
by telephone or in writing to the attention of Plaintiff's
Counsel, Eric L. Zagar, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280
King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, 1-888-299-7706.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS NO CLAIMS PROCEDURE, AS NO INDIVIDUAL
SHAREHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED AS A RESULT OF THE
SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN.


ALASKA AIRLINES: Judge Tosses Unpaid Incentive Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that Alaska Airlines
and FIA Card Services NA urged a California federal judge on
April 21 to toss a putative class action alleging the companies
shortchanged Alaska employees who were promised incentive
payments for recruiting credit card customers, saying the suit
can't survive without alleging breach of contract.

The hearing saw Alaska Airlines and FIA attempt to fend off for
the fifth time plaintiff Terrence Rutherford's allegations that
the companies had failed to pay the former Alaska Airlines
employee what he was owed for getting customers to sign up for
Alaska Airlines-brand credit cards through FIA, which runs Bank
of America NA's credit card operations.

During a hearing in Los Angeles, Robert Stern -- rstern@mofo.com
-- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, representing FIA, told U.S.
District Judge Dean Pregerson that Mr. Rutherford's second
amended complaint should be dismissed because it only features an
accounting claim -- not a breach of contract claim necessary to
establish legally that he was underpaid.

"Accounting is a remedy, it has to be attached to a cause of
action," Mr. Stern said.  "There's no underlying claim to attach
the accounting remedy to . . . and counsel admitted that there's
no underlying claim."

Mr. Rutherford first filed suit against Alaska and FIA in 2011,
bringing allegations that Bank of America and the airlines were
failing to live up to the terms of an employee incentive program
put into place in 2005.  Under the program, employees earn
compensation when they give a customer an application for an
Alaska Airlines credit card, and the application is processed or
accepted.  Mr. Rutherford alleged that because the airline simply
lists all incentive payments in one line on employees' pay stubs,
employees don't know if they are being compensated for all of the
applications they gave to customers that were submitted.

That suit was dismissed in January 2013 because the statute of
limitations barred its claims, and Rutherford tried again in
April 2013, filing the current action on behalf of all employees
who participated in the program after the dismissal of the first
suit.

In September 2013, Judge Pregerson granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss the suit, saying in his ruling that
Rutherford's allegations and background facts are "virtually
identical" between the prior, dismissed, suit and the current
action, but granted leave to amend. Rutherford filed his second
amended complaint in March.

On April 21, Stephen O'Dell of Marlin & Saltzman LLP,
representing the plaintiffs, told Judge Pregerson that the second
amended complaint doesn't contain a breach of contract claim
because his client does not know if he was underpaid because the
defendants have withheld records revealing how many applications
were submitted that listed Rutherford as the referring employee.

"It's possible there's no damages, and that's the very reason for
an accounting claim," he added.

Judge Pregerson, however, was skeptical, asking O'Dell how the
suit can support a claim for damages without laying out in the
suit a contract under which his client was owed payment and that
was allegedly violated.

"What created the obligation for [the plaintiffs] to be paid,
unless there isn't one?" he said. "I'm trying to understand why
your client is entitled to any money."

The plaintiffs are represented by Louis M. Marlin and Stephen P.
O'Dell of Marlin & Saltzman LLP and Thomas A. Cifarelli of The
Cifarelli Law Firm LLP.

FIA is represented by Robert S. Stern, Dale K. Larson --
dlarson@mofo.com -- and Tritia M. Murata -- tmurata@mofo.com --
of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Alaska Airlines is represented by
Philip F. Atkins-Pattenson -- patkinspattenson@sheppardmullin.com
-- of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The case is Terrance D. Rutherford v. FIA Card Services NA et
al., case number 2:13-cv-02934, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.


AMAZON SERVICES: Sued for Breaching Duty to Prime Program Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. A. Cemal Ekin, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals v. Amazon Services LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00244-JCC (W.D. Wash.,
February 19, 2014) results from Amazon's alleged breach of its
contractual obligation to its Prime Program Members.

The routine inclusion and encouragement of inclusion of shipping
charges in the prices of Fulfillment by Amazon Prime-Eligible
items constitutes a breach of Amazon's promise to Prime Program
Members that shipping charges would not be included in the prices
of items offered for sale as FBA Prime-Eligible, and violates
Amazon's agreement that shipping would be "free," Dr. Ekin
contends.

Amazon Services LLC is a Nevada limited liability company
headquartered in Seattle, Washington.  The Company, Amazon.com
and affiliates, form the world's largest online retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Sirianni, Esq.
          Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Charles D. Sirianni, Esq.
          David M. Simmonds, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
          E-mail: ssirianni@sylaw.com
                  cyoutz@sylaw.com
                  rspoonemore@sylaw.com
                  ehamburger@sylaw.com
                  csirianni@sylaw.com
                  davemsimmonds@gmail.com

Interested Party Marcia Burke is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
          1700 Seventh Ave., Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James C. Grant, Esq.
          Rebecca J. Francis, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 757-8096
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7096
          E-mail: jamesgrant@dwt.com
                  RebeccaFrancis@dwt.com


AMWARE DISTRIBUTION: Bid for Notice of Collective Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY R. BUTZ and JANICE M. PERRY, on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly situated who consent to representation,
Plaintiffs, v. AMWARE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES OF GEORGIA, INC.,
and AMWARE LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC., Defendants, NO. 1:13-CV-
3204-WSD, (N.D. Ga.), is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion
for Court Supervised Notice to a Conditional Collective Action,
and Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery.

In an opinion and order dated April 16, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/G2O9TBfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
William S. Duffey, Jr., found that the Plaintiffs have not
provided facts sufficient to show a class of similarly situated
employees, and that the Plaintiffs' claims are not representative
of the class they seek to represent. For these reasons, Judge
Duffey denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Court Supervised Notice
to a Conditional Collective Action.  The Plaintiffs' Motion for
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery was granted. The parties
must, on or before April 30, 2014, submit a joint deposition
schedule, he said.

Tiffany R. Butz, Plaintiff, represented by Kattegummula Prabhaker
Reddy, The Reddy Law Firm, PC & Andrew Yancey Coffman, Parks
Chesin & Walbert.

Janice M. Perry, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated who consent to representation, Plaintiff, represented by
Kattegummula Prabhaker Reddy -- kpr@reddylaw.net -- The Reddy Law
Firm, PC & Andrew Yancey Coffman -- acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com --
Parks Chesin & Walbert.

Amware Distribution Warehouses of Georgia, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Gary B. Andrews, Jr. --
Blake@AndrewsStembridge.com -- Andrews & Stembridge, LLC & John
T. Stembridge -- John@AndrewsStembridge.com -- Andrews &
Stembridge, LLC.

Amware Logistics Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
B. Andrews, Jr., Andrews & Stembridge, LLC & John T. Stembridge,
Andrews & Stembridge, LLC.


ANGIE'S LIST: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Membership Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. and the plaintiff in a suit over membership
fees have agreed in principle to settlement terms for the case
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 14, 2012 a lawsuit seeking class action status was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.  The lawsuit alleges claims of
breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that the
Company automatically renews membership fees at a higher rate
than customers are led to believe, breaching their membership
agreements. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and an award
of treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company and the
plaintiff have agreed in principle to settlement terms, which
remains subject to Court approval.  As of December 31, 2013, the
Company has recorded a $4,000 legal accrual related to the
settlement.


ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Court Sets Scheduling Order in Stock Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
entered a scheduling order in the securities suits Baron v.
Angie's List, Inc., et al. and Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc.,
et al. pursuant to which, upon appointment as lead plaintiff, the
plaintiff has sixty days with which to file a consolidated
complaint or stand on the current complaint, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On December 23, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Court, naming the Company and various current and former
directors and officers as defendants and alleging that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in and
omitting material information from the Company's public
disclosures concerning the Company's business prospects. The
complaint further alleges that the defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their positions as control
persons. The plaintiff has requested unspecified damages,
interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On January 23,
2014, the Court entered a scheduling order pursuant to which,
upon appointment as lead plaintiff, the plaintiff has sixty days
with which to file a consolidated complaint or stand on the
current complaint. Pursuant to that order, the Company's response
to that complaint is due sixty days thereafter.

On January 9, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Court, naming the same defendants, asserting the same claims, and
asking for the same relief as sought in Baron v. Angie's List,
Inc., et al. On January 29, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling
order identical to the order entered in Baron.

Baron and Bartolone are collectively referred to as the
"Stockholder Class Action." The Company believes that the
Stockholder Class Action is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.


ATLANTIC POWER: Faces Securities Suits in Canada, United States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation is facing securities lawsuits in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the Province of Ontario
in the Superior Court of Quebec in the Province of Quebec and in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five
purported securities fraud class action complaints related to,
among other things, claims that the company made materially false
and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
sustainability of the company's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of the company's common shares
were filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the company and certain of the company's
current and former executive officers.

On March 19, 2013 and April 2, 2013, two notices of action
relating to purported Canadian securities class action claims
were also issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common
shares, and in one of the actions, holders of Atlantic Power
convertible debentures, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in the Province of Ontario and on April 8, 2013, a similar claim,
issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares,
seeking to initiate a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec in the Province of Quebec against the
company and certain of the company's current and former executive
officers. On May 2, 2013, a statement of claim relating to the
April 2, 2013 notice of action was filed with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario. The
allegations of these purported class actions are essentially the
same as those asserted in the United States.


ATLANTIC POWER: Lead Counsel Yet to be Named in Mass. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts is yet to decide who will serve as lead plaintiff
and lead counsel in a consolidated securities lawsuit filed
against Atlantic Power Corporation, according to the company's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five
purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed by
alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the
"District Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, the
company's President and Chief Executive Officer and a Director of
Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr.
Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, the company's former
Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, the company's former
interim Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, the
company's current Chief Financial Officer, in certain of the
actions (the "Individual Defendants," and together with Atlantic
Power, the "Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions").

The District Court complaints differ in terms of the identities
of the Individual Defendants they name, as noted, the named
plaintiffs, and the purported class period they allege (July 23,
2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court actions and
August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two District
Court actions), but in general each alleges, among other things,
that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end
filings and conference calls with analysts and investors,
Atlantic Power and the Individual Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common
shares. The District Court complaints assert claims under Section
10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The parties to each District Court action have filed joint
motions requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the
District Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the
lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of
lead plaintiff and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for
Defendants to answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise
respond to the Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing
regarding any such motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that
Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond
to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing
of the Amended Complaint. On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of
investors (the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion
(collectively, the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the
District Court seeking: (i) to consolidate the five U.S. Actions
(the "Consolidated U.S. Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its
choice of lead counsel confirmed.

On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants
filed oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, and
on June 6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed
replies in support of their respective motions. On August 19,
2013, the District Court held a status conference to address
certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, entered
an order consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed two of
the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental
submissions by September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested supplemental
submissions, and then sought leave to file additional briefing.
The Court granted those requests for leave and additional
submissions were filed on September 13 and September 18, 2013,
which the Court will consider (along with the motion papers) in
deciding who will serve as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.


ATLANTIC POWER: Faces Securities Suits in Ontario, Quebec Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation is facing alleged statutory damages
for violating securities laws in Canada that plaintiffs estimate
at $197.4 million, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices
of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims
against the Defendants were also issued by alleged investors in
Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the actions, holders
of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario. On April 8,
2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in Atlantic
Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action against
the Defendants was filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in the
Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013 statements of claim
relating to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.

On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. This claim names the Company,
Barry Welch and Terrence Ronan as defendants (the "Defendants").
The Plaintiffs seeks leave to commence an action for statutory
misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and asserts
common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs'
allegations focus on among other things, claims the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year end filings
and conference calls with analysts and investors, regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common
shares. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the statutory and common
law claims under the Class Proceedings Act for security holders
who purchased and held securities through a proposed class period
of November 5, 2012 to February 28, 2013.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting
their request for leave to commence an action for statutory
misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and
common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the
damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4
million.

A schedule for the Plaintiffs' motions and the action was set on
November 12, 2013.

The Petitioner in the proposed class action in Quebec served and
filed a motion to suspend those proceedings pending the Ontario
proceedings. This motion was not granted. Nothing further has
happened in the action.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery is stayed in the U.S. Actions. Plaintiffs have not
yet specified an amount of alleged damages in the U.S. Actions.
The plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have estimated their
alleged statutory damages at $197.4 million.


BAXTER INT'L: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $64 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew L. Wang, writing for Crain's Chicago Business, reports
that Baxter International Inc. agreed to pay $64 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the Deerfield-based
company and some of its competitors colluded to raise prices of
plasma-based therapies.

Hospitals and drug distributors, saying they bought the plasma
products at inflated prices, sued in 2009 Baxter; Victoria,
Australia-based CSL Ltd.; and the Plasma Protein Therapeutics
Association, an Annapolis, Md.-based trade group.

Though agreeing to the settlement, Baxter is not admitting any
wrongdoing.

"The company's decision to settle the litigation is not an
admission of liability, but rather a reflection of the costs
involved in defending this matter," Baxter spokeswoman
Deborah Spak wrote in an email.  "The company has previously
reserved for the costs associated with the litigation and
therefore this settlement does not have additional impact on the
company."

Indeed, the company had set aside a "litigation reserve" totaling
$72 million as of the end of 2013, according to its latest annual
financial statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Plaintiffs' lawyers secured an identical $64 million settlement
with the latter two defendants in January.  The settlement with
Baxter was reached in December and approved April 17 by U.S.
District Judge Joan Gottschall.

The plaintiffs alleged that Baxter and CSL agreed in the early
2000s to limit production of therapies derived from human plasma,
the liquid component of blood. Such products are used to treat
ailments like hemophilia and immune deficiencies.

                             'Now Over'

"The case is now over," said one of the lead plaintiff lawyers,
Charles Tompkins -- cet@willmont.com -- a Chicago-based partner
at Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.  "We spent many years
litigating the case, and we feel confident that the settle is a
favorable result for all involved."  Money from the combined $128
million settlement fund will be distributed on a pro-rata basis
to the roughly 2,000-member class, none of whom has raised
objections to the agreement.  The settlement covers sales
activity from 2005 and 2009.

Baxter in 2013 booked $2.01 billion in net income on $15.26
billion in revenue.  The company raked in $5.56 billion in
combined sales from its hemophilia and biotherapeutics lines,
both of which fall within its bioscience segment, which took in
$6.56 billion.

The company said in March it plans to split into two firms, with
the medical products segment -- an $8.70 billion business in
2013 -- retaining the Baxter name and headed by current CEO
Robert Parkinson, and the as-yet unnamed bioscience segment led
by Ludwig Hantson, its current president.

The spinoff likely will occur in mid-2015.

Baxter earned $556 million in the first quarter, or $1.01 per
share, on $3.95 billion in sales.  Excluding extraordinary items,
it earned $1.19 a share, beating out the consensus of eight
analysts polled by Bloomberg LP.


BAYVIEW LOAN: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Cal. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01254-
JAK-AS (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2014) is brought for damages
resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff and the class
on their cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading their privacy.

Bayview Loan Servicing LLC is a business corporation whose
principal place of business is in Florida.  The Defendant
conducted business in the state of California and in the County
of Santa Barbara.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin S. Asfour, Esq.
          K AND L GATES LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-5000
          Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
          E-mail: kevin.asfour@klgates.com


BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Court Defers Summary Judgment Bid Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEVE JUHLINE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEN
BRIDGE-JEWELER, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendant, CASE
NO. 3:11-CV-2906-GPC-NLS, (S.D. Cal.), District Judge Gonzalo P.
Curiel issued an order (i) deferring ruling on plaintiff's motion
for partial summary judgment, and (ii) setting briefing
schedules.

In this certified class action, plaintiff Steve Juhline alleges
that defendant Ben Bridge-Jeweler, Inc.'s practice of requesting
and recording the contact information of its customers who pay
with a credit card violates California's Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act, California Civil Code section 1747.08.

Before the Court was Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (MSJ), Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Class Notice
Plan (Notice Motion, and Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class
(Motion to Decertify). Plaintiff's Notice Motion and Defendant's
Motion to Decertify are set for a hearing on May 16, 2014, and
neither of these motions has been fully briefed.

Judge Curiel denied without prejudice Plaintiff's MSJ. Plaintiff
may re-file his MSJ after Defendant's Motion to Decertify has
been decided and, if appropriate, after class notice has been
provided, and the period for class members to exclude themselves
has expired, he added. The Court further ordered that the parties
comply with the briefing schedule as to Plaintiff's Notice
Motion, and Defendant's Motion to Decertify: responses to the
motions were due April 25, 2014, and any reply must be filed by
May 2, 2014.

A copy of the District Court's April 17, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/yuo3a9from Leagle.com.

Steve Juhline, Plaintiff, represented by Allison H. Goddard --
ali@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group, APC, Daniel D.
Bodell -- DBODELL@HARRISONBODELL.COM -- Harrison & Bodell LLP &
Harry W. Harrison -- HHARRISON@HARRISONBODELL.COM -- Harrison &
Bodell LLP.

Ben Bridge-Jeweler, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer Anne Weiner, Ellis Coleman Poirier LaVoie
and Steinheimer & Rosemarie T Ring -- Rose.Ring@mto.com -- Munger
Tolles and Olson LLP.


BOB'S DISCOUNT: Suit Seeks Damages Under Maryland Wage & Hour Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark V. Powell, 12665 Crabtree Falls Drive, Bristow, Virginia
20136 and Anthony De Santos, 87 Wadsworth Avenue, 2nd Floor,
Staten Island, New York 10305, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC, 2950
Belcrest Center Drive, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, Case No.
8:14-cv-00491-DKC (D. Md., February 19, 2014) seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law.

Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC, is a foreign corporation organized
in Massachusetts and licensed to do business in Maryland.  Bob's
Discount operates a number of stores in Maryland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip B. Zipin, Esq.
          Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
          THE ZIPIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          836 Bonifant St.
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
          E-mail: pzipin@zipinlaw.com
                  ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Ave., 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ariana Wright Arnold, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2800 Quarry Lake Dr., Suite 200
          Baltimore, MD 21209
          Telephone: (410) 415-2000
          Facsimile: (410) 415-2001
          E-mail: ariana.arnold@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Peter Matthew Torncello, Esq.
          Stephanie L. Goutos, Esq.
          William J. Anthony, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          18 Corporate Woods Blvd.
          Albany, NY 12211
          Telephone: (518) 434-1300
          Facsimile: (518) 427-5956
          E-mail: peter.torncello@jacksonlewis.com
                  Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com
                  Anthonyw@jacksonlewis.com


BUFFALO BILLS: Settles Text Message Class Action for $3 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen T. Watson, writing for The Buffalo News, reports that the
Buffalo Bills have agreed to pay up to $3 million -- largely in
the form of debit cards redeemable only at the team store -- to
settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the team of sending
too many alerts to fans who signed up for a text-messaging
service.

Jerry Wojcik, a Bills fan and area native now living in Florida,
contended in his October 2012 suit that the team violated the
terms of its text service by sending him 13 messages over two
weeks when it promised to send no more than five per week.

The lawsuit was panned as frivolous by some sports fans, media
commentators and legal experts.

But in a settlement filed in federal court in Tampa, Fla., the
Bills agreed to provide up to $2.5 million in debit cards to
people who had signed up for the text service, along with
$562,500 to Mr. Wojcik's lawyers and $5,000 in cash to Mr. Wojcik
as class representative.

The estimated value of the debit cards that will be issued to
class members who received more than five alerts in a given week
is $2,487,745.  The cards can be used at the Bills store at Ralph
Wilson Stadium in Orchard Park or online at the team's website.
They can't be redeemed for cash.

The debit cards are worth $57.50, $65 or $75, depending on which
class tier a fan is assigned to, and the Bills said in a legal
filing that an estimated 39,750 phone numbers had been registered
through the now-defunct text-messaging service.

A motion that accompanied the settlement order argued that the
offer of Bills debit cards was an appropriate form of settlement
because the class consists of Bills fans.

"The Buffalo Bills have reached a settlement in this matter which
we believe is in the best interest of our organization and our
fans.  The purpose of the Bills' voluntary, opt-in text messaging
program was to provide our fans with information they requested
about the team.  The organization maintains that our text
messaging program was in compliance with the law," Bills
spokesman Scott Berchtold said in a statement on April 21.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Bills promise to put in
place "safeguards" to ensure any new service abides by limits set
by the team on the number of messages.

Mr. Wojcik declined to comment when reached by The Buffalo News
on April 21, citing his belief that he was unfairly criticized in
local and national media after filing the suit, and referred a
reporter to his attorneys.

"(The) plaintiff is pleased the court granted preliminary
approval of the class settlement, which was only reached after
substantial negotiations with the court-appointed mediator," one
of Mr. Wojcik's attorneys, Keith J. Keogh of Chicago, said in an
email.

Mr. Wojcik also was represented by lawyers James S. Giardina, of
Tampa, and Scott D. Owens, of Hallandale, Fla.

A big Bills fan, Mr. Wojcik in September 2012 signed up for
mobile text alerts from the team after visiting its website,
according to his original lawsuit.  Language on the website
promised fans who enrolled in the messaging service would receive
three to five messages per week for 12 months.  Mr. Wojcik,
however, said he received six messages during his second week in
the program and seven messages during a later, one-week period.
He claimed in his suit that the extra texts violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and he sought statutory
damages of $500 per excessive message for negligent violations
and up to $1,500 per message for willful violations.

The settlement that received preliminary approval from U.S.
District Judge Steven D. Merryday followed years of "hard-fought
and often-times contentious" litigation, according to the
settlement motion.  A final hearing in the case is set for
Aug. 20.

Buffalo attorney Jeffrey F. Reina and Tampa attorney Janelle A.
Weber represented the team in the suit.

Once the deal receives final approval, an administrator will use
a reverse-directory to send notices and claim forms by mail to
the owners of the phone numbers registered for the messaging
service.  The administrator also will set up a website offering
details on the settlement.


CHRISTOPHER DUNTSCH: Faces Medical Malpractice Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Lisa Falkenberg, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that for
the surgical patients who found themselves under Dr. Christopher
Duntsch's knife, harm seemed to be a recurring symptom.  Anyone
looking for a spine surgeon in the Dallas area around 2011 could
have unwittingly stumbled into the Plano office of Duntsch, a
confident, well-educated, fast-talking neurosurgeon who, as of
our interview, still regards himself as "smarter than everybody
in the room."

Quite a statement from a man accused of medical errors so severe
and gruesome that at least one colleague came to question whether
he was intentionally killing and maiming people.

"Duntsch is an impaired physician, a sociopath, and must be
stopped from practicing medicine by the Texas Medical Board
immediately," Dr. Randall Kirby wrote the state board in June of
2013 after operating with Duntsch, according to one lawsuit filed
by a former patient.

Duntsch was recruited to the Dallas area in 2011, in part by
Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano, which had reached an
agreement with a spine institute for Duntsch to operate at the
hospital, according to court records.  Baylor also agreed to
advance Duntsch's salary of $600,000 and pay him expenses and
bonuses to which he was entitled, the records show.

Patients have accused Duntsch of operating under the influence of
alcohol and drugs, butchering spines and slicing through arteries
in a spate of surgical misadventures marked by "horribly poor and
clueless surgical technique" that turned even his childhood
friend into a quadriplegic, according to lawsuits.

Letter of reference

During a January 2012 surgery, one lawsuit claims, another
surgeon grabbed Duntsch's tools and pleaded with him to stop, but
the patient, who is in his mid-40s, would be left with permanent
nerve damage and a lifetime of debilitating pain.  Duntsch
eventually left Baylor in April of 2012 after, according to
lawsuits, a female patient died as a result of massive blood loss
during surgery.

Nearly as horrific are the allegations made in lawsuits that
Baylor let Duntsch continue in the operating room even after
administrators were made aware of the danger he posed to
patients.  And, when Duntsch finally did resign, the hospital's
director of medical staff services produced a letter for Duntsch
stating that there were no pending investigations or past
suspensions in his record.

The letter left a false impression, one lawsuit claims, that
"paved the way" for Duntsch to continue in the operating room.
When he moved on to Dallas Medical Center, problems continued,
according to lawsuits: A female patient died in July of 2012
after Duntsch "essentially transected her vertebral artery
resulting in a stroke and her eventual death."

His final stop appears to have been University General Hospital,
owned by Houston-based University General Health System.
President Donald Sapaugh confirmed in an email to me the hospital
ended up suspending Duntsch, revoking his privileges, and then
reporting him to the state board.

In all, it took about a year for the Texas Medical Board,
rendered intentionally weak by the Legislature, to temporarily
suspend Duntsch's license.  In its June order, the board cited a
pattern of failings that put patients "at significant risk of
harm and has resulted in at least two patient deaths."

The board reached an agreement with Duntsch to revoke his license
in December 2013, finding the surgeon had violated the standard
of care with respect to six patients.  The board also found there
wasn't evidence to support a finding that he was impaired by
drugs or alcohol. Duntsch didn't admit or deny the board's
findings and conclusions of law.

Duntsch disputes nearly all of the board's findings and says it
was negligent in its investigation.  He says he plans to petition
the board to get his license back, although he doesn't plan to
continue to practice.

'Malpractice happens . . .'

"I'm not saying that I didn't do anything wrong," he told me.
"Medical malpractice happens to all of us." He said he never
intentionally harmed anyone or operated under the influence.

He says he regrets the hospital has been dragged into litigation
motivated by the greed of plaintiff's attorneys who, he says,
conspired with his colleagues to trump up cases against him so
they could sue Baylor and knock down Texas tort laws.

Baylor, which is not affiliated with Houston's Baylor College of
Medicine, has denied that it failed to protect patients.

In February, the Texas Department of State Health Services, which
oversees hospitals, opened an investigation into how Duntsch was
handled by Baylor, Dallas Medical and University General.

Meanwhile, lawsuits against Baylor have run up against a Texas
tort statute intended to protect hospitals and doctors, and limit
patient rights.  This one narrows the definition of "malice" so
drastically that proving gross negligence isn't good enough.
Patients' lawyers would have to basically prove that the hospital
itself was out for blood, that its officials were not only aware
of the danger Duntsch posed, but that they intentionally put
patients in harm's way.

It's an impossible standard to meet, plaintiffs' lawyers have
claimed, and so they argue it is unconstitutional.

Although the Duntsch case has been front-page news in North
Texas, it has gotten little notice in Houston. Recently, though,
the hospital got a little boost in its legal fight from a high-
profile gubernatorial candidate: Texas Attorney General Greg
Abbott.

Mr. Abbott's office has chosen to intervene in some lawsuits
against Baylor to defend the constitutionality of the tort
reform-era statute.  Plaintiffs' attorneys don't understand why.
Mr. Abbott isn't required to.  And they say there are plenty of
constitutional challenges on which his office remains silent.

Attorney general spokesman Jerry Strickland stressed that Abbott
is not defending the hospital, Duntsch, or their alleged conduct.

Mr. Strickland argued that the plaintiffs could have sued to
recover damages without challenging the constitutionality of the
law, in which case Abbott wouldn't have intervened.


CLARK COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Over Drug Treatment Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Popp, writing for News and Tribune, reports that the number
of former and current Clark County Drug Treatment Court
participants involved in a class action lawsuit claiming
mistreatment by Clark County employees recently doubled.

Louisville attorney Mike Augustus added eight new plaintiffs
before submitting, on April 8, the civil complaint, which is an
updated version of a complaint filed Feb. 18.  Mr. Augustus'
class action suit now has a cast of 16 plaintiffs, 14 of whom
have or continue to be drug court participants, and he remains
open to accepting even more clients.  Both versions of the
complaints have been filed with the Southern District of Indiana
federal court in New Albany.

Mr. Augustus said he has turned away more potential clients than
he is currently representing because he thought their complaints
would not hold up in the federal court.

Drug court case manager and Clark County Probation Department
employee Josh Seybold was the only addition to the list of more
than 10 defendants, which include Clark County Circuit Court No.
2 Judge Jerry Jacobi, who oversaw the drug court program; former
drug court director Susan Knoebel; and now-suspended Circuit
Court No. 2 bailiff and former drug court field officer Jeremy
Snelling.

"Most of my clients had Mr. Seybold as their case manager,"
Mr. Augustus said, explaining why Mr. Seybold and not a second
drug court case manager, Iris Rubadue, was named in the lawsuit.
"From the people that I have spoken to, not necessarily my
clients, did not have a complaint with the way Iris served them
as their case manager."

Mr. Augustus filed the civil complaint against those he claims
are responsible for the mistreatment of Clark County Drug
Treatment Court program participants -- which includes
allegations of unlawful arrest and incarceration.  He said the
majority of the plaintiffs are claiming they were held without
due process in the Michael L. Becher Adult Correctional Complex
following drug court violations.

The issues came to light earlier in the year when a Clark County
deputy prosecutor discovered that Destiny Hoffman -- who is named
in Mr. Augustus' complaint -- was being held in Clark County jail
nearly five months after she was given a two-day sanction.  His
non-drug court clients include one who is claiming mistreatment
from the Clark County Probation Department's work release
program.

Mr. Augustus said five of his clients claim they were unlawfully
arrested by either Mr. Snelling, Ms. Knoebel, or both. He said
the next step in the process will be the defendants filing their
responses to the complaint in the federal court.

"Within the next month, the defendants will file their answers,"
he said.  "I have spoken to the counsel for all the defendants
and we have agreed for them to be able to file their answers in
that time frame."

In addition to Mr. Seybold, Judge Jacobi, Ms. Knoebel and
Mr. Snelling, the defendants named in the case are: [Clark County
Chief Probation Officer] Henry Ford; Clark County Sheriff Danny
Rodden; [Clark County Community Corrections Work Release
Director] Danielle Grissett; [Clark County Community Corrections
Executive Director] Stephen Mason . . . unknown Clark County Work
Release employee[s]; unknown Clark County Circuit Court clerk;
and Clark County Board of Commissioners [Rick Stephenson, John
Perkins and Jack Coffman].

As the case continues, Mr. Augustus said he intends to take
depositions from every defendant in the lawsuit.

"Practically speaking, for the next six months or so we will be
engaged in discovery and all the sides [will be] finding out as
much information as possible," he said.  "I would anticipate
appearing before the court on a lot of different matters."

Mr. Augustus said the drug court program under Jacobi's watch was
a broken system.

"My goal, and my clients' goal, is to have it fixed, and I think
that is what is going to happen," he said.

Augustus said there are several different ways the lawsuit could
come to a close. He said a settlement could be provided by the
defendants prior to a trial. But, if lawsuit goes to a jury
trial, it would be up to jury to decide if any damages should be
paid to the defendants.

Mr. Augustus has said Jacobi is exempt from the civil complaint.
Mr. Augustus will request, however, that a federal judge "declare
that what he [Jacobi] has been doing is unconstitutional" through
a declamatory judgment.

Mr. Augustus said he was motivated to take the civil case because
he thinks drug court officials in Clark County have abused their
authority and if no one takes a stand, the abuse will continue.
He has said drug court officials have made unlawful arrests and
have stripped the program's participants of their
constitutionally protected rights.  Those who have been added to
the complaint as plaintiffs are Michael Campbell, Amy Tuttle,
Amanda Campbell, Bobby Upton, Shane Bratcher, Justin Lanham,
Trentney Rhodes and Joanie Watson.

The original plaintiffs are Destiny Hoffman, Nathan Clifford,
Joshua Folley, Jessie Hash, Ashleigh Santiago, James Bennett, Amy
Bennett and Lee Spaudling.


CLEANIS INC: Ordered to Fix Aspects of Responsive Pleading
----------------------------------------------------------
Cleanis, Inc., one of the two remaining defendants in the action
captioned AL AND PO CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLEANIS, INC., et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14 C 1225, (N.D. Ill.), brought under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, has filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses (ADs) to the Class Action Complaint.

Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur issued a memorandum order
sua sponte to address some problematic aspects of that responsive
pleading.  The Court found, among other things, that Answer
Paragraphs 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 24 and 39 all
inexplicably depart from the express language of Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(b)(5).

"In sum," wrote Judge Shadur in his April 16, 2014 memorandum
order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/OnHo5gfrom
Leagle.com, "defense counsel must sharpen their pencils (or the
equivalent in electronic terms) by crafting a total rewrite of
the AD section of Cleanis' responsive pleading as well as
correcting the error identified at the outset of this memorandum
order.  Counsel are ordered to do so by filing a self-contained
Amended Answer and ADs on or before April 28, 2014. No charge may
be made to Cleanis by its counsel for the added work and expense
incurred in correcting counsel's errors. Defense counsel are
ordered to apprise their client to that effect by letter, with a
copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an
informational matter (not for filing)."

Al and Po Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cleanis, Inc. a New York corporation,
Cleanis S.A.S., a France corporation, and Cleanis K.K., a Japan
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01225 (N.D. Ill., February 19,
2014) alleges that in an effort to market its products and
services, the Defendants sent unsolicited junk faxes in bulk,
known as fax blasts, to unwilling recipients with deficient opt-
out notices, which practice is expressly prohibited by the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Cleanis Paris offers personal hygiene products, including
absorbent pads and bags as alternatives to bed-pans.  Cleanis
Paris has two branches: Cleanis New York in New York, United
States, and Cleanis Tokyo in Tokyo, Japan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 470-6588
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  gbarbakoff@siprut.com
                  isalam@siprut.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David P. Niemeier, Esq.
          Mary Ann L. Wymore, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
          10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-9090
          E-mail: dpn@greensfelder.com
                  mlw@greensfelder.com

               - and -

          Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
          Valerie Gay Lipic, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER HAMKER & GALE P.C.
          200 West Madison St., Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 345-5018
          Facsimile: (312) 419-1930
          E-mail: pmj@greensfelder.com
                  vgl@greensfelder.com


DENSO CORP: Faces "SLTNTRST" Antitrust Class Suit in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
SLTNTRST LLC, Trustee for Fleetwood Liquidating Trust v. Denso
Corp., ASMO Co., Ltd., ASMO North America, LLC, ASMO
Manufacturing, Inc., Denso International America, Inc., Mitsuba
Corporation, and American Mitsuba Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
10762-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 19, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants conspired to rig bids, and to fix, maintain, and
stabilize the prices of Windshield Washers sold in the United
States from at least January 1, 2000, through the present.

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

The Defendants are manufacturers of Windshield Washers for
installation in motor vehicles manufactured or sold in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa H. Maxman, Esq.
          Ronald F. Wick, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1627 I Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4800
          E-mail: mmaxman@cozen.com
                  rwick@cozen.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 220-2913
          E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Catherine R. Reilly, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1627 I Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4836
          E-mail: creilly@cozen.com


DENSO CORP: Fixes Price of Windshield Washer Systems, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al. v. Denso Corporation,
ASMO Co., Ltd., ASMO North America, LLC, ASMO Manufacturing,
Inc., Denso International America, Inc., Mitsuba Corporation, and
American Mitsuba Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-10776-JCO-MAR
(E.D. Mich., February 19, 2014) accuses the Defendants and
unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers and suppliers of
Windshield Washer Systems of engaging in a long-running
conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain or
stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for Windshield Washer Systems.

Windshield Washer Systems, whether sold together or separately,
are defined to include one or more of these: the pump, hoses,
nozzle and tank necessary to deliver washer fluid to vehicle
windows.

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

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Windshield Washer
Systems throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


DENSO CORP: Sued for Fixing Prices of Windshield Wiper Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
SLTNTRST LLC, Trustee for Fleetwood Liquidating Trust v. Denso
Corp., ASMO Co., Ltd., Mitsuba Corporation, and American Mitsuba
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-10774-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
February 19, 2014) alleges that the Defendants conspired to rig
bids, and to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices of
Windshield Wiper Systems sold in the United States from at least
January 1, 2000, through the present.

The term "Windshield Wiper Systems" includes the motor, linkage,
arm and blade necessary to clear water or snow from vehicle
windows.

The Defendants are manufacturers of Windshield Wiper Systems for
installation in motor vehicles manufactured or sold in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa H. Maxman, Esq.
          Ronald F. Wick, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1627 I Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4800
          E-mail: mmaxman@cozen.com
                  rwick@cozen.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 220-2913
          E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Catherine R. Reilly, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1627 I Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4836
          E-mail: creilly@cozen.com


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: EverBank Still Faces "Vathana" Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Vathana v. EverBank of which a class was certified for
purchasers of a WorldCurrency Certificate of Deposit denominated
in Icelandic Krona, continues, according to EverBank Financial
Corp.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In April 2009, a putative class action entitled Vathana v.
EverBank was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California, against EverBank on behalf of all persons who
invested in certain EverBank foreign currency certificates of
deposit between April 24, 2005 and April 24, 2009, whose
certificates of deposit were closed by EverBank and who were
allegedly improperly paid the value of the account. In May 2009,
EverBank removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that EverBank breached its contract with its
customers by invoking the force majeure provision when closing
certain foreign currency certificates of deposit, and that at the
time of account closing, utilizing an improper conversion rate.
On March 15, 2010, a class was certified for purchasers of a
WorldCurrency Certificate of Deposit denominated in Icelandic
Krona which matured between October 8 and December 31, 2008. On
October 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of whether EverBank breached its
contract with the plaintiff by (1) failing to deliver Icelandic
Krona when EverBank closed the plaintiff's Icelandic Krona
certificates of deposit and (2) using commercially unreasonable
conversion rates when converting from Icelandic Krona to U.S.
Dollars. EverBank filed its reply and cross-motion for summary
judgment on November 22, 2010. A hearing on all pending motions
occurred on January 6, 2011. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified
general and special damages for himself and all class members,
along with costs and interest, and such other relief as the court
deems proper.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Seeks Judgment in Suit by Ark. Circuit Clerk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a suit filed by Martha Smith in her Official
Capacity as Circuit Clerk and Recorder of Clark County, Arkansas
against EverHome Mortgage Company filed a motion for partial
summary judgment, according to EverBank Financial Corp.'s Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Martha
Smith in her Official Capacity as Circuit Clerk and Recorder of
Clark County, Arkansas v. No Trustee On Deed Of Trust, Wilson and
Associates, PLLC, EverHome Mortgage Company, et al., was filed in
the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas. The complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the
defendants from recording documents without paying transfer taxes
and affixing documentary stamps to the recorded documents.

EverBank removed the case to federal court on November 7, 2012.
On November 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
proceeding back to state court and on December 3, 2012 EverBank
filed its response in opposition. EverBank and other defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on December 17, 2012. On September 4,
2013, the court adopted the magistrate's report and remanded the
case to state court. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 9, 2013 and on October 21, 2013 plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. Defendants filed a subsequent motion to
dismiss on November 8, 2013. On November 25, plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss and a motion for class
certification. Defendants filed their response in opposition to
class certification on January 3, 2014. On February 7, 2014,
plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a
declaratory judgment that transfer taxes are owed on non-judicial
foreclosure sales; a response was due February 28, 2014. A
hearing on all pending motions was scheduled for April 16, 2014.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: EverBank Still Faces Litigation Over MERS
-------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank continues to face lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege
improper mortgage assignment, according to EverBank Financial
Corp.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, EverHome Mortgage
Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that have held
mortgages through MERS are parties to the following material and
class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper
mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay
recording fees in violation of state recording statutes: (1)
State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney
General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al. filed in October
2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio, and
later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to state
court; (2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond,
Plymouth County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March 2012 in the
Iowa District Court for Plymouth County and later removed to
federal court; (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County
Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in
April 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky; (4) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al.,
filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; (5) County of Multnomah v.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in
December 2012 in an Oregon state court and subsequently removed
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon; (6)
Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in
November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania, and later removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; (7) County of
Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v. MERSCORP Holdings,
Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in the Second Judicial
District Court, subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court,
District of Minnesota and now on appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and (8) Jackson County,
Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registrations
Systems, Inc., et al., filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court
of Jackson County, Missouri and later removed to federal court
where the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and
now stayed due to the bankruptcy filing of defendant GMAC. In
these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each
case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the
defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Peterson v. CitiMortgage Now Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
The case Purnie Ray Peterson, et al. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et
al. concluded prior to the end of the second quarter 2013,
according to EverBank Financial Corp.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In July 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint
entitled Purnie Ray Peterson, et al. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et
al., in the Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin,
Minnesota against EverBank, EverHome Mortgage Company and other
lenders and foreclosure counsel. The complaint alleges slander of
title, breach of fiduciary duty, due process violation, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, and equitable estoppel. The plaintiffs assert that
defendants do not have valid legal title to the original notes
nor have physical possession of the same so the notes cannot be
enforced and seek a determination that defendants have no lien
interests in the properties and are permanently enjoined from
failing to record assignments of securitized mortgage loans. The
plaintiffs seek quiet title to their properties and a
determination that defendants have invalid and voidable
mortgages. The plaintiffs also seek a determination that
defendants failed to pay appropriate filing fees, that
plaintiffs' original notes are void, that all sums paid to
defendants be returned, and that attorneys' fees and costs are
awarded.

On August 18, 2011, the lawsuit was removed to federal court and
on August 29, 2011 a Joint Motion to Dismiss was filed by all
defendants. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was heard on March
7, 2012. On May 31, 2012, the Court granted EverBank's Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on June 27, 2012 and
their initial brief on August 16, 2012. Defendant's responsive
brief was filed on October 17, 2012. On January 28, 2013 the
appellate court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the
action. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a petition for
rehearing en banc, which the court denied on March 14, 2013.
Plaintiff failed to file a writ of certiorari within the required
time frame and the case concluded prior to the end of the second
quarter 2013.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: EverBank Still Faces TCPA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed by Mohammad Sarabi over alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), continues as to
EverBank in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, according to EverBank Financial Corp.'s
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On October 11, 2013, a putative class action entitled Mohammad
Sarabi, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EverBank Financial Corp was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging
negligent and knowing or willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
prohibiting EverBank from violating the TCPA in the future as
well as statutory damages. On December 17, 2013, plaintiff filed
an amended complaint naming EverBank and dropping EverBank
Financial Corp. Defendant filed an answer on December 20, 2013. A
case management conference was scheduled for February 24, 2014.


FORD MOTOR: Must Face Suit for Aiding South African Apartheid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Straehle, writing for AllGov, reports that a federal
District Court judge has ruled that those injured by the
apartheid policies of the white-ruled South African government
may sue Ford and IBM for providing assistance to that government
in the form of military vehicles and computers.  The racist
policies of apartheid were in force between 1948 and 1994.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled on April 17 that the
Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (ATS), which has in recent years been
used to hold U.S. corporations liable for human rights violations
they facilitate overseas, is applicable in this case.  In order
to come to this conclusion, however, Judge Scheindlin had to get
around a previous ruling in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch
Petroleum, in which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that corporations could not be sued under the ATS.

Judge Scheindlin called that case "an outlier," writing "it is
the only opinion by a federal court of appeals . . . to determine
that there is no corporate liability under the ATS."

Bruce Nagel, whose firm Nagel Rice is representing the South
Africans, was pleased by Judge Scheindlin's decision.  "Ford and
IBM enabled the apartheid regime to function, and justice
requires that they answer for their wrongdoing," Mr. Nagel said.

Originally, more companies were targeted in the suit, but were
dropped from the case in previous rulings by Judge Scheindlin.


GENERAL MILLS: Institutes Program to Restrict Legal Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Erik Sherman, writing for CBS MoneyWatch, reports that General
Mills instituted a program that restricts legal action some of
its most loyal customers can take should they have a problem with
the company's products.  Consumers who accept any of a list of
online benefits agree to binding arbitration and cannot join
class action suits in disputes, including those over products
purchased at a store.

General Mills owns such brands as Pillsbury, Betty Crocker,
Nature Valley, Yoplait, Wheaties, and Cheerios.  The list of
online benefits includes entering contests, joining the company's
online communities, and receiving electronic newsletters.  An
update to its legal terms, prominently placed at the top of the
website, directs consumers to the information.

People who participate in such so-called loyalty programs are
generally considered among a company's best customers.  The
actions do not affect the many consumers who casually buy General
Mills products.

A New York Times story proclaimed that liking a brand could void
a right to sue completely.  A statement that General Mills sent
CBS MoneyWatch called the claim a "mischaracterization" and said
that "[n]o one is precluded from suing us merely by purchasing
our products at the store or liking one of our brand Facebook
pages."

Omri Ben-Shahar, a professor of law at the University of Chicago
and expert in consumer legal issues, called the story "grossly
misleading" and said that the approach is widely practiced on
websites.  Furthermore, under U.S. law, there can be no passive
restriction on rights when it comes to product defect and
liability. Consumers will have to actively accept the agreement
when trying to download a coupon or join an email list.  However,
few bother to read the terms when they click through online, so
they may not realize the implications.

What is unusual is the extension to physical products purchased
online or in stores.  "If you're a customer of Facebook or
Google, the only way you can do business with them is online," he
said. "Wal-Mart.com has legal terms but they don't try to extend
them to brick-and-mortar stores."

Ben-Shahar said that the "practical importance of this kind of
agreement is negligible."  The company's biggest concern would
likely be to limit class action lawsuits, but given the nature of
General Mills sales, lawyers could easily find other plaintiffs.

As the New York Times reported, General Mills paid $8.5 million
in 2013 to settle lawsuits challenging health claims made on
Yoplait Yoplus yogurt packaging.  The change in legal terms this
year came after a court refused to dismiss a lawsuit about claims
that Nature Valley products are "natural" when the ingredients
could be genetically modified or processed.

The restriction to using arbitration does not prevent a lawsuit.
Instead, it forces the consumer to go through a process outside
of the traditional court system.

The concern by many consumer advocates is that arbitration tends
to favor corporations over individuals.  A 2007 Public Citizen
study of data from one arbitration organization, the National
Arbitration Forum, is often cited as evidence because it shows 94
percent of decisions sided with the credit card companies.  But
virtually all of the 33,948 cases studied were brought by the
credit card companies, making them large and lucrative clients of
the arbitrators.


GOOGLE INC: Appeals Certification of Gmail Ad Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost News, reports that Google is
asking a federal appellate court to turn away a group of
consumers who say their privacy is violated by Gmail ads.

The consumers recently asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for
permission to immediately appeal U.S. District Court Judge Lucy
Koh's recent decision denying them class-action status in the
case.  Theoretically, that ruling still allows the consumers to
move forward as individuals, but not on behalf of other people
who have used Gmail to send or receive mail.  As a practical
matter, however, the decision could make it prohibitively
expensive for the consumers to go ahead with the lawsuit.

The consumers filed papers under seal, noting that their legal
arguments refer to factual matters that Google had sought to keep
confidential.  Google, which publicly filed its response last
week, argues that the consumers haven't shown any "legitimate
reason" for an immediate appellate review.

The lawsuit centers on Google's practice of scanning Gmail
messages in order to surround them with targeted ads.  The
consumers argue that the scans violate the federal wiretap law,
which prohibits companies from intercepting electronic
communications without at least one party's consent.

Google counters that Gmail account holders consent by accepting
the company's terms of service, and that non-account holders
implicitly consent by using the service.

In September, Judge Koh rejected Google's bid to dismiss the case
outright.  But she ruled more recently that the consumers can't
proceed as a class-action, because one of the main contested
issues will be whether people consented to the email scans.
Judge Koh said that questions about consent require individual
determinations -- especially because people could have learned
about Google's email scanning program from a multitude of press
reports.

Google, which says Judge Koh's decision denying class-action
certification was correct, points to some of those reports in its
most recent court papers.  "There have been thousands of articles
in various media outlets that have described Google's automated
scanning of Gmail messages since Gmail's inception," the company
writes.  "These reports appeared in such widely viewed and varied
outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS News,
National Public Radio, the Houston Chronicle, Economist and the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and have undoubtedly been seen by
millions."

The company argues that those news reports are part of the
"surrounding circumstances" that should be evaluated when
determining whether consumers consented to the email scans that
can show whether users consented.  "There is no suggestion in any
authority proffered by petitioners that an analysis of the
'surrounding circumstances' must be limited to disclosures that
come directly from the defendant," the company says.

Meanwhile, the consumers and Google are trying to resolve the
dispute in mediation.  They were slated to provide a status
update to Judge Koh last week.


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Misrepresentation Claims Remain in Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims relating to alleged misrepresentations continue in In re:
Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557
(CM), according to Hi-Crush Partners LP's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi-
Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement
with Baker Hughes in response to the repudiation of the agreement
by Baker Hughes, the Partnership, the company's general partner,
certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters were
named as defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits
brought by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February
11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, styled
In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-
8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February
15, 2013. That complaint asserted claims under sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act in connection with the Partnership's Registration Statement
and a subsequent presentation. Among other things, the
consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose to the market certain alleged information relating to
Baker Hughes' repudiation of the supply agreement. On March 22,
2013, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On
December 2, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the claims
relating to the Partnership's Registration Statement, but did not
dismiss the claims relating to alleged misrepresentations
concerning the Partnership's relationship with Baker Hughes after
the Partnership's initial public offering. The Partnership and
the remaining defendants in the lawsuit have filed answers to the
complaint. The Partnership believes the case is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself. The Partnership cannot
provide assurance, however, as to the outcome of this lawsuit.


HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Sued for Fixing Valve Timing Controls' Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Hitachi Automotive Systems,
Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Denso
Corporation, and Denso International America, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-10777-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 19, 2014) is brought
as a proposed class action against the Defendants and unnamed co-
conspirators, manufacturers and suppliers of Valve Timing Control
Devices for engaging in a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully
fix, artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids
for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States
for Valve Timing Control Devices.

"Valve Timing Control Devices" control the timing of engine
valves' operation, and include the VTC actuator and solenoid
valve, and are part of the engine management system of the
automotive market.

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

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Valve Timing Control
Devices throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


JP MORGAN: Sued in Ill. for Sending Unlawful Ads to Fax Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Medical Center of Orland Park, Inc., on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Chase Bank USA, N.A.; and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-01251 (N.D. Ill., February 19, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants have sent or have caused the sending
of unlawful advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

JP Morgan Chase & Co., is a Delaware corporation with offices in
New York City.  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a federally
chartered corporation with offices in Columbus, Ohio.  Chase Bank
USA, N.A., is a federally chartered corporation with offices in
Wilmington, Delaware.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Frank F. Owen, Esq.
          FRANK F. OWEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1091 Ibis Avenue
          Miami Springs, FL 33166
          Telephone: (305) 984-8915
          E-mail: FFO@Castlepalms.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          Arjun Patibandla Rao, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          Facsimile: (310) 556-5959
          E-mail: jstrickland@stroock.com
                  arao@stroock.com


JUICY COUTURE: Sued for Not Having Blind-Accessible POS Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Juicy Couture, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20621-UU (S.D.
Fla., February 19, 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.

Juicy Couture, Inc., is a California corporation headquartered in
Arleta, California.

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:

          John Houston Pope, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177-0077
          Telephone: (212) 351-4500
          E-mail: jhpope@ebglaw.com


KR DRENTH: Fails to Pay Workers According to FLSA, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shane R. McLin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. K.R. Drenth Trucking Company, Inc. d/b/a KRD
Trucking, Case No. 1:14-cv-00245-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 19,
2014) alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated to him in accordance with the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

K.R. Drenth Trucking Company, Inc., doing business as KRD
Trucking, is an Illinois corporation doing business in Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          Two Meridian Plaza
          10401 North Meridian Street, Suite 130
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 706-1100
          Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
          E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com
                  rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David J. Carr, Esq.
          Emmanuel V.R. Boulukos, Esq.
          Paul Conrad Sweeney, Esq.
          ICE MILLER LLP
          One American Square, Suite 2900
          Indianapolis, IN 46282
          Telephone: (317) 236-2100
          Facsimile: (317) 592-4810
          E-mail: david.carr@icemiller.com
                  emmanuel.boulukos@icemiller.com
                  paul.sweeney@icemiller.com


LIBERTY MEDIA: Suit Over Acquisition of SIRIUS Shares Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
The cases involving the Proposal by Liberty Media Corporation
to acquire the remaining shares of SIRIUS XM that it does not
already own continue, according to Liberty's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 27, 2012, plaintiff Andrew Montero brought a
shareholder class action on behalf of the shareholders of the
common stock of SIRIUS XM against SIRIUS XM, the SIRIUS XM
Designees, Liberty and Liberty Radio LLC (Montero v. SIRIUS XM
Radio Inc., Index No. 653012/2012; N.Y. Sup. Ct. Cnty. of New
York).  The action was commenced in the Supreme Court for the
State of New York in New York County. Mr. Montero alleges
breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and seeks a declaratory judgment, with
allegations and relief sought substantially similar to those in
the City of Miami litigation. On February 20, 2014, Mr. Montero
filed a notice of discontinuance, dismissing the case.

In early to mid-January 2014, a series of stockholder class
actions were filed in Delaware and New York state courts against
Sirius XM Holdings Inc., Liberty, Liberty Radio LLC, and certain
present and former Sirius XM Holdings Inc. board members (Joan L.
Amble, Anthony J. Bates, George W. Bodenheimer, David J.A.
Flowers, Eddy W. Hartenstein, James P. Holden, Gregory B. Maffei,
Evan D. Malone, John C. Malone, James E. Meyer, James F. Mooney,
Carl E. Vogel, Vanessa A. Wittman. David Zaslav).

In Delaware, the cases are captioned: Roy v. Meyer, et al., Case
No. 9248-VCN (Del. Ch.); Ebenau v. Meyer, et al., Case No. 9249-
VCN (Del. Ch.); Ricciardi v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al.,
Case No. 9253-VCN (Del. Ch.); Western Washington Laborers-
Employers Pension Trust v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al., Case
No. 9269-VCN (Del. Ch.); and Varvolis v. Malone, et al., Case No.
9283-VCN (Del. Ch.). In New York, the cases are captioned:
Freedman v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al., Index No.
650038/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Adoni v. Amble, et al., Index No.
650085/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Goodman v. Amble, et al., Index No.
650141/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Hartleib v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc.,
et al., Index No. 650158/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Shenk v. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc., et al., Index No. 650188/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); The
Booth Family Trust v. Meyer, et al., Index No. 650235/2014 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.); Corso v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al., Index No.
650253/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); and Sciortino v. Sirius XM Holdings
Inc., et al., Index No. 650268/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

The cases involve the Proposal by Liberty to acquire the
remaining shares of SIRIUS XM that it does not already own. The
plaintiffs allege that in pursuing this Proposal, Liberty and the
individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the SIRIUS XM shareholders. Plaintiffs in certain of the actions
have initiated motion practice to consolidate the cases and
appoint lead counsel.


MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces Class Suit Arising From Security Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bank, Individually, And on Behalf of All
Similarly Situated financial Institutions v. MAPCO Express, Inc.,
and Delek US Holdings, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00031-HLM (N.D.
Ga., February 19, 2014) arises from security breaches that
resulted in the loss of customer credit card and debit card
account information for thousands of customers.

MAPCO Express, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation owned and operated
by Delek US Holdings, Inc., with its headquarters in Brentwood,
Tennessee.  MAPCO operates convenient store or "cstore" chains in
Tennessee, Mississippi, and throughout the southeastern United
States.  Delek US Holdings, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation and
the parent company of MAPCO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Andrew Childers, Esq.
          CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
          1932 North Druid Hills Road
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Telephone: (404) 419-9500
          Facsimile: (404) 419-9501
          E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Telephone: (205) 612-0243
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Chris Hellums, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON, KIRBY & HELLUMS
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2716
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com


MARICOPA COMMUNITY: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Dunning, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit is targeting a community college
district in Tempe, Ariz., that allegedly violated several state
and federal data protection laws, including waiting too long to
notify affected students, alumni and employees after a breach.

According to the lawsuit, the Maricopa County Community College
District not only failed to prevent a massive data breach in
April 2013, it waited nearly seven months to notify the
individuals affected.

Administrators of the community college district were notified by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 2011 that several
of its databases had been breached and were being made available
for sale on the Internet, according to a civil lawsuit filed
April 15 in the Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix.

The lawsuit claims district administrators did nothing to address
the breach at the time, and that their inaction resulted in a
second breach in April 2013.  The lawsuit also accuses the
community college district of waiting until November 2013 to
notify current and former students, employees and third-party
vendors that their personally identifiable information --
including names, addresses, Social Security Numbers, personal
financial information and benefits information had been accessed
and possibly sold on the Internet.

The plaintiff in the case, current MCCC student Jason Liebich, is
seeking class action status on behalf of the estimated 2.5
million individuals affected by the April 2013 breach.  Mr.
Liebich has accused the college district of violating several
state and federal data protection and notification laws, and has
asked the court for compensatory damages including unlimited
compensations for credit monitoring, restoration and identity
protection costs.

A second group of plaintiffs notified the school in March of
their intent to pursue a similar lawsuit.


MATTLEMAN WEINROTH: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM.com, reports that a
federal judge in New Jersey approved the settlement of a class
action lawsuit against a collection agency over the validation
language the firm used in a letter to a consumer.  The settlement
calls for the debt collection firm to pay $9,500 to the lead
plaintiff and potential class of 225 consumers, with the
plaintiffs' attorneys receiving $40,000.

The case, Wilson v. Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller, involved a
collection letter sent to the plaintiff for an outstanding debt
owed to an apartment complex.  The law firm Mattleman, Weinroth &
Miller was acting on behalf of collection agency Executive Credit
Management, Inc. -- also named in the suit -- a firm that
specializes in, among other things, apartment rental debt.

The suit, originally filed in January 2013, alleged that the
collection letter did not include the proper disclosures in the
validation language per Sec. 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA.  The
plaintiff also alleged that the firm violated Sec. 1692e(10)
using deceptive collection practices.

On or about October 12, 2012, Mattleman delivered a one-page
collection letter to the plaintiff demanding a $4,200 payment
that contained the following validation language:

In the event you notify us in writing within thirty (30) days of
your receipt of this letter that the debt, or any portion of the
debt, is disputed, we will mail you verification of the debt, or,
if applicable, obtain a copy of the judgment, and upon your
written request we will provide you with the original creditor's
name and address should it be different from the current
creditor.

Should you fail to respond within thirty (30) days, we will
recommend that our client commence an action against you to
protect its rights. Please understand that this communication is
from a debt collector and any information we obtain will be used
for the purpose of collecting this debt.

In a decision issued in June, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas
dismissed the Sec. 1692e(10) claim, finding that the plaintiff
failed to assert a violation. But he did deny the defendants'
request to dismiss the Sec. 1692g(a)(3) claim writing, "Although
Mattleman contends that its letter contains all the information
that Sec. 1692g(a), a reading of the letter as a whole from the
perspective of the least-sophisticated debtor shows that this is
not the case."

Judge Irenas noted that "section 1692g(a)(3) requires only that
Mattleman convey the gist of the provision in a non-deceptive
statement, not that Mattleman specifically use the term "assume"
as argued by the defendants.  Yet at no point does the letter
purport to notify Wilson that her debt would be assumed valid (or
for that matter by whom it would be assumed) if she did not
respond within thirty days.  The only sentence that could
possibly be interpreted to provide such notice states, 'Should
you fail to respond within thirty (30) days, we will recommend
that our client [Executive] commence an action against you to
protect its rights.' This statement, however, does not convey
effective notice to a least-sophisticated debtor that her debt
would be assumed valid."

After the June ruling, the parties started talking settlement.  A
potential class was determined comprised of former tenants of the
apartment complex who had received collection letters from the
firm, about 225 people.  A $2,500 payment for Wilson, the
representative plaintiff, was settled on, as was $7,000 for the
remaining class, about $30 per person.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, although billing a total of around
$44,000 for the case, bravely accepted a $40,000 payment from the
defendants.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Cadenasso" Suit Transferred to Florida Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John S. Tigar issued an order granting a motion to
transfer venue in the lawsuit captioned RICHARD CADENASSO,
Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-05491-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company filed the Motion to
Stay the case under the "first-to-file" rule. In the alternative,
MetLife asked the Court to transfer the case to the Southern
District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

Defendants Storick Group Company, The Storick Group Corporation,
and Scott R. Storick filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). In the alternative,
the Storick Defendants requested that the Court transfer the case
to the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a).

The Court granted MetLife's Motion to Transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a) and transferred the case to the Southern District
of Florida.  The Storick Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction or to Transfer was granted as to the
motion to transfer and denied as moot as to the motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A copy of the District Court's April 14, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/djL49afrom Leagle.com.

Richard Cadenasso, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson + Wanca, David M. Oppenheim
-- DOppenheim@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Robert C.
Schubert -- rschubert@schubert-reed.com -- Schubert & Reed LLP,
Ross M. Good --  rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca &
Willem F. Jonckheer --  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com --
Schubert, Jonckheer & Kolbe, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Becca J. Wahlquist -- bwahlquist@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP & Judd Grutman -- jgrutman@manatt.com -- Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

Scott R Storick, Defendant, represented by Howard W. Poznanski,
Howard Poznanski.

Storick Group Co., Defendant, represented by Howard W. Poznanski,
Howard Poznanski.

The Storick Group Corporation, Defendant, represented by Howard
W. Poznanski, Howard Poznanski.


MONCKS CORNER: Has Inflicted Emotional Distress, Officers Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Crouse and George T. Winningham v. Town of Moncks Corner,
Town of Moncks Corner Police Department and James Chad Caldwell,
Chief of Police, Moncks Corner Police Department, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00438-CWH (D.S.C., February 19, 2014) is an employment civil
rights case involving alleged deprivations of rights contained in
the First and Fourteenth Amendment and of the U.S. Constitution,
as well as violations of state and federal public policy laws.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of state law and policy under
the state Whistleblowers Statute, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and retaliation in violation of public policy.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Town of Moncks Corner as law
enforcement officers with the Town of Moncks Corner Police
Department.

The Town of Moncks Corner is a governmental agency providing
police protection services through the Town of Moncks Corner
Police Department.  The Town of Moncks Corner Police Department
is a division of the Town of Moncks Corner providing police
protection services.  James Chad Caldwell is the Chief of Police
of Town of Moncks Corner.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          321 Wingo Way Suite # 201
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (800) 385-8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

               - and -

          Jennifer Munter Stark, Esq.
          210 Wingo Way #300
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 972-0004
          Facsimile: (843) 972-0006
          E-mail: jmunterstarklaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher W. Johnson, Esq.
          GIGNILLIAT SAVITZ AND BETTIS
          900 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 100
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 799-9311
          Facsimile: (803) 254-6951
          E-mail: cjohnson@gsblaw.net


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Issues Statement on Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2014, Monster Beverage Corporation entered into a
settlement agreement that, if approved by the court, will resolve
a putative securities class action lawsuit against the Company
and two of its officers in federal district court in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit (Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp.) was originally filed
in 2008, and Monster has spent more than five years aggressively
defending against the allegations set forth therein.  However, in
light of the potential costs of continued litigation, as well as
the potential burden and disruption to the Company and its
management, Monster, together with its insurance carriers,
believed it was in their best interests to settle the case for
the amount set forth in the settlement agreement.

Monster noted that the full settlement payment was being funded
by Monster's insurance carriers, and that the settlement would
not have any impact on Monster's financial position or its income
statement.

Monster further noted that the settlement contains no admission
of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the Company or its
officers, and that all of the defendants continue to deny all of
the allegations against them and to maintain that the suit has no
merit.

In fact, contrary to the allegations in the lawsuit, Monster's
relationship with Anheuser-Busch was extremely successful during
the proposed class period and thereafter.  After that
relationship began in 2006, Monster achieved record sales in each
quarter during the proposed class period, and significantly
improved its Monster Energy product line's market share.
Further, despite the lawsuit's allegations of harm to investors,
Monster's stock price rose by 75% during the proposed class
period, generating nearly $1.7 billion in shareholder value
during that time.

"We are fully confident that we would have prevailed if the
litigation had proceeded," said Monster's CEO Rodney C. Sacks.
"Nevertheless, given the terms of the settlement, the payment of
which is being funded by insurance carriers entirely, we believe
it is in the Company's interests to put this matter behind us."


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Not Disclosing True Financial Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Cecilia Ghilardotti, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Montage Technology Group Limited,
Howard C. Yang, Stephen Tai, and Mark Voll, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01036-LLS (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2014) arises from Montage's
alleged failure to disclose its true financial condition during
the Class Period.

In particular, the Plaintiff contends, Montage failed to disclose
that LQW Technology Company Limited, the Company's largest
distributor, is a mere shell company that is owned in full by an
entity that was established by Montage and a Montage employee.

Montage purports to be a global leading fabless provider of
analog and mixed-signal semiconductor solutions.  The Company
specializes in providing products for the home entertainment
market and the cloud computing market.  The Company is
incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands, and maintains
business offices in San Jose, California.  The Company's
principal executive offices are located in Shanghai, People's
Republic of China.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          Jennifer Traystman, Esq.
          C. William Margrabe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: Ctrinko@trinko.com
                  jtraystman@trinko.com
                  wmargrabe@trinko.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          Facsimile: (484) 450-2582
          E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
                  rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


NEST LABS: Sold Defective Nest Thermostat Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hagedorn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nest Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00755-JST (N.D.
Cal., February 19, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged
defective Nest thermostat product.

The Defendant knew about the defect, yet continued to market and
sell its product to over one-million consumers in the United
States, Mr. Hagedorn contends.

Nest Labs, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal
place of business in Palo Alto, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Emery, Esq.
          ABBEY, WEITZENBERG, WARREN & EMERY, P.C.
          100 Stony Point Road, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 1566
          Santa Rosa, CA 95402-1566
          Telephone: (707) 542-5050
          Facsimile: (707) 542-2589
          E-mail: pemery@abbeylaw.com

               - and -

          Brett Emison, Esq.
          Adam W. Graves, Esq.
          Phyllis A. Norman, Esq.
          LANGDON & EMISON
          911 Main Street
          P.O. Box 220
          Lexington, MO 64067
          Telephone: (660) 259-6175
          Facsimile: (660) 259-4571
          E-mail: brett@lelaw.com
                  adam@lelaw.com
                  phyllis@lelaw.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
          Simona Alessandra Agnolucci, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: bhur@kvn.com
                  sagnolucci@kvn.com

Movant Justin Darisse is represented by:

          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: apersinger@bursor.com


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit for Exploiting People With Petty Crimes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oren Yaniv, writing for New York Daily News, reported that a
class action was slated to be filed last week in Manhattan
federal court asserting that people who perform community service
as part of dismissing their low-level criminal cases are
unlawfully exploited by the city for free labor.  The lawsuit
would challenge a longstanding practice in which defendants sweep
parks or clean highways as part of an arrangement known as
adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.

An ACD is given in misdemeanor cases and requires defendants to
stay out of trouble for six months or a year before their cases
are dismissed and sealed.  Sometimes, a handful of days of
community service are added as part of the deal.

"The city saves, at the least, many thousands of dollars a year
in labor costs utilizing their free labor," claims the suit by
Brooklyn lawyer Andrew Stoll.

Court papers note that these workers never pleaded guilty,
"remain clothed with a presumption of innocence, and are in no
need of punishment, deterrence, or rehabilitation."

The oft-misunderstood ACD is typically offered on weak cases or
to defendants with no criminal records who were caught on a minor
offense.  Nearly 88,000, or 28% of criminal cases citywide,
resulted in that disposition in 2012.

Court officials couldn't immediately say how many also included
community service.  Mr. Stoll estimated the number at dozens of
cases each day.

"He's misinterpreting the meaning and purpose of an ACD," opined
criminal defense attorney Jonathan Strauss, who was told of the
suit.

The question is whether it meets the definition of employment
under federal and state labor laws -- and it does.  He explained
that an ACD is not tantamount to a dismissal, but is an agreement
that precludes defendants from bringing a malicious prosecution
lawsuit and includes benefits like avoiding court dates and
lawyer fees.

"The bottom line is that it's exploitation," Mr. Stoll insisted.
"The question is whether it meets the definition of employment
under federal and state labor laws -- and it does."

He compared the current practice to unpaid internships or to a
maid who is given free lodging but no salary.  He said ACD
laborers should be paid minimum wage or that their community
service should be abolished.

Plaintiffs named in the suit are Michael Smith of Brooklyn who
had to clean the Cross Bay Bridge for one day after a gravity
knife was found in his car and Aidan Doyle who was busted for
turnstile jumping in 2012.

A spokesman for the city Law Department declined comment before
reviewing the complaint.  But a skeptical defense lawyer, who
asked not to be named, pooh-poohed the lawsuit as "a huge
shakedown" and "money grab" on the part of the attorney.

Mr. Stoll brushed that criticism aside and noted he's bringing
the action on behalf of mostly poor people who are often the
target of low-level busts.  "If I can make money by doing good,
then everybody wins," he said.


NIELSEN CO: Agrees to Pay Overtime Class Action for $1.2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, reports that media research
company The Nielsen Company (US) LLC has agreed to pay up to $1.2
million to settle a putative class action in which employees
claimed they were denied overtime compensation and proper meal
breaks and rest periods, in violation of state and federal laws,
according to a settlement agreement in California federal court
announced on April 17.

Under the agreement, two classes of employees with the title of
"member representatives" who have made wage-and-hour allegations
will receive money: a California class, which will get a third of
the settlement amount after deduction of attorneys' fees and
other expenses, and a nationwide class, which will get two-thirds
of the settlement less similar expenses, according to the
plaintiffs' preliminary approval motion.  Attorneys' fees amount
to about $400,000.

The California class includes current and former Nielsen
employees who were member representatives from May 8, 2009,
onward.  The nationwide class includes current and former non-
California member representatives who worked for Nielsen from May
8, 2010. Individual settlement payments will be calculated based
on the number of weeks worked during the class periods, according
to the agreement.

Tony Benado filed the class action in May.  As a member
representative for the media research company, Mr. Benado would
visit the homes of families whose television watching and other
media consumption habits were monitored by Nielsen for the
benefit of clients.  He alleged that he and other member
representatives were regularly denied an hour's worth of
compensation for drive time to the first Nielsen home of the day
and from the last at the end of their shifts. All other drive
time was compensated, the lawsuit said.

Mr. Benado also accused Nielsen of stiffing the member
representatives out of meal breaks and rest periods required by
state law.

In November, the parties entered mediation and for an unspecified
amount of time engaged in proceedings to come to the presented
terms, according to the preliminary approval motion.

Among the fees to be deducted from the settlement are a $5,000
bonus to Mr. Benado for serving as the lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit and a $5,000 penalty to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency.  The parties also agree to pay
about 10 percent to the claims administrator.

Nielsen, known for its Nielsen ratings since the 1950s, among
other media consumption measurement systems, denied all the
allegations and is not admitting any wrongdoing by settling,
according to the agreement.

The plaintiffs are represented by H. Tim Hoffman, Chad A.
Saunders and Eric Barba of Hoffman Libenson Saunders & Barba.

Nielsen is represented by Lindsey Connor Hulse --
lhulse@orrick.com -- and Jessica Perry -- jperry@orrick.com -- of
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Benado v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC et al., case
number 3:13-cv-02123, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


NIKON INC: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Defective D600 Camera Shutter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nikon Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00764-LB (N.D. Cal.,
February 19, 2014) concerns the Defendant's alleged deceptive
marketing of and a defect in the shutter mechanism of the "pro-
level" Nikon D600 camera, which ruins photographs with consistent
and pervasive oil and dust spotting.

Nikon Inc. is a New York corporation, with its principal place of
business in Melville, New York.  Nikon is one of the world's
largest and best known manufacturers of digital imaging,
precision optics, and photo imaging technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Behdad C. Sadeghi, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  behdad.sadeghi@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          1700 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com


NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360,
reports that Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.'s financing unit was hit on
April 21 with a proposed class action accusing it of illegally
calling a consumer from whom it was attempting to collect a debt,
despite her repeated requests not to be contacted by phone.

Plaintiff Candida Wolcott says in her complaint, filed in
California federal court, that Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.,
which handles lease and loan financing for the carmaker, violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through its unwanted phone
calls.  She allegedly received the first call earlier this month,
and during the call requested that she not be contacted by
telephone again.  According to the suit, the TCPA is designed to
give consumers a choice as to how creditors or marketers may
contact them, and Ms. Wolcott was denied her choice when the
company continued to call her.

"Plaintiff demanded that defendant cease telephoning plaintiff on
plaintiff's cellular telephone . . . thereby expressly revoking
any consent that may have been in place to receive calls via an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or using an artificial or
prerecorded voice," the complaint said.

Shortly after the first call, NMAC allegedly called her again
using an automatic telephone dialing system, and she received a
prerecorded message that she should wait on the line for an agent
to pick up the call and speak with her.

The next day Ms. Wolcott's attorney sent a letter to NMAC
demanding that it stop trying to contact her, and according to
the complaint, the company has acknowledged receipt of the
letter. However, a week or so later, Wolcott got another call
similar to the first two, made by an automatic telephone dialing
system and using a prerecorded voice message, the suit says.

"Defendant, either directly or through its agents, illegally
contacted plaintiff and the class members via their cellular
telephones by using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded
voice, thereby causing plaintiff and class members to incur
certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone
time for which plaintiff and the class members previously paid,
and invading the privacy of said plaintiff and the class
members," the complaint said.

NMAC has faced other legal problems in California recently.  In
January, a California state appeals court revived fraud
allegations accusing NMAC of promising financial support to
California dealerships and then pulling the plug, finding a jury
was blocked from hearing key evidence favoring the dealerships.

Reversing in part a judgment by Superior Court Judge Ronald L.
Bauer, the three-judge panel determined that the jury hadn't
heard evidence that NMAC President Steve Lambert allegedly made
false oral promises to continue financing Superior Automotive
Group LLC's dealerships regardless of untimely inventory
payments.

Ms. Wolcott is represented by Assal Assassi of Kazerouni Law
Group APC, Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart, Jared M. Hartman
of Hartman Law Office Inc. and Babak Semnar of Semnar Law Firm.

The case is Candida Wolcott v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.,
number 5:14-cv-00780, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


NORTHWEST SAVINGS: Settles Suit Over Posting of Bank Transactions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Savings Bank participated in a mediation and reached an
agreement in principle to settle the suit that alleged state law
claims related to its order of posting ATM and debit card
transactions and the assessment of overdraft fees on deposit
customer accounts, according to Northwest Bancshares, Inc.'s Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On May 7, 2012, Ashley Toth ("Plaintiff") filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania against Northwest Savings Bank
("Northwest").  Plaintiff's complaint alleged state law claims
related to Northwest's order of posting ATM and debit card
transactions and the assessment of overdraft fees on deposit
customer accounts.  Northwest filed preliminary objections to the
putative class action complaint on June 29, 2012.  On September
6, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended putative class action
complaint containing substantially the same allegations as the
initial putative class action complaint.  On November 5, 2012,
Northwest filed preliminary objections to the amended putative
class action complaint.  Plaintiff filed her opposition to
Northwest's preliminary objections on December 6, 2012, and
Northwest filed its reply in support of the preliminary
objections on January 3, 2013.  On June 25, 2013, the court
entered an order, granting in part and overruling in part,
Northwest's preliminary objections.

On November 18, 2013, the parties participated in a mediation and
reached an agreement in principle, subject to the preparation and
execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
release, to fully, finally and completely settle, resolve,
discharge and release all claims that have been or could have
been asserted in the action on a class-wide basis.  The proposed
settlement contemplates that, in return for a full and complete
release of claims by Plaintiff and the settlement class members,
Northwest will create a settlement fund for distribution to the
settlement class members after certain court-approved reductions,
including for attorney's fees and expenses.  The proposed
settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval.


OISHII THAI: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Rivera Fuentes, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown, v. Oishii Thai,
Inc., Sineneena Techawatanaset, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01255 (N.D. Ill., February 19, 2014) seeks redress for the
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law in connection
with the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees earned minimum wage and overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' Buffalo Grove, Illinois
restaurant location.

Oishii Thai, Inc. is an Illinois corporation.  Sineneena
Techawatanaset is the president of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          E. Michael Ciesla, Esq.
          Allison R. Pawlicki, Esq.
          CIESLA & CIESLA, P.C.
          836 Skokie Blvd.
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (847) 412-1988
          Facsimile: (847) 418-3217
          E-mail: mciesla@cclegal.net
                  arpawlicki@cclegal.net


OTTAWA: Flood Victims Seek Court Certification for C$200MM Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Derfel, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
nearly three years after massive flooding devastated much of the
Richelieu River valley, victims are seeking court certification
for a $200-million class-action lawsuit against the provincial
and federal governments.

Certification is not automatic, but must be granted by a judge
before a class action can proceed.

The victims claim that both Ottawa and Quebec did not provide
them with adequate financial compensation for the flood damage to
their homes and businesses.  The 37 days of flooding -- during
which water from the river surged one kilometer overland from its
banks -- affected more than 3,000 properties.

Quebec pledged in 2011 to compensate victims up to 80 per cent of
the value of their "necessities of life," but the plaintiffs
argue that the process was arbitrary and didn't cover many items
like a second fridge.  Ottawa reimbursed Quebec millions of
dollars for some of the compensation it paid out.

In a court motion filed by lead plaintiff Denis Dupuis, the
victims contend that the two governments are ultimately
responsible for the flood damage because they never followed
through on plans in 1937 to lower the river bed in the rapids
flowing through St-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

Gilles Gareau, one of the lawyers representing the victims, told
The Gazette that the federal government has long been aware of
seasonal flooding in the Richelieu Valley and took steps in 1937
to remedy the problem.  Although it did build a dam on Fryers
Island, between Chambly and St-Jean, that was only one part of
the foreseen solution, he said.

"Everyone's aware of the problem of the flooding and almost a
hundred years later, the rest of the work that's needed to avoid
90 to 95 per cent of homes being flooded still hasn't been
completed," Mr. Gareau said.

The plaintiffs also claim that their rights to "security of
person" -- guaranteed under the Quebec Charter of Rights and
Freedoms -- have been violated because of the repeated flooding
in the valley over the years.

"These floods on a nearly yearly basis cause tremendous stress to
the people who have to live through them, and it's basically a
violation of their right to the security of their being,"
Mr. Gareau said.  "In the most extreme case, we've had people who
committed suicide following the 2011 floodings."

Justice Louis Lacoursiere is to hear arguments for the
certification starting Tuesday in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu. The
total compensation being sought also includes moral damages for
suffering, Mr. Gareau said.


PELLA CORP: "Romig" Suit Transferred from N.Y. to South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Romig v. Pella Corporation, et
al., Case No. 5:13-cv-00849, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston).
The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-00433-DCN to the proceeding.

Plaintiff John Romig, Jr., is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER, WEISS LAW FIRM
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER, WEISS LAW FIRM
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
                  sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          3700 Glenwood Ave., Suite 410
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 981-0191
          Facsimile: (919) 981-0199
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Clifford G. Tsan, Esq.
          Suzanne O. Galbato, Esq.
          Thomas Keleher, Esq.
          BOND, SCHOENECK LAW FIRM - SYRACUSE
          One Lincoln Center
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 218-8000
          Facsimile: (315) 218-8100
          E-mail: ctsan@bsk.com
                  sgalbato@bsk.com
                  tkeleher@bsk.com

               - and -

          G. Mark Phillips, Esq.
          Michael Tucker Cole, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH (CH)
          151 Meeting Street, Sixth Floor
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 720-4383
          Facsimile: (843) 534-4392
          E-mail: mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com
                  mike.cole@nelsonmullins.com

               - and -

          James A. O'Neal, Esq.
          John P. Mandler, Esq.
          Shane A. Anderson, Esq.
          FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: ames.oneal@faegrebd.com
                  john.mandler@faegrebd.com
                  shane.anderson@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Genung, Esq.
          MELVIN, MELVIN LAW FIRM
          217 South Salina Street, 7th Floor
          Syracuse, NY 13202-1686
          Telephone: (315) 422-1311
          Facsimile: (315) 479-7612


QUALITY MEDICAL: Accused of Sending TCPA-Prohibited Fax Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Al and Po Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quality Medical Products, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-01243 (N.D. Ill.,
February 19, 2014) alleges that in an effort to market its
products and services, the Defendant sent unsolicited junk faxes
in bulk, known as fax blasts, to unwilling recipients with
deficient opt-out notices, which practice is expressly prohibited
by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Quality Medical Products, LLC, is a Florida limited liability
company headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida.  The Defendant is
a supplier of breathing-disorder and diabetic medical equipment.
The Defendant also maintains a subcontracting network for its
products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 470-6588
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  gbarbakoff@siprut.com
                  isalam@siprut.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ari Nicholas Rothman, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 7th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 344-4220
          E-mail: anrothman@venable.com


SAULT AREA HOSPITAL: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Della-Mattia, writing for Sault Star, reports that Sault
Area Hospital employee has been terminated after hospital
officials say patient records were accessed inappropriately.

Mario Paluzzi, vice president of SAH public relations, said the
investigation began last summer after it was first discovered
during a random audit that "something went wrong here."  The
investigation, which began immediately and resulted in a complete
audit of the individual's access into the MediTech system, went
back to 2008.

The results indicated that 144 "breaches" were discovered,
Mr. Paluzzi said.  Patients, whose information was
inappropriately accessed, were notified by way of a letter and
with the assistance of the Information and Privacy Commissioner
once the hospital completed its due diligence, Mr. Paluzzi said.
It's not believed the records were copied, downloaded or
exported, he said.

"I'm not sure exactly when the records were accessed but our
audit shows that there were 144 inappropriate cases of accessing
patient files," Mr. Paluzzi said.  "We have zero tolerance and
the repercussions are swift and significant" after proper checks
and balances are completed.

The MediTech system is a common computerized system used in the
health care industry.

At SAH, many staff have access to the system and patient files
but employees are only supposed to access patient files if they
are part of that patient's circle of care.

"We have done as much as possible to educate (our staff) and they
know we have zero tolerance," he said.

In this particular case, the employee -- whom Mr. Paluzzi would
not identify by name, position or area employed -- had accessed
about 500-600 files, of which the majority were justified access,
he said.  That individual is appealing the termination notice.

Since the notification letters have gone out, Mr. Paluzzi said a
number of distraught patients have called the hospital seeking
more information about the types of information that was
accessed, why, and how it can be used.  "We have no reason to
believe the access was other than for curiosity.  Someone was
being nosy, a little too curious," he said.

Mr. Paluzzi said he did not know whether health card numbers were
accessed or what implications that would have on the patients who
own those numbers.  "The individual was just curious.  The
information was not passed along, not copied and the health card
numbers were not shared," he said.

The MediTech system is used by doctors, nurses, technicians,
clinical services, diagnostic imaging staff and some
administration.  Access is required by many staff but accessing
personal information must be justifiable by those only in the
patient's circle of care, he said.

"This is a serious breach of trust and we treat it as such,"
Mr. Paluzzi said.  He said a handful of similar cases have
occurred since 2008 and have resulted in employee terminations.

"We continue to perform random audits and we educate our
employees about our policies the repercussions of not following
those polices."

The Sault Area Hospital is not the first hospital to experience
breach of privacy issues.  The Peterborough Regional Health
Centre is embroiled in a $5.6 million class action lawsuit
concerning privacy issues.  Lawyers representing the hospital had
unsuccessfully attempted to toss out the lawsuit last fall but
the courts ruled the claim has merit and can be tested in the
courts.  In that case, the Peterborough hospital fired seven
employees for snooping at the records when they were not entitled
to do so.

Lawyer Michael Crystal, of the Ottawa-based law firm Michael
Crystal and Associates, who is representing the plaintiffs in the
Peterborough case, said he's already been contacted by a Sault
Ste. Marie resident about the local situation.

"I have been contacted and I have a representative plaintiff,"
Mr. Crystal said in a telephone interview.  "My intention is to
move forward with a class action."

Mr. Crystal said his client is distraught about the disclosure of
patient records.  He said that at this time, he cannot identify
his client or the reason for hospitalization.

"I can only say that patients have had their privacy invaded and
they can't understand how this happened.  My job now is to speak
to others in Sault Ste. Marie and do my due diligence," he said.

Mr. Crystal said the statute of limitations is not an issue in
the case and he will file an initial state of claim with a
representative plaintiff in due course.  A representative
plaintiff is one person who has enough of the common elements as
other potential plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit.  In the
meantime, he has had some brief contact with a few other
individuals in Sault Ste. Marie who also received letters from
the hospital explaining the breach and plans on visiting Sault
Ste. Marie in the future to conduct more interviews.

Mr. Crystal said that while the hospital may have limited ability
to determine if the medical records were copied or downloaded,
they wouldn't be able to know if the information was disseminated
elsewhere.

"I'm very interested in this and will make myself immediately
available to anyone affected" by the breached records, he said.


SIOUX CITY, IA: Settles Suit Over Utility Bill Franchise Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Johnson, writing for ktiv.com, reports that on April 21,
Sioux City leaders accepted a six-and-a-half million dollar
settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against it and several
other Iowa communities. The lawsuit stems from a two-percent
franchise fee tacked onto gas and electric bills.

At the time, there was no state law that authorized the fee, and
the towns involved in the suit were ordered to pay back the money
collected.  Since then, the Iowa legislature has pass a law that
allows a five-percent franchise fee.

City leaders plan to raise the fee to five-percent, to pay for
the settlement.  "It allows (us) to spread the cost to the rate
payers, a larger population rather than just raising property
taxes, which would only be paid by those who have taxable
property," said City Manager Bob Padmore.

Though the city council has accepted the settlement, a judge will
still have the final say.


ST. MARK PLUMBING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hubert Brooks, in his individual capacity and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. St. Marks Plumbing & Heating Co. Inc., and
Michael Faust, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-01028-AKH
(S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff only
received "straight time" pay for overtime hours worked, and did
not receive the prevailing wage rate despite working on New York
City Housing Authority projects.  The Plaintiff worked as a
plumber for the Defendants' heating and plumbing company.

St. Marks Plumbing &Heating Co. Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in New York City.  Michael Faust is the owner of
St. Marks Plumbing & Heating.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penn Dodson, Esq.
          ANDERSON DODSON, P.C.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 961-7639
          Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
          E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


SUMMER INFANT: Recalls Infant Monitor Rechargeable Batteries
------------------------------------------------------------
Kid's Doctor reports that in cooperation with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Summer Infant, Inc.
announced a voluntary recall to replace certain rechargeable
batteries in baby video monitors due to overheating and burn
hazards.

The recall involves about 800,000 rechargeable batteries in
certain Summer Infant handheld color video monitors.  The
rechargeable batteries in the monitors are about 1 1/2" tall by
2 1/4" wide and are 1/4" thick, black, and are marked with TCL on
the lower right corner of the battery.

Monitors are sold with a matching camera and A/C adaptors.  The
rechargeable battery can only be found in the monitor.  Batteries
that may be affected will include a letter & number combination
in the beginning of the serial number on the back of the battery.
The battery in certain handheld video monitors can overheat and
rupture, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Summer Infant has received 22 reports of overheated batteries and
ruptured batteries, including incidents of smoke and minor
property damage.

Consumers should stop using this product and remove the battery.
You can complete the online form to receive a replacement
battery.  The monitor can continue to be used on AC power with
power cord.  The product was sold at mass merchants, online
retailers and independent juvenile specialty stores from about
February 2010 through 2012 for approximately $149-$349.

Consumers can go online at
www.summerinfant.com/alerts/batterty-recall to fill out a
replacement battery form and for instructions on how to replace
the battery.  There is also a link where you can view the
recalled batteries, battery numbers and the monitors that are
affected.


SUNNYVALE DEL GRANDE: Court Reverses Arbitration Denial Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a California
appeals court on April 17 reversed a trial court's denial of an
auto dealer's bid to compel arbitration in a class action dispute
with a group of car buyers, saying federal law preempted a state
statute prohibiting class action waivers.

California's Sixth Appellate District said in an unpublished
opinion that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, reversing a trial court's order
removing the arbitration mandate in a contract dispute between
California resident and lead plaintiff Suzanne Gillespie and a
car dealership owned by Sunnyvale Del Grande Inc.

The opinion based much of its analysis on the 2011 U.S. Supreme
Court decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which found that
the FAA preempts the CLRA in certain circumstances.

"Based on the reasoning in Concepcion, the CLRA's anti-waiver
provision 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of the full purposes and objectives of [the FAA]' and
thus we determine that the statutory provision is preempted by
the FAA," the court said.

The high court's 5-4 decision in Concepcion overturned a Ninth
Circuit ruling striking down the class action ban in AT&T's
consumer arbitration agreements as unconscionable under state law
comes as a strong statement against class arbitration.

In the instant case, Ms. Gillespie had accused the dealership of
illegally backdating a sales contract for a used vehicle,
charging fees for "new tires" even though it equipped her vehicle
with old tires and charging her for optional California
Department of Motor Vehicles fees without her permission, the
opinion said.  She alleged 11 causes of action against Sunnyvale
Del Grande and co-defendant Bank of the West, which was assigned
the sale contract.

After the case was filed, the defendants in 2012 asked the trial
court to compel arbitration, arguing that the contract Gillespie
signed had an arbitration clause.  They also claimed that
Gillespie had waived her rights to pursue a class action against
the companies, according to the opinion.

Gillespie opposed the bid to arbitrate. She said that the
contract's arbitration clause was unenforceable under the CLRA,
adding that the contract terms were unconscionable, the opinion
said.

The trial court agreed, ruling that the arbitration clause was
"permeated with unconscionability" and declining to enforce the
remainder of the arbitration clause or the class action waiver,
the opinion said.

On appeal, the dealership and the bank argued that the
arbitration clause had "minimal" procedural unconscionability and
that the class action waiver in the arbitration clause was
enforceable.  The appeals court on April 17 agreed that allowing
FAA preempted the CLRA in this case.

"Enforcing the CLRA's provision against a class action waiver
would essentially allow consumers to demand classwide arbitration
and entail complex, costly, and time-consuming arbitration
procedures," the court said.

The plaintiff is represented by Christopher P. Barry of Rosner
Barry & Babbitt LLP.

Sunnyvale Del Grande Inc. is represented by Andrew V. Stearns --
astearns@boglawyers.com -- of Bustamante & Gagliasso APC.

The case is Suzanne Gillespie v. Sunnyvale Del Grande Inc., et
al., case number H039428, in the Sixth Appellate District of the
Court of Appeal of the State of California.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Denied Arbitration in Owner-Operators' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Court of Appeals denied Swift Transportation
Company's motion to compel arbitration and denied its request to
decertify the class in a suit involving certain owner-operators,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472, or the Garza Complaint. The putative
class originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted
with the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in
place for one year. The putative class is alleging that the
Company should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles
driven rather than the contracted and industry standard
remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied
plaintiff's petition for class certification, the plaintiff
appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals
issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial
court's denial of class certification and remanding the case back
to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a
petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the
issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of
the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March
17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed
the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all
persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who
contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,
1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles
driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court
entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and
expanding the class to include employees. Upon certification, the
Company filed a motion to compel arbitration as well as filing
numerous motions in the trial court urging dismissal on several
other grounds including, but not limited to the lack of an
employee as a class representative, and because the named owner-
operator class representative only contracted with the Company
for a three month period under a one year contract that no longer
exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed
a petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class
because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling
that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On
April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction
to hear this petition for special action and the Company filed a
petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31,
2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision
of the Arizona Court of Appeals. In April 2012, the court issued
the following rulings with respect to certain motions filed by
Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to compel arbitration; (2)
denied Swift's request to decertify the class; (3) granted
Swift's motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4)
granted Swift's motion to limit class size based on statute of
limitations.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Fights Appeal in FLSA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is appealing the decision of the
appellate court to allow plaintiffs to proceed with their
interlocutory appeal in a suit by owner-operators alleging they
were misclassified as independent contractors, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v.
Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing,
Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 9-CIV-10376 filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, or the Sheer Complaint. The putative class involves
owner-operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified
owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and various New York
and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to
the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former
owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion,
the matter has been transferred from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
District Court in Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed
a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,
2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending
the outcome of arbitration. The court further denied plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional
class certification. The Court also denied plaintiff's request to
arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus asking that the District Court's order be
vacated. On July 27, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff's
petition for writ of mandamus and the plaintiff's filed another
request for interlocutory appeal and remanded the matter back to
the District Court for further determination. On December 9,
2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their
interlocutory appeal. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against any proceedings and is appealing the decision of the
appellate court to the U.S. Supreme Court. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Calif. Labor Lawsuit by Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to face lawsuits filed by
drivers alleging it failed to pay the California minimum wage,
and failed to provide proper meal and rest periods and failed to
timely pay wages upon separation from employment, according to
the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint. On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter
was removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The putative
class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the four years
preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed to pay
the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and
rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from
employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of
proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to Swift, Brinker v Hohnbaum, which was then pending
before the California Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the
Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell
Complaint was lifted. On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's
claims related to alleged meal and rest break violations under
the California Labor Code alleging that such claims are preempted
by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

On May 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on
alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the
California Labor Code.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino, or the Rudsell
Complaint. The Rudsell matter has been stayed pending a
resolution in Burnell v Swift. Any claims related to orientation
pay in the Rudsell matter have been subsumed within the Montalvo
v. Swift class action matter.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Montalvo" Certification Order on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of class certification in the suit filed by Simona
Montalvo against Swift Transportation -- Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation -- remains subject to appeal, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint. The Montalvo Complaint was
removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-
1827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to
state court and the Company filed an appeal to this remand, which
appeal has been denied. The putative class includes employees
alleging that candidates for employment within the four year
statutory period in California were not paid the state mandated
minimum wage during their orientation phase. On July 29, 2013,
the court certified the class. The Company is appealing the class
certification and the remand to state court.

The issue of class certification in the Montalvo Complaint
remains subject to appeal and must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the company
retains all of the company's defenses against liability and
damages pending a determination of class certification. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against certification of the
class as well as the merits of this matter should the class be
certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this
time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Cert. Ruling in Wash. Drivers Suit on Apeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is appealing the limited
certification of a class of Washington dedicated drivers alleging
they were not paid for overtime work, according to the company's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or
the Slack Complaint. The Slack Complaint was removed to federal
court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative
class includes all current and former Washington State based
employee drivers during the three year statutory period alleging
that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington
State law and that they were not properly paid for meals and rest
periods. On November 23, 2013 the court entered an order on
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The court only certified
the class as it pertains to dedicated route drivers and did not
certify any other class or claims including any class related to
over the road drivers ("OTR Drivers"). The court also further
limited the class of dedicated drivers to only those dedicated
drivers that either begin or end their shift in the state of
Washington and therefore is a Washington "based" employee. Swift
is appealing the limited certification of the Washington
dedicated drivers.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: CRT Moves to Arbitrate E.D. Va. FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Central Refrigerated Transportation, Inc. has filed a petition to
compel arbitration in a suit filed by an applicant for a driver
position, who is alleging that the Swift Transportation Company's
disclosures regarding criminal background checks did not comply
with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, according to the company's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 23, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by James Ellis
III on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC; James Ellis III v.
Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC ("Swift Arizona") in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Civil
Action No. 3:13-CV-00473-JAG, or the Ellis Complaint. Mr. Ellis,
an applicant for a driver position, has alleged that the Swift's
disclosures regarding criminal background checks did not comply
with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The class action
seeks to certify the FCRA claims as a class action, and in that
regard Mr. Ellis is seeking to represent a class of applicants
from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and West
Virginia over the five year period preceding the filing. Swift
has answered the complaint denying the allegations including the
allegations that a class should be certified. On February 5,
2014, the plaintiff's filed a motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint to add plaintiff representatives and expand the
class from the original five states to a nationwide class. A
mediation was scheduled for February 26, 2014.  This claim is
covered by Swift's employment practices and liability insurance.

The Company said the issue of class certification must first be
resolved before the court will address the merits of the case,
and the company retains all of the company's defenses against
liability and damages pending a determination of class
certification. Swift Arizona intends to vigorously defend
certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters
should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case
and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be
determined at this time. Central has filed a petition with the
court to compel arbitration.

Swift Transportation acquired privately held Central Refrigerated
Transportation in August 2013 in a deal valued at $225 million,
including assumed capital lease obligations and other financial
debt.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Utah Employees File Suit Against CRS
----------------------------------------------------------
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. faces a suit filed by
employees alleging that candidates for employment within the
three year statutory period in Utah were not paid proper
compensation, according to Swift Transportation Company's Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On October 8, 2013, a collective action lawsuit was filed by
Jacob Roberts on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson,
Bob Baer and John Does 1-10 ("CRS"): Jacob Roberts and Collective
Action Plaintiffs John Does 1-10 v. Central Refrigerated Service,
Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does 1-10 in the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2;13-ev-
00911-EJF, or the Roberts Complaint. The putative nationwide
class includes employees alleging that candidates for employment
within the three year statutory period in Utah were not paid
proper compensation pursuant to the FLSA, specifically that the
putative collective action plaintiffs were not paid the state
mandated minimum wage for orientation, travel, and training.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Arbitrator Trims Down Claims v. CRS
---------------------------------------------------------
The arbitrator in a suit filed against Central Refrigerated
Services, Inc. by owner-operators strikes out plaintiff's forced
labor claim and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation
and breach of contract from the collection action, according to
Swift Transportation Company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 1, 2012, a collective and class action complaint was
filed by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree
individually and on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.,
Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes ("Central"):
Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually
and on behalf themselves and all similarly situated persons v.
Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon
Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. ED CV 12-00886, or
the Cilluffo Complaint. The putative class involves owner-
operators alleging that Central misclassified owner-operators as
independent contractors in violation of the FLSA, and that such
owner-operators should be considered employees.

The lawsuit also raises a claim of forced labor and state law
contractual claims. On September 24, 2012, the California
District Court ordered that FLSA claim proceed to collective
arbitration under the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act ("UUAA") and
not the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The September 24, 2012
order directed the arbitrator to determine the validity of
proceeding as a collective arbitration under the UAA, and then if
the arbitrator determines that such collective action is
permitted, then the arbitrator is to consider the plaintiff's
FLSA claim. On November 8, 2012, the California District Court
entered a clarification order clarifying that the plaintiff's
FLSA claim was to proceed to collective arbitration under the
UUAA, but the plaintiff's forced labor claim and state law
contractual claims were to proceed as individual arbitrations for
those plaintiffs seeking to pursue those specific claims. Central
filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for interlocutory
appeal of the California District Court's orders, both of which
were denied and the claims are proceeding to collective and
individual arbitration as originally ordered. On December 9, 2013
the arbitrator determined that the issue of misclassification as
it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a collective arbitration,
however the plaintiff's forced labor claim and state law claims
of contractual misrepresentation and breach of contract must
proceed on an individual arbitration basis and not as a class.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: CRS Denies Claims in Cal. Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. filed an answer denying the
allegations contained in a suit by employees alleging that
candidates for employment within the four year statutory period
in California were not paid the state mandated minimum wage
during their orientation phase, according to Swift Transportation
Company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On November 7, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by Jorge
Calix on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.: Calix et al. v.
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. ("Central") in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernadino, or the Calix
Complaint. The putative class includes employees alleging that
candidates for employment within the four year statutory period
in California were not paid the state mandated minimum wage
during their orientation phase. On December 13, 2013, Central
filed an answer denying the allegations.


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Faces "Mitchell" Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Mitchell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-01084-RRM-JO (E.D.N.Y., February 19, 2014) alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection 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


TARGET CORP: Supreme Court Won't Revive Usury Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court said on April 21 it will not review a decision that
Target Corp.'s credit card unit may charge interest above a limit
set in the National Bank Act, ending a proposed class action that
alleged the company set usurious rates.

Petitioner Marie Giannangeli had asked the court to overturn the
Tenth Circuit's holding that, under the high court's 1900 ruling
in Daggs v. Phoenix National Bank and the laws of South Dakota,
Target's home state, the company may set a maximum permitted
interest rate in excess of the 7 percent set out in the NBA.

Ms. Giannangeli said she obtained a Target "REDcard" credit card
from Target National Bank NA in 2009 and subsequently incurred
and paid interest charges on the credit card account.  She said
she was routinely charged an interest rate of 25.99 percent.

According to her interpretation of the NBA, national banks may
not charge more than 7 percent interest unless the bank's state
of residency fixes a specific numerical maximum rate of interest.
Because South Dakota, Target's home state, does not set a
particular numerical maximum rate of interest, she accused Target
of committing usury by charging her and other members of the
purported class more than 7 percent interest.

In South Dakota, the "maximum permitted rate" may be fixed by
written agreement of the parties, and the Tenth Circuit said that
under Daggs, Target "may charge interest at the rate allowed by
the laws of" South Dakota, even if that rate is 25.99 percent or
more.

In Daggs, the Supreme Court held that national banks may charge
interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the state or
territory where it is located.  The high court's reading of the
NBA's phrase "fixed by the laws" should be construed to mean
allowed by the laws, and not a rate expressed in the laws.

Ms. Giannangeli said in her petition for writ of certiorari that
the Tenth Circuit misinterpreted Daggs.

"The 19th-century Arizona law [at issue in Daggs] allowed the
interest rate to be established by agreement of the parties, but
fixed an established interest rate in the event the parties'
agreement failed to establish a particular . . . rate of
interest," the petition said.  "Conversely, South Dakota does not
provide for an interest rate limit in the event the parties fail
to agree upon a rate."

But Target, in its brief in opposition to Ms. Giannangeli's
petition, said the high court's rulings in Daggs and other cases
have "authoritatively established" that the NBA limits the rate
that a national bank can charge only where the bank's home
state's law does not provide for interest at all.

"For well over a century, courts throughout the nation have
faithfully followed those precedents," Target said.

Target is represented by Brian Melendez -- bmelendez@dykema.com
-- of Dykema Gossett PLLC.

Ms. Giannangeli is represented by James D. Thorburn of The Law
Office of James D. Thorburn LLC and by Richard A. Walker of The
Law Office of Richard A. Walker PC.

The case is Marie T. Giannangeli v. Target National Bank NA,
number 13-966 in the U.S. Supreme Court.


TROY CONSTRUCTION: Class Suit Seeks to Redress FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Stone, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
12109 Forest Lake Road, Montrose, PA v. Troy Construction, LLC,
8521 McHard Road, Houston, TX 77053 and John Does 1-10, Case No.
3:14-cv-00306-JMM (M.D. Pa., February 19, 2014) seeks to redress
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Troy Construction, LLC is a pipeline construction company
operating in Pennsylvania.  The identities of the Doe Defendants
are presently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Ste. 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  mmiller@swartz-legal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacob E. Godard, Esq.
          Lawrence Bradley Hancock, Esq.
          Michael Burnett, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 374-3500
          E-mail: godardj@gtlaw.com
                  hancockb@gtlaw.com
                  burnettm@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          James N. Boudreau, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7833
          Facsimile: (215) 717-5209
          E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com


UNION BANK: Faces "Rubel" Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Rubel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Union Bank of California, N.A., fka Union Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00375-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal., February 19, 2014)
accuses Union Bank of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Union Bank is a national association headquartered in San
Francisco, California.  Union Bank provides banking products to
consumers and small businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J CAMPION
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92108-3507
          Telephone: (619) 299-2091
          Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
          E-mail: doug@djcampion.com

               - and -

          Brian Trenz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHAFER, PPLC
          2139 N.W. Military Highway, Suite 200
          San Antonio, TX
          Telephone: (210) 348-0500
          Facsimile: (210) 348-0520
          E-mail: Brian@helpingtexas.com


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Court Allows More Discovery in "Swelnis" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE SWELNIS, on behalf of herself and a class, Plaintiff,
v. UNIVERSAL FIDELITY L.P., TERRY W. SIMONDS, and TWS INTERESTS,
LLC, Defendants, CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-104-PRC, (N.D. Ind.) is before
the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to (1) Strike Exhibits to and
Portions of Defendants Simonds and TWS Interests' Memorandum in
Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting
Statement of Facts or (2) in the alternative, to Pursue Discovery
Before Responding to Defendants' Motion. Specifically, this
motion seeks to strike an affidavit supporting their currently
stayed Motion for Summary Judgment, or for more time to do
discovery to explore how the claims made in the affidavit square
with other statements made by Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry, in an opinion and order dated
April 17, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/cfrNqSfrom Leagle.com, concluded that he finds "the
latter more appropriate here because the apparent discrepancies
might resolve themselves through discovery." Hence, the Court
denied in part and without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion to
(1) Strike Exhibits to and Portions of Defendants Simonds and TWS
Interests' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and Supporting Statement of Facts or (2) In the
alternative, to Pursue Discovery Before Responding to Defendants'
Motion, insofar as it seeks to strike Simonds's affidavit. The
Court granted the motion insofar as it seeks more time for
discovery and ordered that the parties will have until June 16,
2014, to finish discovery on this issue. Finally, the Court
lifted the stay as to the briefing on the pending Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and set the following deadlines:
Plaintiff's Response is due June 30, 2014, and Defendant's Reply,
if any, is due July 14, 2014.

Christine Swelnis, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff,
represented by Cassandra P Miller -- cmiller@edcombs.com --
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Daniel A Edelman --
dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC &
Michelle R Teggelaar -- mteggelaar@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs
Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Universal Fidelity LP, Defendant, represented by David M Schultz
-- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Jennifer
J Kalas -- jkalas@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Terry W Simonds, Defendant, represented by David M Schultz,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Jennifer J Kalas, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.

TWS Interests LLC, Defendant, represented by David M Schultz,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Jennifer J Kalas, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.


VALEO SA: Faces Antitrust Action Over Air Conditioning Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
SLTNTRST LLC, Trustee for Fleetwood Liquidating Trust v. Valeo
S.A., Valeo Japan Co., Ltd., Valeo Inc., Valeo Electrical
Systems, Inc., Valeo Climate Control Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Climate Control, Inc., Denso
Corporation, and Denso International America, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-10772-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., February 19, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants conspired to rig bids, and to fix, maintain,
and stabilize the prices of Air Conditioning Systems sold in the
United States from at least as early as January 1, 2001, through
the present.

The Defendants are manufacturers of automotive air conditioning
systems for installation in motor vehicles manufactured or sold
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa H. Maxman, Esq.
          Ronald F. Wick, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1627 I Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4800
          E-mail: mmaxman@cozen.com
                  rwick@cozen.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 220-2913
          E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Catherine R. Reilly, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1627 I Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4836
          E-mail: creilly@cozen.com


VALEO SA: Accused of Fixing Prices of Air Conditioning Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
SLTNTRST LLC, Trustee for Fleetwood Liquidating Trust v. Valeo
S.A., Valeo Japan Co., Ltd., Valeo Inc., Valeo Electrical
Systems, Inc., Valeo Climate Control Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Climate Control, Inc., Denso
Corporation, and Denso International America, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-10772-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 19, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants conspired to rig bids, and to fix, maintain,
and stabilize the prices of Air Conditioning Systems sold in the
United States from at least as early as January 1, 2001, through
the present.

The term "Air Conditioning Systems" refers to systems that cool
the interior environment of a vehicle and are part of the thermal
segment of the automotive market.

The Defendants are manufacturers of automotive air conditioning
systems for installation in motor vehicles manufactured or sold
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa H. Maxman, Esq.
          Ronald F. Wick, Esq.
          Catherine R. Reilly, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1627 I Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4800
          E-mail: mmaxman@cozen.com
                  rwick@cozen.com
                  creilly@cozen.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 220-2913
          E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com


WASHINGTON NATIONAL: Removed "Melin" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Melin v. Washington National
Insurance Company, Case No. 14 L 47, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Kane County to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01238 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig S. Mielke, Esq.
          Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
          Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC
          10 W. State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 232-7450
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: csm@fmcolaw.com
                  kcc@fmcolaw.com
                  mjh@fmcolaw.com
                  rmf@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Navigato, Esq.
          William F. Bochte, Esq.
          BOCHTE, KUZNIAR & NAVIGATO, LLP
          2580 Foxfield Road, Suite 200
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 377-7770
          Facsimile: (630) 377-3479
          E-mail: mnavigato@bknlaw.com
                  wbochte@bknlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Amato, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-4617
          E-mail: AKaiser@winston.com
                  jamato@winston.com

               - and -

          William P Ferranti, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: bferranti@winston.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit Over MCHM-Contaminated Wastewater
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate White, writing for wvgazette.com, reports that a lawsuit
asking for class-action status was filed on April 24 against the
Hurricane landfill where MCHM-contaminated wastewater was dumped.

Also in Putnam County Circuit Court, the city of Hurricane asked
on April 25 in another filing that a judge allow an investigator
to collect samples where the chemical is being stored.

The Calwell Practice filed the lawsuit on behalf of Patricia
Carole Jones, who lives near Disposal Service Inc.  The complaint
states that more than 50 plaintiffs who live in the vicinity of
the landfill would make up the class.  Stuart Calwell said he
expects there to be more than 50.

Mr. Calwell said Jones lives on a farm on Hurricane Creek and
thought it was her imagination when she walked outside and
smelled licorice, an odor that lingered around the Kanawha Valley
after a Jan. 9 chemical leak of the coal-cleaning chemical Crude
MCHM at Freedom Industries.

"We're all left to decide: How dangerous is it? How do you know
if your judgment is a correct one?" Mr. Calwell said on April 25.
"The human health effects are unknown."

The chemical leaked into the Elk River from Freedom Industries'
tank farm, which is upstream from West Virginia American Water's
intake, fouling the water for about 300,000 West Virginians.

Diversified Services, the company Freedom hired to clean up the
chemical, was depositing the material in the landfill.  Hurricane
and Putnam County officials complained that neither they nor the
public were told the contaminated material would be stored in
Putnam County -- or that the landfill had applied for a permit
modification to accept the wastewater.

Freedom had been mixing sawdust with the wastewater and disposing
of it at the landfill.  The company stopped after Hurricane filed
a lawsuit demanding a halt to the practice.

Kanawha Circuit Judge Paul Zakaib issued a preliminary
injunction. However, he dismissed the case four days later
because the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
allowed Waste Management of West Virginia, which owns the
landfill, to change the end date of its permit from Oct. 1 to
March 26, so the permit expired before the March 28 hearing took
place.

The permit allowed Waste Management to dump up to 700 tons of the
sawdust/wastewater mix into the landfill; company spokeswoman
Lisa Kardell has said it deposited about 228 tons before ceasing.

Officials in Hurricane have launched an investigation into the
chemical dumping, said attorney Mike Callaghan.  However, Waste
Management wouldn't allow the city's investigator to collect
samples of the cells the MCHM-mixture is being stored in.

Both cases have been assigned to Putnam Circuit Judge Phillip
Stowers.

"We're asking [Stowers] to issue an order to direct Waste
Management to comply with our investigative order," Mr. Callaghan
said.

At a Putnam County Commission meeting on April 22, commissioners
voted to split a $60,000 retainer with the city of Hurricane to
hire Callaghan, who was DEP secretary from 2000 to 2003, and
several other attorneys with national environmental experience to
file a federal lawsuit against Waste Management.

Mr. Callaghan said on April 21 that a request for an injunction
will be filed in U.S. District Court that asks a judge to order
the company to remove all of the MCHM from the landfill.

"In other words, we're making the allegation this is a hazardous
waste and it's illegal for it to be stored in a normal landfill.
It has to be transported to a hazardous-waste landfill,"
Mr. Callaghan said.


WEBSTER AVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin A. Thevenin, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated v. Webster Ave Petroleum Corp., dba BP Gas Station,
Manuel Pimentel, and Carlos Francica, Case No. 1:14-cv-01035-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, is entitled to recover
from the Defendants: (1) unpaid wages and overtime compensation;
(2) liquidated damages; (3) prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

BP is a New York business entity with a principal place of
business in Bronx, New York.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, officers, directors or managing agents of BP.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces Mislabeling Lawsuit in S.D. Cal. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The WhiteWave Foods Company was named in a putative class action
mislabeling complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California in September 2011, which was
followed by similar actions filed in five additional
jurisdictions, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

All of these suits allege generally that the company lacks
scientific substantiation for certain product claims related to
the company's Horizon Organic products supplemented with DHA
Omega-3.


* Tools Needed to Authorize Class Actions v. Financial Predators
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Review reports that many states, including
Pennsylvania, bar payday lending because they recognize that it
is predatory.  The state law alone demonstrates that.  It outlaws
payday lending by capping interest rates on short-term loans at a
whopping 24 percent.  Because of the way payday loans are
structured, poor consumers who are the payday loan customer base
sometimes end up paying 300 percent interest.  They take a loan,
can't cover it by their next payday, then take another loan to
cover it, and another, and on and on and on.

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, about 50
percent of all payday loans result in the borrower taking out 10
or more loans.  "One could readily conclude that the business
model of the payday industry depends on people becoming stuck in
these loans for the long term," the report said.

Payday lenders have been able to evade state bans, in some cases,
by affiliating with out-of-state banks and doing business on the
Internet.

When consumers who take those loans realize they can't pay them
and enter the loan-after-loan spiral, they have little recourse.
The fine print of the loan deals require any disputes to be
settled by arbitration, and consumers agree when they take the
loans not to enter any class-action litigation against the
lender.

Since it was founded in 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau has filed 40 cases alleging deceptive practices in the
consumer finance industry, which have resulted in $3.1 billion in
awards for nearly 10 million consumers.

But Congress should provide further tools by authorizing the use
of class action suits against financial predators.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. continues to defend itself against
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are one of several unrelated defendants
in lawsuits filed in state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing
drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the
drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are
not liable for the damages asserted and we expect to receive
complete defense and indemnity with respect to a majority of the
lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production Company pursuant to
the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. We also
believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the
remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset
purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we filed a
declaratory judgment action in Texas state court against NuStar
Energy LP, or NuStar, the successor to Diamond M Corporation,
seeking a judicial determination that we did not assume liability
for these claims. We obtained summary judgment on our claims in
the declaratory judgment action, but NuStar appealed the trial
court's decision, and the appellate court has remanded the case
to trial. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if
any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that
ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will
have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a global offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor. The Company has a fleet of 44 offshore
drilling rigs, consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, seven jack-ups
and five dynamically positioned drillships, four of which are
under construction. The Company's jackups include Ocean King,
Ocean Nugget, Ocean Scepter, Ocean Spartan, Ocean Spur, Ocean
Summit and Ocean Titan. The Company's Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Alliance, Ocean America, Ocean Apex, Ocean Onyx,
Ocean Valiant, and Ocean Star. Ultra-Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Valor, Ocean Courage, Ocean Monarch, Ocean
Baroness, and Ocean Confidence. Ultra-Deepwater Drillships
include Ocean BlackLion, Ocean BlackRhino, Ocean BlackHornet, and
Ocean Clipper. Mid-Water Semisubmersibles includes Ocean Winner,
Ocean Quest, Ocean Concord, Ocean Guardian, Ocean Whittington,
and Ocean Yorktown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts Inc. continues to defend itself against
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

The Company states, "The Company's Western Auto subsidiary,
together with other defendants including automobile
manufacturers, automotive parts manufacturers and other
retailers, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.
The Company and some of its other subsidiaries also have been
named as defendants in many of these lawsuits. The plaintiffs
have alleged that these products were manufactured, distributed
and/or sold by the various defendants. The products in the
lawsuits naming us or our subsidiaries as defendants have
primarily included brake parts. Many of the cases pending against
the Company or its subsidiaries are in the early stages of
litigation. The damages claimed against the defendants in some of
these proceedings are substantial. Additionally, some of the
automotive parts manufacturers named as defendants in these
lawsuits have declared bankruptcy, which will limit plaintiffs'
ability to recover monetary damages from those defendants.
Although the Company diligently defends against these claims, the
Company may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these
and other lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements, if
it believes settlement is in the best interests of the Company's
shareholders. The Company believes that many of these claims are
at least partially covered by insurance. Based on discovery to
date, the Company does not believe the cases currently pending
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating
results, financial position or liquidity. However, if the Company
were to incur an adverse verdict in one or more of these claims
and was ordered to pay damages that were not covered by
insurance, these claims could have a material adverse effect on
its operating results, financial position and liquidity.
Historically, our asbestos claims have been inconsistent in type
and number and have been immaterial. As a result, we are unable
to estimate a possible range of loss with respect to unasserted
asbestos claims that may be filed against the Company in the
future. If the number of claims filed against the Company or any
of its subsidiaries alleging injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products increases substantially, the costs
associated with concluding these claims, including damages
resulting from any adverse verdicts, could have a material
adverse effect on its operating results, financial position or
liquidity in future periods."

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (Advance) is a specialty retailer of
automotive aftermarket parts, accessories, batteries and
maintenance items primarily operating within the United States.
The Company operates in two segments: Advance Auto Parts (AAP),
and Autopart International (AI). The AAP segment is comprised of
its store operations, which operate under the trade names Advance
Auto Parts and Advance Discount Auto Parts. The AI segment
consists of the operations of Autopart International, Inc. which
operates under the Autopart International trade name. The
Company's stores carry a product line for cars, vans, sport
utility vehicles and light trucks. The Company serves both do-it-
yourself (DIY), and do-it-for-me (Commercial), customers. On
December 31, 2012, the Company acquired B.W.P. Distributors, Inc.
In January 2014, Advance Auto Parts, Inc. acquired General Parts
International, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Continues to Negotiates with GST Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., continues to engage in negotiations with
claimant representatives regarding liabilities in asbestos
personal injury claims against Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states, "Three of our subsidiaries filed voluntary
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions on the Petition Date as a result
of tens of thousands of pending and estimated future asbestos
personal injury claims. The filings were the initial step in a
claims resolution process. The goal of the process is an
efficient and permanent resolution of all pending and future
asbestos claims through court approval of a plan of
reorganization that will establish a trust to which all asbestos
claims will be channeled for resolution and payment.

In November 2011, GST filed a proposed plan of reorganization
with the Bankruptcy Court. The proposed plan calls for a trust to
be formed, to which GST and affiliates would contribute $200
million and which would be the exclusive remedy for future
asbestos personal injury claimants -- those whose claims arise
after confirmation of the plan. The proposed plan provides that
each present personal injury claim (any pending claim or one that
arises between the Petition Date and plan confirmation) will be
assumed by reorganized GST and resolved either by settlement
pursuant to a matrix contained in the proposed plan or as
otherwise agreed, or by payment in full of any judgment entered
after trial in federal court. Based on a preliminary estimate
provided by Bates White, the estimation expert retained by
counsel to GST, prior to the time that GST filed its proposed
plan, GST estimates that the indemnity costs to resolve all
present claims pursuant to the settlement matrix in the plan
would cost reorganized GST approximately $70 million. Under the
proposed plan, all non-asbestos claimants would be paid the full
value of their claims.

GST's proposed plan is opposed by the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the "Claimants' Committee")
and the Future Claimants' Representative (the "FCR" and together
with the Claimants' Committee, "claimant representatives") and is
unlikely to be approved in its current form.

On April 13, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court granted a motion by GST
for the Bankruptcy Court to estimate the allowed amount of
present and future asbestos claims against GST for mesothelioma,
a rare cancer attributed to asbestos exposure, for purposes of
determining the feasibility of a proposed plan of reorganization.
The estimation trial commenced on July 22, 2013 and concluded on
August 22, 2013.

GST and the Claimants' Committee and FCR proposed different
approaches to estimating allowed asbestos personal injury claims
against GST, and the Bankruptcy Court ruled that each could
present its proposed approach. GST offered a merits-based
approach that focused on its legal defenses to liability and took
account of claimants' recoveries from other sources, including
trusts established in Chapter 11 cases filed by GST's co-
defendants, in estimating potential future recoveries by
claimants from GST. The Claimants' Committee and FCR offered a
settlement-based theory of estimation.

On January 10, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges announced his
estimation decision in a 65-page order. Citing with approval the
methodology put forth by GST at trial, the judge determined that
$125 million is the amount sufficient to satisfy GST's liability
for present and future mesothelioma claims. Judge Hodges adopted
GST's "legal liability" approach to estimation, focused on the
merits of claims, and rejected asbestos claimant representatives'
approach, which focused solely on GST's historical settlement
history. The judge's liability determination is for mesothelioma
claims only. The court has not yet determined amounts for GST's
liability for other asbestos claims and for administrative costs
that would be required to review and process claims and payments,
which will add to the amount.

In his opinion, Judge Hodges writes, "The best evidence of
Garlock's aggregate responsibility is the projection of its legal
liability that takes into consideration causation, limited
exposure and the contribution of exposures to other products."

The decision validates the positions that GST has been asserting
for the more than three years it has been in this process.
Following are several important findings in the opinion:

   * Garlock's products resulted in a relatively low exposure to
asbestos to a limited population, and its legal responsibility
for causing mesothelioma is relatively de minimis.

   * Chrysotile, the asbestos fiber type used in almost all of
Garlock's asbestos products, is far less toxic than other forms
of asbestos. The court found reliable and persuasive Garlock's
expert epidemiologist, who testified that there is no
statistically significant association between low dose chrysotile
exposure and mesothelioma.

   * The population that was exposed to Garlock's products was
necessarily exposed to far greater quantities of higher potency
asbestos from the products of others.

* The estimates of Garlock's aggregate liability that are based
on its historic settlement values are not reliable because those
values are infected with the impropriety of some law firms and
inflated by the cost of defense.

GST plans to incorporate the court's ruling into a plan of
reorganization that it will submit in place of the plan.  GST has
not yet determined the amount that it will propose be included in
its revised plan, as it continues to hope that it can reach a
consensual resolution with representatives of current and future
claimants. GST has stated that it continues to be willing to
engage in discussions with claimant representatives, recognizing
that an agreed settlement would provide the best path to
certainty and finality through section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code, provide for faster and more efficient completion of the
case, save significant future costs, and allow for the attainment
of complete finality.

The Company states: "We caution that, in the absence of a
consensual deal, the GST asbestos claims resolution process
remains uncertain and could take an undetermined time to
complete.

During the course of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the claimant
representatives have asserted that affiliates of the filed
entities, including the Company and Coltec, should be held
responsible for the asbestos liabilities of the filed entities
under various theories of derivative corporate responsibility
including veil-piercing and alter ego. Claimant representatives
filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court asking for permission to
sue us based on those theories. In a decision dated June 7, 2012,
the Bankruptcy Court denied the claimant representatives' motion
without prejudice, thereby potentially allowing the
representatives to re-file the motion after the estimation trial
scheduled for 2013. We believe there is no reason for the
claimant representatives to re-file the motion because the
judge's estimation decision leaves no doubt that GST is capable
of fully funding any plan of reorganization in the case.

From time to time during the case we have engaged in settlement
discussions with asbestos claimant representatives and we
anticipate that we will continue to do so; however, there can be
no assurance that a settlement will be reached and, if so, when
that might occur.

From the Petition Date through December 31, 2013, GST has
recorded Chapter 11 case-related fees and expenses totaling
$102.0 million. The total includes $53.1 million for fees and
expenses of GST's counsel and experts; $39.1 million for fees and
expenses of counsel and experts for the asbestos claimants'
committee, and $9.8 million for the fees and expenses of the
future claims representative and his counsel and experts. GST
recorded $44.6 million of those case-related fees and expenses in
2013 compared to $31.4 million in 2012, and $17.0 million in
2011. GST attributes the large year-over-year increase to
increased activity in the case, including activity related to the
estimation trial."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered
industrial products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61
primary manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries,
including the United States. The Company operates in three
segments: Sealing Products segment, Engineered Products segment
and Engine Products and Services segment. Sealing Products
segment includes its sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end
components, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber
products. Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings,
aluminum blocks for hydraulic applications and reciprocating
compressor components. Engine Products and Services segment
manufacture, sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel,
natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014,
the Company's subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining
interest of the Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec,
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Garlock Sealing Appeals Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Three appeals from adverse decisions relating to Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC remain pending, according to Enpro Industries,
Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states, "GST LLC has a record of success in trials of
asbestos cases, especially before the bankruptcies of many of the
historically significant asbestos defendants that manufactured
raw asbestos, asbestos insulation, refractory products or other
dangerous friable asbestos products. However, it has on occasion
lost jury verdicts at trial. GST has consistently appealed when
it has received an adverse verdict and has had success in a
majority of those appeals. We believe that GST LLC will continue
to be successful in the appellate process, although there can be
no assurance of success in any particular appeal. At December 31,
2013, three GST LLC appeals are pending from adverse decisions
totaling $2.4 million.

GST LLC won reversals of adverse verdicts in one of two recent
appellate decisions. In September 2011, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a $500 thousand
verdict against GST LLC that was handed down in 2009 by a
Kentucky federal court jury. The federal appellate court found
that GST LLC's motion for judgment as a matter of law should have
been granted because the evidence was not sufficient to support a
determination of liability. The Sixth Circuit's chief judge wrote
that, "On the basis of this record, saying that exposure to
Garlock gaskets was a substantial cause of [claimant's]
mesothelioma would be akin to saying that one who pours a bucket
of water into the ocean has substantially contributed to the
ocean's volume." In May 2011, a three-judge panel of the Kentucky
Court of Appeals upheld GST LLC's $700 thousand share of a jury
verdict, which included punitive damages, in a lung cancer case
against GST LLC in Kentucky state court. This verdict, which was
secured by a bond pending the appeal, was paid in June 2012."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered
industrial products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61
primary manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries,
including the United States. The Company operates in three
segments: Sealing Products segment, Engineered Products segment
and Engine Products and Services segment. Sealing Products
segment includes its sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end
components, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber
products. Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings,
aluminum blocks for hydraulic applications and reciprocating
compressor components. Engine Products and Services segment
manufacture, sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel,
natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014,
the Company's subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining
interest of the Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec,
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Study Costs of Ex-Hospital Site Divided
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Engle, writing for Pal-Item.com, reported that the
partnership continues as officials for the city of Richmond and
Wayne County take the next step in solving the dilemma of the
former Reid Hospital property.

The campus has been abandoned for more than five years and is
deteriorating rapidly. The owners, Spring Grove Development LLC,
have walked away, no longer paying taxes or responding to local
pleas for responsibility.  Therefore, city and county officials
are moving ahead with a process that most likely will end in the
demolition of the complex of buildings.

In their latest step, the city is taking the lead and both
agencies are contributing money to hire a consultant to study the
amount of asbestos in the buildings. The city has approved
$15,000, and the county commissioners recently approved adding
$20,000 toward the project.

"We know there is some asbestos there, but we're not sure exactly
how much," said Tony Foster, city director of metropolitan
development. "Once we do this study we will have some good data
and we can then continue to move forward."

Denny Burns, president of the county's board of commissioners,
said the county "fully supports what the city is doing" with the
former hospital property.

"This is the first step in a long journey, and we will travel
down this road together," Burns said. "We realize that it is
still owned by a private entity, but we have to face the reality
that it is going to take some taxpayer money to resolve this."

In December 2013, the county filed suit against Spring Grove in
the faint hope of recovering almost $329,000 in back taxes owed.

In January, the city's Unsafe Building Commission approved a
continuous order against the property and its labyrinth of
structures allowing officials to begin the process of cleaning up
hazardous materials.

The city has hired a consultant to do an initial study of
environmental problems. Next, comes the process to hire a firm
that will identify the amount of asbestos that needs to be
removed.

"We can't ask a contractor to estimate the cost of demolition
until we know the amount and approximate cost of asbestos
removal," Burns said.

Foster said the asbestos study is required before the state will
issue an air quality permit to demolish a commercial building.

"We learned a lot from the initial study, and once we do this, we
can start making some real progress on this project," Foster
said.

He said he hopes to have information available for potential
bidders, adding the city's Board of Public Works and Safety most
likely will hire a firm to do the study.

Foster said he hopes the board of works can hire a firm and
testing can begin in the next 45 days.

"It's not a terribly fast process, but we are moving this along.
And we will be partnering with the county every step of the way,"
Foster said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Pressure Yale to Revoke Degree
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Shelton, writing for New Haven Register, reported that
pressure is mounting to persuade Yale University to revoke an
honorary degree it gave to a Swiss billionaire convicted of
causing thousands of asbestos-related deaths in Italy.

Asbestos victims' advocates and other groups in the U.S. are
urging Yale to launch a fact-finding committee to review the
degree given to Stephan Schmidheiny in 1996.

"If there was ever an award that needed to be rescinded, it's
this one," said Linda Reinstein, president and CEO of the
nonprofit Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, of Washington,
D.C.

ADAO, the nation's largest independent asbestos victims' group,
will devote part of its national conference April 4-6 to Yale's
decision not to rescind the honorary degree.

"This provokes a certain amount of anger among the victims
community," said Reinstein, whose husband died of an asbestos-
related illness. "Yale made a mistake, and we are holding Yale
responsible for it now."

A trade union, the International Association of Heat and Frost
Insulators and Allied Workers, also has come out swinging.

"It's just not pretty. In fact, it's horrible. It's despicable,"
said Terry Lynch, international vice president and health hazard
administrator for the union. Lynch is based in Indiana. "Yale
should be better than this. How did they get involved with this
character?"

Lynch, whose father and uncle both died from illnesses related to
asbestos exposure, wrote to Yale President Peter Salovey, urging
him to take action.

Yale has never revoked an honorary degree. It has maintained that
the legal proceedings in Italy don't justify reconsideration of
the 1996 award. "Mr. Schmidheiny was awarded an honorary Doctor
of Humane Letters degree for his advocacy of sustainable economic
growth and development," the university said in its official
statement on the matter.

Schmidheiny, 66, is the former CEO of the Swiss company Eternit.
He was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison by an
Italian court in the asbestos-related deaths of 2,000 to 3,000
people in and around Casale Monferrato, in northern Italy.

Another appeal in the case is pending.

In an email to the Register, Schmidheiny spokeswoman Elisabeth
Meyerhans Sarasin said Schmidheiny was never the owner of the
Italian Eternit factories, and that he never was operationally
active in management of the factories.

"For the sake of clarity, I would also like to stress the fact
that Stephan Schmidheiny is the only one who cares for the
asbestos victims in Italy," Sarasin wrote. "Since 2007, the
company Becon AG, which was commissioned by Stephan Schmidheiny,
has offered compensation to persons affected by an asbestos-
related illness, unbureaucratically and fair without admitting
guilt. The humanitarian program is based on Stephan Schmidheiny's
social principles and philanthropic motives."

Yet for Reinstein and others, that explanation does not wash.

"There is no level of philanthropy that can clean this man's
hands," she said. "Yale's recognition of Schmidheiny says, in our
minds, that Yale accepts (Schmidheiny's) philanthropy as just
cause."

Barry Castleman, an environmental consultant from Maryland who
testified in the Italian court case, visited the Yale campus to
encourage faculty and students to put more pressure on Yale.

"Up until now, we've tried to deal with the (Yale)
administration," Castleman said. "But it's increasingly troubling
to me that the Yale Corporation really doesn't seem to be able to
distinguish between corporate responsibility and corporate
crime."

William Burch, a professor emeritus at Yale's School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies, met with Castleman and agreed to help
generate faculty support.

"The moral authority of the university is compromised by this,"
Burch said. "My concern is the unwillingness of the university to
even consider this case. Behaviors have consequences."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocates Call for Fibro Bylaw in Saskatchewan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Hamilton, The StarPhoenix, reported that local advocates
say Saskatoon, in Saskatchewan, needs tighter rules to ensure the
presence of asbestos in buildings slated for demolition is
reported and workers are protected.

Jesse Todd of the Saskatchewan Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization says current laws governing the way building owners
deal with asbestos don't go far enough to protect workers and the
public.  He wants city council to adopt a bylaw that would
require contractors to notify building inspectors when work on
buildings constructed prior to 1983 is about to begin, in order
to prevent worker exposure to asbestos. "I realize that asbestos
abatement is a costly task, but preventing people from being
exposed and disease down the road, there is no dollar figure on
that," Todd said in an interview.

Todd was part of the group that successfully lobbied for an
asbestos registry at the provincial level earlier this year. The
legislation was named Howard's Law in honour of Howard Willems, a
former building inspector who died from mesothelioma, a rare form
of cancer caused by inhaling asbestos fibres. Willems was Todd's
stepfather.

Todd said the registry, which includes buildings in Saskatoon, is
a good step, but should not be the only step taken.

"I think this (bylaw) would be an added way of tracking those
buildings," he said.

Under provincial occupational health and safety regulations,
building owners are already required to identify and label
materials that can release asbestos fibres. Under the regulations
they are also required to regularly check and maintain asbestos
materials to prevent any fibre release and develop written
control plans to prevent the release of asbestos fibres "into
occupied areas when maintenance, repairs, renovations or other
work may disturb the asbestos."

But Todd said there is still nothing stopping building owners
from demolishing structures containing asbestos and the bylaw
would be an added step in ensuring public safety.

Earlier this year, Calgary's city council debated a bylaw that
would change its building permit process to require contractors
doing demolitions to notify the city so it can dispatch
inspectors to the site.

Todd is expected to present his case to Saskatoon city council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cedar Grove Schools Spend on Fibro Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Rosenblum, writing for Verona-Cedar Grove Times, reported
that though they may not be centerpiece projects, the Cedar Grove
Board of Education, in New Jersey, voted on a set of spending
items needed to keep the district humming. The projects, which
were approved by the board during meetings March 18 and 25.

More than a dozen public address speakers are part of security
upgrades that are working their way through district schools.

At Memorial Middle School, Cedar Grove-based Bingham
Communications will install 17 speakers among bathrooms, a boiler
room, storage room and outside of the school. The cost is $6,600.

The district paid the company more than $20,000 last summer to
install public-address systems at North End and South End
elementary schools.  A second set of doors for the Cedar Grove
High School Media Center will triple the room's capacity,
according to Schools Superintendent Michael Fetherman. Because
the room only has one set of doors, fire officials cap the number
of people there to 49.

"Every day it reaches capacity," he said.

The district submitted the project to the Schools Development
Authority for approval. Fetherman estimated the cost as less than
$10,000. The district would not seek state funding.

Substitute Service LLC will provide the district an online
"interactive absence tool" for the 2014-2015 school year at a
cost of $8,692.

Asbestos abatement will begin June 24 at South End Elementary
School in preparation for a $242,000 boiler replacement project,
Fetherman said. AHERA Consultants of Atlantic County will work on
asbestos monitoring and project management for $13,575.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Florence Accepts Bid for Trust Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Jackson, writing for Morning News Online, reported that it
took more than years to build the Trust building in Florence,
South Carolina, and will take two months to tear it down
according to the demolition proposal chosen by the city.

For $470,655 Wofford Demolition and Renovation Specialist, of
Florence, will use a high reach excavator to tear down the seven-
story building and also demolish two other buildings on the site
at the corner of West Evans Street and Irby Street.

Luke Wofford, founder and owner, has run the company for 20 years
and works with his son Jason Wofford. In their proposal to the
city they say that during the removal of the top four stories of
the building, one lane on Irby and West Evans will need to be
closed from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. for safety for about 14 to 28 days.

"We're going to get a high reach excavator to reach 80 some feet
high and have a concrete pulverizer on the end of it and go along
the edge and let it fall and let gravity take its course,"
Wofford said. "We're going to block off one lane of Irby Street
and West Evans street and make sure nothing falls on anybody."

The city spent $578,519.28 on property acquisition for buildings
and parcels on the Trust site. Paired with demolition costs the
project will now cost $1,049,174.28, slightly over the $950,000
that will be designated in the city's $20 million Tax Incremental
Funding bond that it plans to issue this spring.

The Woffords demolished the Byerly Hospital in Hartsville, two
seven story hotels in Myrtle Beach and hundreds of commercial
buildings and homes independently and as a contractor for several
large construction companies like FBI Construction.

There was one protest lodged against the city from one of the
other nine bidders for the project. That protest is based upon
merits, but it does not prevent the city from awarding the
contract.

Florence City Manager Drew Griffin said the company's past
experience and the cost were the two driving factors for awarding
the proposal.

"When the city is doing a bid to buy a piece of equipment we do
it based upon the low bid, but when you do it upon work with
means and methods to it, then we rate with price and means and
methods associated with the work," Griffin said. "We look at the
firm, we don't look at individuals."

Of the project's cost, $176,000 is for asbestos abatement for the
three buildings on the Trust site by Environmental Abatement &
Solutions, LLC. It includes South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control permits, licensed labor, supplies and
transportation to and disposal at an approved landfill for
asbestos in South Carolina.

It will take 10 days to receive the abatement permit from DHEC
for the abatement work to begin that is estimated to take three
to four weeks. Wofford then expects the demolition work to take
at least six weeks.

This week the city also received multiple proposals from firms
for the two parking decks and amenities for downtown, including a
gymnasium and streetscaping work; the high number of proposals
shows a healthy construction market Griffin said.

"Florence is starting to get statewide attention from firms as a
place of growth and the possibility for work," Griffin said.
"They see opportunities in getting into the Florence market and
this is a good opportunity for that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oroville Library Closes for Renovations
--------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Arrigoni, writing for OrovilleMR News, reported that the
Oroville, California branch of the Butte County Library will be
closed for 60 days to remove old carpet, mitigate asbestos in the
carpet glue and replace the bookshelves, which don't meet current
earthquake standards.

County and library officials said there is no health risk from
the asbestos at the present.

"Asbestos is not a risk unless it's airborne," said General
Services Director Grant Hunsicker in a phone call.

The building was originally a grocery store. Hunsicker was unsure
of when it was built. The county obtained it for renovation for
the library in 1973 and construction was completed in 1974.

Before the county does any facility work, an asbestos analysis is
done.  Five years ago, staff wanted to replace most of the
carpet. A third of it was already removed, including asbestos in
that area, he said.  When the carpet and furnishings are removed
during the upcoming project, the asbestos will be mitigated.

Hunsicker said a certified abatement firm will prepare the
facility first and another firm will certify it's OK before any
other work continues.  He added there could be asbestos in other
parts of the building, such as the ceiling tiles, but unless work
is done in that area, staff wouldn't know.

"If we see materials separating or tiles falling, we would
inspect it (then)," he said.

Approximately 4,000 feet of shelving will also be replaced.

Hunsicker explained that state codes say when shelving is
removed, it can't be put back. New shelves will replace the old
ones.

"We're basically bringing it up to safety and security codes," he
said.

The project will cost approximately $340,000, which will be
funded through the county's maintenance budget.

At the library, Branch Librarian Sarah Vantrease appeared to be
excited about the renovations. Once the work is done, there will
be a "quieter" quiet area for studying and an expanded children's
storytime area.

"All the fun stuff will be in front," she said. "The study space
will be more in the back of the library

Patrons will be accommodated when staff is able to open a mini
library in the community room. Vantrease said they hope to reopen
the smaller room on a limited basis on April 15.

"As soon as it's safe to be back in the library, we'll have
limited services," Vantrease said. "We'll have most of the usual
services: Wi-Fi, storytime, movies, magazines and books on CDs."

Although most of the books will be stored, some new and popular
books will be available during the renovation. If not, there are
options.

"If people want a certain book, they can request it and we'll get
it from another branch," she said.

There will also be free Wi-Fi and limited use of the Internet,
computing and printing.

New library cards will also be made, and help will be provided
for reference questions and with e-readers and e-media downloads.

The library will also be open online 24 hours a day. Visit
www.buttecounty.net/bclibrary to download free electronic media,
downloads, homework help, job assistance and other services.

The mini library will be open from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday and
Wednesday; 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Thursday through Saturday; and 1-5
p.m. Sunday. It will be closed on Mondays.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Material Probes Continue Despite Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Clayworth, writing for The Des Moines Register, reported
that contractors at the Younkers site, in Des Moines, Iowa, were
being investigated for improper removal of hazardous materials
prior to a fire. Those investigations will continue.

Investigations into whether contractors had illegally disposed of
hazardous waste as part of the Younkers building renovation will
continue despite the structure now being a giant pile of rubbish,
a state inspector said.

The investigations began earlier this year after executives at
RedNet Environmental Services of West Des Moines alleged in a
letter to state officials that workers at the site were being
told to throw away materials presumed to have asbestos without
any testing.

RedNet, which was involved with initial plans but later lost its
contract, also alleged that lead had been improperly removed.

Officials from Hansen Company, a Johnston-based construction
contractor, in charge of overseeing renovations at the site, have
categorically denied the accusations. They have filed a lawsuit
against RedNet owners Rob and Lynn Knudsen alleging multiple
counts of libel.

State and city officials initially dismissed the complaints.
However, asbestos and lead investigations were launched after the
Des Moines Register reported that the state and the city had
failed to review key documents that the Knudsens claimed showed
improper cleanup.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources asbestos inspector Tom Wuehr
said that his review will continue despite the fire.

In addition, Des Moines has had some oversight obligations with
the project through various federal grant programs. Because of
that responsibility, the city has been instructed by the state's
economic development department to investigate the lead
complaint.

One question is whether contractors were given the OK to use
interim strategies instead of permanently controlling the lead
hazard. Interim steps can be far less comprehensive but permanent
abatement is required under federal grant guidelines.

Mary Neiderbach of the Des Moines Community Development
Department on March 7 sent a statement to the Register indicating
that the Younkers project had received a lead waiver that was
requested by the State Historic Preservation Office, giving
developers the OK to proceed with the less aggressive lead
removal.

But upon contacting the preservation office, the Register was
told that no such request had been made by the state.

The Register returned to the city for an explanation. Phil
Delafield, the city's community development director, issued a
statement last week saying Des Moines took the allegations
seriously, but he declined further comment.

"The city will not make further comments until staff has a chance
to review reports that are being compiled by various state
agencies, an investigation by a third-party neutral expert is
completed, and city staff has asked questions of subcontractors,"
Delafield stated.

The city's review is expected within the next month, Delafield
said on March 24.

The allegations, if confirmed, are serious. Bob Knapp, a
prominent Iowa developer, was sentenced in 2011 to 41 months in
prison for his involvement in a conspiracy to ignore federal
asbestos regulations in redevelopment of the Equitable Building,
another downtown redevelopment project.

Multiple attempts by the Register to reach the Hansen Company for
comment were unsuccessful.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post Office Counter Opening at Stiby Road Co-op
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Gazette reported that the opening of a new Post Office
counter was delayed after "urgent" asbestos work was carried out
in a Yeovil, United Kingdom convenience store.

A new "essentials" post office counter was due to open at the Co-
operative, on Stiby Road, on March 18.

The Westfield Post Office was closed more than four years ago.
And the service was set to open on May 6, at 1pm.

A Post Office spokeswoman said the delay was regrettable and due
to circumstances beyond its control as "urgent" work was carried
out.

A Co-operative Food spokeswoman said: "We regret there has been
some delay.

"This was due to an asbestos report that was required before work
could begin.

"This is now complete, and since no asbestos has been found in
the store area, work will begin in April.

"The store will remain open as usual. We look forward to
providing this new service to the community."

Yeovil MP David Laws said: "These delays are frustrating, but
safety is clearly always a top priority."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dire Warning on Mr. Fluffy in Canberra Homes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that ACT
home owners whose properties have Mr Fluffy loose asbestos should
be forced by the government to have an asbestos management plan -
- bringing them under the same laws that govern all commercial
buildings, workers' advocates say.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is preparing
a formal recommendation to the ACT government to legislate that
Canberra's 1050 Mr Fluffy homes be subject to much stricter
safety measures.

The government has issued a "recommendation" that home owners
have an asbestos inspection done and that the inspection report
should be shown to any tradespeople working on the home.
Residential asbestos management plans could cost about $1000.
Management plans are mandatory in commercial buildings, where it
is an offence not to have one or not to keep it updated. All
building work must comply with the plan or owners risk fines or
even jail sentences.

Union secretary Dean Hall said tradespeople were playing Russian
roulette every time they started work on a home as they depended
on the honesty and ethics of home owners to reveal whether Mr
Fluffy loose amosite asbestos had been installed in the 1970s.

A spokesman for acting Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations
Minister Katy Gallagher said the government was "happy to
consider sensible, effective and practical proposals to enhance
safety in relation to asbestos".  It has already sought advice on
"the development of a package of measures -- which may include
legislative amendments -- to ensure that tenants and persons
engaged to do work on houses built before 1980 are aware of the
potential risks posed by Mr Fluffy asbestos".

"Such measures are currently the subject of consideration,
including with the ACT's Asbestos Regulators Forum, and advice
will be provided to government shortly," the spokesman said.

Even though $100 million had been spent over five years from 1987
forensically cleaning the roof cavities of 1050 homes which had
the insulation, it is becoming increasingly clear that remnant
asbestos poses significant public health risks across Canberra.

This follows on from ACT Worksafe opening a major investigation
on a Pearce home which was revealed this month to be contaminated
with significant amounts of remnant loose asbestos which had been
released during a renovation.

Inspectors determined that the renovation was not being carried
out safely, and the builder engaged for the work may have been
unlicensed. No documents for development approval had been found.

Both the home owners and the builder knew it was a Mr Fluffy
house and children were living in the home during the renovation.

Fibres were found on furniture, windowsills, the floor and in the
vacuum cleaner. Amosite asbestos is a type 1 carcinogen.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said it appeared to be a
"flagrant" abuse of safety protocols.  He said he would crack
down on any home owners or builders who knowingly put themselves
and others at risk with unauthorised and unsafe work, noting home
owners could be in breach of the ACT's Dangerous Substances Act
and could be prosecuted, with a maximum fine of $165,000.

Builders could also be liable for prosecution, and in their case
the fine could, in extreme cases, be more than $1 million, with
the prospect of a jail sentence.

Mr Hall said the ACT government could not wait any longer to
introduce strong public safety protocols in the affected houses.

Builders needed professional protection for health and financial
reasons. The considerable costs associated with safe and licensed
asbestos handling and removal meant that there was always the
potential that "cowboy" operators could undercut those
tradespeople wanting to follow the rules.

"Until they legislate that all of these homes have to have
management plans, there is the risk that the responsible
tradespeople are going to be put at a commercial disadvantage to
those who are going to scrape this stuff from the walls, chuck it
in a plastic bag and dump it in a park, which is what we have
seen happening for decades."

"Why has it happened? Because people take the cheap option. Until
there are commercial penalties for not having a plan in place
then tradespeople will continue to carry an unacceptable risk,"
Mr Hall said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Destroys Theatre and Studio in Lewes
----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a massive fire has destroyed a theatre and
studio complex in East Sussex, England.  The blaze ripped through
the Phoenix Theatre and Studio building on North Street in Lewes.

The fire service received 23 calls from members of the public who
spotted the blaze when it broke out at just after 18:00 GMT.

Fire crews were joined by Environment Agency staff who carried
out tests to ensure there was no contamination from asbestos in
the roof.

'Acrid smell'

Witness Adrian Sunderland said someone had hired the newly
refurbished theatre for a private event.

"They were setting up in there and a band was setting up their
instruments and equipment and all of a sudden we smelt burning,
smoke with an unusual acrid smell," he said.

"We looked round and saw smoke pouring out of the corner of the
theatre.

"We went running over with a fire extinguisher, thought 'well
maybe it's just a small fire', went in and the whole building was
just well alight."

Mr Sunderland said the group left the building and called the
fire brigade.  He went into the building when everyone was out
and his jumper was burned by embers falling from the ceiling, he
added.

"Within a few minutes, the whole building just erupted into
flames completely," he said.

"The speed at which it took hold was phenomenal."

'Sobbing'

Mr Sunderland said artists had lost their "entire life's work" in
the studios upstairs.

"It's really heartbreaking for them," he said. "People were down
here sobbing their eyes out this morning.

"It's a big tragedy for the whole community."

The fire was brought under control at 21:15, but there has been
enormous damage to the building.

Nobody was injured, a fire service spokesman said.  He added:
"This particular the incident had the potential of being quite
disastrous.

"Thankfully the occupiers identified the fire early and we
managed to make an intervention which, although there's
significant damage to the building, we stopped the fire from
spreading to adjacent areas."

The theatre and studios, on the Phoenix Industrial Estate, cater
for arts and media projects and events.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McGann-Mercy Closed Due to Night Fire
------------------------------------------------------
Denise Civiletti, writing for Riverhead Local, reported that
McGann-Mercy Diocesan High School, in Riverhead, New York, was
closed and all after-school activities have been canceled,
following a fire in the basement.

School officials decided to close the school in order to clean up
water and debris on site.

The electrical fire started in a refrigeration unit and did not
do a lot of structural damage, Bay said, but further assessments
will be conducted in the morning.  Bay said there was no issue
with asbestos on the premises.

Fire chiefs concerned about that possibility ordered firefighters
who'd been inside the building to be decontaminated with a fire
hose, Riverhead Fire Department First Assistant Chief Kevin
Brooks said tonight. "It's no fun being hosed down with cold
water in 39-degree weather, but better safe than sorry," Brooks
said.

When the school superintendent arrived on scene, he produced
records certifying that there was no asbestos in the area of the
fire, Brooks said.

The fire started as an electrical fire on top of a large walk-in
refrigerator unit in the basement of the school, Brooks said. It
burned through very thick insulation and "traveled horizontally,"
he said.

"We are very grateful to the Riverhead Fire Department for their
rapid response," said the school spokesperson. "This could have
been so much worse."

About 75 firefighters and seven pieces of apparatus responded to
the scene, according to the assistant chief. The automatic alarm,
triggered by a hard-wired smoke detector on premises, came in to
the firehouse at about 7 p.m. Firefighters were releases from the
scene at 9:34 p.m. Flanders Fire Department manned Riverhead's
headquarters during the incident.

A spokesperson for Bishop-McGann Mercy High School said in a
phone interview tonight that school officials have not yet
determined whether the school will be opened.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Porirua Kindergarten
----------------------------------------------------------
Rhiannon McConnell, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that a
parent at a kindergarten north of Wellington, in New Zealand, was
shocked to discover children playing around asbestos.

Builder Kyle Mitchell was in the garden at Pukerua Bay
Kindergarten, in Porirua with his daughter when he noticed pieces
of asbestos protruding from the ground.

"I pulled a big piece out," he said. "I was pretty shocked.
That's pretty dubious stuff. The kids have actually been running
on it."

The father of three raised his concerns with teachers.

"It's bloody terrible that the kids have been have been exposed
to the hazardous substance for some time."

Barriers were put up by the kindergarten and a removal specialist
was called in.

Pukerua Bay Kindergarten head teacher Carrie-Ann Stark would not
discuss the issue. When asked for a kindergarten committee
spokesperson, she said that was her too, but she still would not
comment.

Wellington Kindergartens Association spokeswoman Jenny Varney,
who said she was also speaking on behalf of the kindergarten,
said the kindergarten acted quickly after learning of the
asbestos.

"Forty-eight hours from whoa to go it was gone. It was identified
and removed," she said.

"Many years ago we disposed of things very differently than we do
now. It is a historic thing and we can only carefully monitor
it."

The kindergarten was established in 1977.

Varney said she believed rain had recently uncovered the material
and she did not believe anyone had been at risk.

"We are always concerned about pupils' safety, but there's no
reason to believe anyone has come in contact with [the asbestos]
in the past."

Mitchell said the asbestos did not look as if it had been
uncovered recently.

"It's been there for years. Some of it's been sticking out for
ages," he said. "It should have been cleaned up."

He suspected the area was once used as a dumping ground.

"I spoke to one of the teachers and they said that in the past
they had also found big shards of glass and that it must have
been some sort of dumping ground and [the kindergarten] never
bothered to have the play area cleared of this rubbish."

Mitchell said the clean-up was a good start, but the area needed
to be fully checked and cleared for it to be safe.

His wife, Rachael, said the kindergarten was focused on safety
and she believed it would do what was best for the children.

"My view is they weren't aware of asbestos there and as soon as
they were they went into protection mode."

Varney said the kindergarten did not believe there was any more
danger, but it would be careful.

"We would be foolish not to keep an eye on things," she said.
"Now that this happened we will be extra vigilant."

'I'LL BE BANNING MY KIDS'

Lower Hutt GP Stewart Reid said it would be very hard to be sure
if the children at Pukerua Bay Kindergarten had been exposed to
asbestos.

"I don't think there's any way you can detect if any significant
exposure has occurred," he said. "The issue is that nothing much
happens until many years later.

"If it was me, I'd be banning my kids from being near there."
Reid said asbestos was only dangerous if inhaled. "If it is in a
garden, there is a reasonable chance that some of it could break
down and get dusty. "If there is no asbestos dust it is OK," he
said.

WHAT IS ASBESTOS?

Asbestos is a group of minerals made up of many small fibres. It
is a risk to health when breathed in as dust.

Fibres can get stuck in the lungs and body, leading to breathing
difficulties and even lung cancer.

If asbestos is exposed or damaged it can be dangerous.

Before the dangers were known, it was popular because of its
fire- resistant, insulation and reinforcement properties. It
became popular in the 19th century as a cheap building material.
Many old buildings in New Zealand contain asbestos. Its use is
banned in many places.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FELA Suit Claims CSX Allowed Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reported that the special
administrator of a deceased woman's estate blames a railroad
company for contributing to her death, saying it allowed its
employees to be exposed to asbestos despite knowledge of the
associated health risks.

Jeanne Belman filed a lawsuit March 14 in the St. Clair County
Circuit Court against CSX Transportation.  In her complaint,
Belman alleges the recently deceased Marcella Goedeke developed
mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos fibers that clung to
her husband's clothing following his work at The Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company. When Marcella Goedeke's husband came home,
she inhaled and ingested the asbestos fibers that were on his
clothes, according to the complaint.

As a result of Goedeke's mesothelioma, she suffered great pain
and disability, endured serious mental anguish and extreme
nervousness and incurred significant medical costs, the suit
states. She died on March 18, 2012, the suit states.

Belman claims Goedeke's disease could have been avoided had The
Baltimore and Railroad Company heeded the advice of experts in
1935 who warned the railroad to educate all its employees about
asbestos fibers. The experts also advised the company to get rid
of asbestos dust, to sprinkle the working area with water, to
have employees wear inhalers and to have frequent analyses made
of the dust content of air at different times during work hours,
the complaint says.

Instead, she says the railroad negligently exposed Marcella
Goedeke's husband to asbestos, allowed him to carry the asbestos
with him into his home, failed to warn him that it could cause
disease, failed to prevent him from being exposed to the
asbestos, failed to provide him with protective clothing and
allowed unsafe work practices to become routine.

Eventually, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company was taken
over by CSX, which Belman named as a defendant in her complaint
that seeks damages under the Federal Employers Liability Act
(FELA).

Belman is seeking a judgment of more than $100,000, plus costs.
She is being represented by William P. Gavin of Gavin Law Firm in
Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 14-L-225.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bristol Developer Fined for Breaking Safety Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bristol Post reported that a Bristol, United Kingdom,
property company has been fined nearly GBP10,000 after it exposed
employees to asbestos while working on a former Marks and Spencer
shop building.

At least three employees of Da Vinci Developments Limited are
known to have been exposed to potentially deadly asbestos fibres
while working on the former M&S building on Queen Street,
Bridgwater, between 17 September and 24 October 2012.

Taunton Magistrates' Court heard on March 31 that Da Vinci
Developments Limited failed to plan for the potential presence of
asbestos insulation board (AIB) before developing the property.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was alerted when they were
notified by a non-licensed asbestos removal company, which had
been asked to quote for the removal works. The firm was aware any
such work had to be carried out by a licensed asbestos removal
contractor.

An investigation by HSE found Da Vinci Developments Limited did
not carry out a statutory survey to check for the presence of
asbestos materials prior to starting the work.

Instead, for several weeks, workers were demolishing walls and
ceilings in the building, breaking up the asbestos insulation
board. Employees were exposed to large amounts of airborne
asbestos fibres, which spread through the inside and outside of
the building during the work.

The AIB removal should have been undertaken by a licensed
contractor taking suitable control measures to prevent exposure
and spread of the asbestos fibres.

Da Vinci Developments Limited of Archfield Road, Cotham, Bristol,
pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2012 and were fined GBP9,800 and ordered to pay
GBP796 in costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector James Lucas said: "It
is very important that employers take appropriate measures before
work starts in order to identify the potential for asbestos to be
present when undertaking work.

"Appropriate measures can then be taken to ensure workers are not
exposed and asbestos is not spread.

"Workers who have been exposed to asbestos could also have posed
a health risk to others in the long term, even their families and
loved ones, by taking home contaminated clothing.

"Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in
the UK. Building owners and contractors have a duty to ensure
they protect their workers from risk of exposure. Da Vinci
Developments Limited neglected their duty by failing to plan for
the dangers of this hidden killer."

Information and advice about working safely with asbestos can be
found on the HSE website at www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYCAL Consolidates 17 Fibro Trials
---------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the New York City Asbestos Litigation court has granted
plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg's motion to consolidate 17
asbestos trials into six separate groups for joint trial.

In a March 14 order, Judge Cynthia Kern approved the move of
consolidation because the groups have common questions of law and
fact.

"[T]his court finds that the trials in each of the groups involve
common questions of law and fact and that consolidation of these
cases into the five groups [with more than one plaintiff] will
not prejudice a substantial right of defendants," Kern stated.

"Moreover, 'there is a preference for consolidation in the
interest of judicial economy and ease of decision-making where
there are common questions of law and fact, unless the party
opposing the motion demonstrates that consolidation will
prejudice a substantial right,'" she added.

In Group 1(a), all four plaintiffs worked as electricians, have
been exposed to similar products and have overlapping periods of
exposure.

In Group 1(b), the three plaintiffs have had maintained different
occupations and worked at different job sites, but have had
similar exposure to asbestos-containing products. They've also
had exposure in the same manner -- by working directly with
asbestos-containing products and by means of bystander exposure.

Plaintiffs in Group 2 were both exposed to the same products at
similar job sites. They also allege they were exposed to asbestos
while aboard ships in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Navy Yard.

The pair of plaintiffs in Group 3 were both exposed to press pads
at commercial dry cleaning facilities as well as military ship-
based exposure. They also suffered exposures while working on the
railroad. Although, Kern wrote that the railroad exposure is not
a sufficient basis by itself to require a separate trial in light
of the overlapping issues between the plaintiffs.

Groups 4 and 5 only contain a single plaintiff in each.

Group 6 is the only group of plaintiffs suffering from lung
cancer. All other groups involve mesothelioma victims. These
claimants were exposed to the same types of products in the same
manner -- by working directly with the products and by means of
bystander exposure.

"Although not all of the groups have all living plaintiffs, the
death of some of these plaintiffs will not prejudice the jury
against the 'defendants, vis-a-vis, the living plaintiffs'
because they are suffering from the same terminal illness and
will suffer the same fate," Kern stated.

A settlement conference will be held for all parties on April 11
and jury selection for Group 1(a) will begin on April 28. Each of
the subsequent trials will be held consecutively unless the court
decides otherwise.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP70,000 Payout for Doncaster Rail Worker Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reported that the family of a dad whose life was cut
short by asbestos exposure have been awarded GBP70,000 in
compensation.  Former rail worker Douglas Wattam's family brought
the case against British Rail after a post-mortem examination
showed he died from asbestosis in January 2012.  Mr Wattam
suffered with breathlessness for 13 years as a result of the
asbestosis -- something that was picked up only after his death.

The settlement with the Department of Transport, which is
responsible for cases brought against British Rail, was settled
out of court and the GBP70,000 awarded to Mr Wattam's family was
in respect of the pain and suffering he endured.

Mr Wattam had needed nursing care and incurred expenses as a
result of his illness.  He began work with British Rail in 1966
as a coach builder in the carriage shop.

Asbestos was widely used in the Doncaster railway works, with
blue asbestos sprayed on the inside of carriages and floating in
the air with workers given no protective clothing or warnings.

Brigitte Chandler is a leading industrial disease lawyer who has
represented hundreds of railway workers over the last 30 years,
including the family of Mr Wattam.

Mrs Chandler, of Swindon law firm Charles Lucas and Marshall,
said of the case: "A number of coach builders have died from
asbestos exposure at the Doncaster railway works.

"British Rail is now well aware of the extent of this problem and
the fact so many people who worked there have become ill."

British Rail began removing asbestos from train coaches and
issuing protective clothing to workers in the 1980s.

Mrs Chandler has been involved with numerous asbestos cases in
the Supreme and High Courts, and recommends that anyone who has
worked with asbestos in the railways, and who develops chest pain
or breathlessness, should seek medical advice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentences Handed Down for Abatement Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Contreras, writing for Turnto23.com, reported that Patrick
Bowman, 47, of Los Banos, Calif.; and Rudolph Buendia III, 51, of
Planada, California, were sentenced for violating the asbestos
work-practice standards of the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, United States Attorney Benjamin B.
Wagner announced. United States District Judge Lawrence J.
O'Neill sentenced Bowman to 27 months in prison, and Buendia to
24 months in prison.

Sentencing for Joseph Cuellar is currently scheduled for June 16,
2014.  A restitution hearing as to all three defendants is also
scheduled for June 16.

According to court documents, Joseph Cuellar was the
administrative manager of Firm Build Inc., Patrick Bowman was its
president, and Rudolph Buendia was its construction project site
supervisor. From September 2005 to March 2006, Firm Build
operated a demolition and renovation project in the former Castle
Air Force Base in Atwater, California. They were to turn Building
325 into a mechanic training center for the Merced County Board
of Education. The defendants hired local high school students
from the Workplace Learning Academy in Merced to perform some of
the renovation.

According to court documents, the students and other employees
removed and disposed of approximately 1,000 linear feet of pipe
insulation and additional tank insulation which the defendants
knew contained regulated asbestos-containing material without
utilizing proper protective equipment (in the form of Tyvek
suits, full-face respirators, bootie or footwear coverings,
gloves, hair hoods or caps, and shower equipment) or taking
protective measures (wetting the asbestos containing materials,
sealing the asbestos debris in secure plastic bags, using
negative air pressure in the building) in violation of federal
law. Asbestos became airborne during this illegal asbestos
abatement. In performing the asbestos abatement project in this
manner, defendants knowingly exposed Firm Build employees,
Workplace Learning Academy students, as well as other
subcontractors and their employees to hazardous airborne
asbestos.

U.S. Attorney Wagner said: "Exposing student workers and
subcontractors at a construction site to hazardous asbestos in
order to cut corners and save money is not just reckless.  The
sentences imposed should remind all who may be involved in
handling such materials that disregarding federal environmental
laws can result in prison time. I am grateful for the support of
the investigations bureau of the Merced County District
Attorney's Office, and of Cal-EPA and the California Department
of Justice, in the course of the investigation and prosecution of
this case."

"There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos," said Jay M.
Green, Special Agent-in-Charge of EPA's criminal enforcement
program in California.  "Directing student workers to illegally
remove demolition debris containing asbestos, knowing they had
neither the training nor the proper personal protective
equipment, threatens their health and safety.  EPA and its
partner agencies will continue to protect those vulnerable to
these crimes by vigorously prosecuting those who place profit
above the public health and the environment."

This case was the product of an investigation by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, assisted by Cal-EPA, the
investigations bureau of the Merced County District Attorney, and
the California Department of Justice. Assistant United States
Attorneys Samuel Wong and Melanie Alsworth prosecuted the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Much of Fanning School
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Haire, writing for Orange County Register, reported that
the main building of Fanning Elementary School in Brea,
California, could be closed for six weeks, or even longer,
because of asbestos found in the dust and debris caused by an
earthquake, according to a report released by Superintendent Skip
Roland.

"At best, the entire Fanning campus will not be available until
after spring break," Roland said in the report. "In an abundance
of caution, we will make sure the campus is completely safe from
any asbestos contamination before allowing students and staff to
return to the pods and main building."

The magnitude 5.1 earthquake caused more than 50 light fixtures
and ceiling tiles to fall to the floor, releasing dust and debris
containing the carcinogen. Fanning was built in 1971, when
asbestos was a common building material.

The main building houses 350 students in grades two through five.
Those children and their teachers will move to Laurel Elementary
School, the district's least-populated school.

Children younger than second-graders, housed in separate pods
from the main building, are scheduled to return to Fanning. The
entire campus was closed for a day.

Elsewhere in Brea, the Civic Center re-opened to the public,
following a weekend-long clean-up effort. City employees cleaned
up fallen lights, debris and dust, and fixed a water pipe that
burst.

On Carbon Canyon Road, east of Valencia Avenue, workers spent all
weekend trying to shore up a hillside. The road was scheduled to
re-open at 4 a.m. today, which should ease congestion on the 60
and 91 freeways during the morning and afternoon commutes.

Carbon Canyon will close again though, so crews can put in a more
durable mesh to prevent future slides. The two-lane highway
should re-open for good.

In La Habra, the quake's epicenter, no city or residential
buildings sustained any significant damage.

"We weathered the storm much better than some other cities," said
city spokesman Robert Ferrier. "Just some dust, dirt and tiles.
Nothing a good cleaning can't handle."

In Fullerton, on the other hand, residents continued to deal with
some of the worst effects in the county -- with several houses on
Avendia del Norte, in the northwest section of Fullerton,
suffering damage.

A 5-foot-by-5-foot section of a brick wall in the front yard of
one home became a pile of rubble. At another residence, about 10
bricks fell off of the top of a chimney.

And even though all of the city's roads are open, the pavement on
several streets will need to be repaired, said police Sgt. Jeff
Stuart. The worst area is around Rosecrans Avenue and Gilbert
Street, where it flooded after a water main broke. Thirteen water
mains broke throughout Fullerton.

Fullerton City Manger Joe Felz estimated that, in his city, the
private sector suffered $400,000 in damage, while the city took a
$500,000 hit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Awards $202K to Artra 524(g) Trust
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in a memorandum
opinion and order dated April 22, 2014, granted the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by the Artra 524(g) Asbestos Trust in the
case styled ARTRA 524 (g) ASBESTOS TRUST, Plaintiff, v. ARTRA
GROUP, INCORPORATED, ENTRADE, INC., ARCADIA SECURITIES LLC, PETER
R. HARVEY, and JOHN P. CONROY, Defendants, CASE NO. 11 C 8028
(N.D. Ill.).

In 2002, Artra filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition precipitated
by a multitude of asbestos-related personal injury claims that
greatly exceeded Artra's insurance coverage and assets.  In 2007,
the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming a reorganization
plan, which order was affirmed by the District Court.  The plan
became effective as of April 2, 2007.

Among its provisions the plan established, for purposes of
resolving personal injury claims, a trust into which certain of
Artra's assets, including its shares of stock in a company named
Comforce Corporation, were transferred.  Pursuant to the Plan,
Artra was permitted to retain bare legal title to the Comforce
stock for a two-year period so that Artra could obtain any tax
benefits which might be available in connection with the sale of
the stock.  After the two-year period expired, the stock would
become the sole property of the Trust.  Under the terms of the
reorganization plan, Astra was required to establish an escrow
account to hold the Comforce stock for sale for the benefit of
the Trust.  However, Artra did not execute the Escrow Agreement
and retained physical possession of the share certificates which
bore its name rather than the Trust's.

In a series of transactions selling the Comforce stock, the Trust
received $156,325 for its 143,000 shares in the December 2009
sale instead of $358,000, which it would have been received had
the shares not been sold until the merger.  The Trust has
demanded the difference, $202,174 from Arcadia Securities LLC,
based on its contention that both Artra and its agent, Arcadia,
converted the shares.  The Trust has moved for summary judgment
against Arcadia.

Judge Leinenweber entered judgment in favor of the Trust in the
amount of $202,264.  The Trust asks for prejudgment interest in
its Reply Brief, but insofar as Arcadia has not had an
opportunity to argue the point, Judge Leinenweber said it will
not grant it at this time.  Insofar as the Trust has benefited
from the failure of Arcadia to have a proper 30(b)(6) witness,
the Court does not believe that any additional penalty is
warranted. The Motions for Discovery Sanctions are therefore
denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Leinenweber's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/oXJF1Dfrom Leagle.com.

ARTRA 524(g) Asbestos Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph
Daniel Frank, Esq. -- jfrank@fgllp.com -- Micah R. Krohn, Esq. --
mkrohn@fgllp.com -- and Reed Heiligman, Esq. --
rheiligman@fgllp.com -- at FrankGecker LLP.

Arcadia Securities, LLC, Defendant, is represented by:

         Peter Ordower, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER ORDOWER
         10 S La Salle St., Suite 3500
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-263-8060
         Fax: 312-263-8083


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Excess Insurer Can't Intervene in Hall's Ch. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.P. Hall Company is a former distributor of asbestos and
asbestos products.  It quit that imperiled business in the mid-
1980s but continued in corporate existence as a litigation shell.
Tens of thousands of separate asbestos claims were filed against
it.  It sought to shift as much of the cost as possible to its
liability insurers; and not until 2011 was it forced to declare
bankruptcy, initially under Chapter 11 but the bankruptcy
proceeding was later converted to Chapter 7 and a trustee was
appointed.

Hall had $10 million remaining in insurance coverage from one of
its insurers, itself bankrupt, called Integrity.  But there was a
question whether Integrity's policy actually covered the loss for
which Hall was seeking indemnity under the policy.  The parties
agreed to settle for $4.125 million, and the bankruptcy judge,
whose approval was necessary for the settlement to be valid,
approved it.

Columbia Casualty Company is not a creditor of Hall, but rather
an excess insurer of Hall's asbestos liabilities, with maximum
coverage of $6 million.  Columbia worries that Hall, by virtue of
having settled its insurance claim against Integrity rather than
persisting in the litigation in the hope of obtaining indemnity
of the full $10 million, has increased the likelihood of
Columbia's having to honor its secondary-coverage obligation.  It
therefore filed an objection to the settlement.  The bankruptcy
judge refused to consider the objection, on the ground that
Columbia had no right to object.  Columbia appealed and the
district judge affirmed, precipitating Columbia's further appeal.

The question presented by the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit is whether a nonparty to a bankruptcy
proceeding should be entitled to intervene in the proceeding.

A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District
Court's ruling, holding that the list of persons having a right
to appear and be heard in a bankruptcy case can't include
Columbia as it is neither a creditor of Hall's estate in
bankruptcy, a debtor, and, unlike the U.S. Trustee, a guardian of
conduct in bankruptcy proceedings.  The Seventh Circuit also
pointed out that Columbia is just a firm that may suffer
collateral damage from a ruling in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The appeals case is IN RE: C.P. HALL COMPANY, Debtor, APPEAL OF:
COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, Objector-Appellant, NO. 13-1306 (7th
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the opinion dated April 24, 2014,
penned by Judge Richard Posner, is available at
http://is.gd/8qF23Afrom Leagle.com.

C.P. Hall Co. filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case
No. 11-26443) on June 24, 2011, listing under $1 million in both
assets and debts.  A copy of the petition is available at
http://bankrupt.com/misc/ilnb11-26443.pdf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NLI's Bid to Enforce Confirmation Order Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
N.L. Industries, Inc., filed an expedited motion to enforce a
confirmation order and asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania to require Marilyn Judson to
dismiss the Company as defendant from the case styled Judson v.
American Optical Corp., et. al., Case No. 1222-CC10608 filed in
the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court in the State of
Missouri.  The State Court Action was filed when Kenneth Judson
sued a large number of defendants, including NLI, after he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma.

NLI also seeks an award of sanctions against Judson for violation
of the Permanent Asbestos Channeling Injunction entered on July
16, 2004, by Hon. Judith K. Fitzgerald, as part of the
Confirmation Order that approved NLI's Fourth Amended and
Restated Joint Prepackaged Plan.

Bankruptcy Judge Thomas P. Agresti, in a memorandum opinion dated
April 24, 2014, concluded that no evidentiary hearing is required
at this time, and that the Motion must be denied, without
prejudice to being refiled at a later time.  Judge Agresti ruled
that the court in the State Court Action will be charged with
carrying out the proceeding in accordance with general principles
but beyond that is free to act in accordance with applicable laws
as it may determine.  If at any time NLI believes the state court
has failed to do so in a manner that implicates a breach of the
Channeling Injunction, it may seek further relief from the
Bankruptcy Court, Judge Agresti further ruled.

The case is NL, INDUSTRIES, INC., Chapter 11, Movant v. MARILYN
J. JUDSON, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of KENNETH
JUDSON, deceased, Respondent (IN RE: MID-VALLEY, INC., et. al.,
Reorganized Debtors, Case No. 03-35592-TPA)(Bankr. W.D. Pa.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Agresti's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/wYQJTDfrom Leagle.com.

Michael G. Zanic, Esq., and David Asigo, Esq. for the Movant.
Carla Guttilla, Esq., and Robert W. Phillips for the Respondent.

NL Industries, Inc. (NL) is a holding company. The Company
operates in the component products industry through its majority-
owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates
in the chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. As of December 31, 2011, it owned 87%
interest in CompX International Inc and 30% interest in Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. The Company also owns 100% of EWI RE, Inc., an
insurance brokerage and risk management services company. CompX
is a manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety
of applications and industries. Kronos is a global producer and
marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments. In July of
2011, CompX completed the acquisition of an ergonomic component
products business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNH Prohibited From Deposing Opponent's Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, CNH America, LLC, began being sued in numerous lawsuits
alleging damages caused by asbestos exposure.  CNH submitted the
lawsuits to American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania,
and other companies for coverage under various insurance
policies.  The CNA Defendants retained Clinton E. Cameron, Esq. -
- clinton.cameron@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders LLP,
as lead counsel in connection with coverage issues.

CNH now asks the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County,
to issue a commission so that CNH may depose Mr. Cameron in
Illinois on, among other subjects, any communications the CNA
Defendants sent to or received from Mr. Cameron between July 18,
2011 and July 11, 2012 regarding the asbestos claims.  The CNA
Defendants contend that the commission should not be issued
because it is disruptive, harassing, and unnecessary; that CNH
has not met the Shelton standard -- a standard that the Court
adopted in Cole v. Mousavi; that CNH seeks privileged attorney-
client communications and attorney work product; and that the
topics on which CNH seeks discovery from Cameron do not warrant
breaching these protections.

In an order dated March 24, 2014, the Superior Court denied CNH's
motion after determining that CNH has failed to establish the
first factor in Cole v. Mousavi, which is to show that no other
means exists to obtain the information than to depose opposing
counsel.

The cases are CNH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company f/k/a Case Corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CASUALTY
COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation, et
al, Defendants, and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING,
PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation; and The CONTINENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Third-Party
Plaintiffs, v. EPEC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Third-Party Defendant, C.A. NO. N12C-07-108 JTV
(Del. Super.).

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's order penned by
President Judge James T. Vaughn Jr. is available at
http://is.gd/hPGj4Bfrom Leagle.com.

Brain R. Rostocki, Esq. -- brostocki@reedsmith.com -- and John C.
Cordrey, Esq. -- jcordrey@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith, LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Carmella P. Keener, Esq. -- ckeener@rmgglaw.com -- at Rosenthal,
Monhait & Goddess, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for American
Casualty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order in Ex-Worker's Bias Suit Modified
--------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court of Appeals of New York is an issue on whether,
on a motion for summary judgment disposing of an employee's
disability discrimination claims under the New York City Human
Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law, an employer's
failure to consider the reasonableness of a proposed
accommodation for a generally qualified employee's disability via
a good faith interactive process precludes the employer from
obtaining summary judgment.

In 1979, plaintiff William Jacobsen began his employment with New
York City Health Hospitals Corporation.  In 2005, HHC reassigned
the plaintiff to its Queens hospital network, and he primarily
oversaw projects at the Queens Hospital Center, where HHC was
conducting extensive renovations and asbestos abatement.  In
September 2005, the plaintiff received diagnosis of
pneumoconiosis, an occupational lung disease caused by repeated
and prolonged inhalation of asbestos or other dust particles.  In
2006, the plaintiff filed a disability discrimination complaint
against HHC.  Two days after, HHC placed the plaintiff on unpaid
medical leave for six months.  At the end of his involuntary
medical leave in March 2007, HHC terminated the plaintiff.  The
plaintiff, in March 2008, commenced an action for damages by
filing a complaint in which he alleged that HHC unlawfully
discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the
State Human Rights Law and City Human Rights Law.

In a decision dated March 27, 2014, the Court of Appeals of New
York modified a lower court's order and decided only that the
trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to HHC based on
the plaintiff's having become totally disabled after his
accommodation request was denied, and that HHC did not
demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law
regarding the other aspects of the plaintiff's disability
discrimination claims.  Accordingly, the order of the Appellate
Division should be modified, without costs, by reinstating the
first and second causes of action of the complaint, and as so
modified, affirmed, and the certified question should not be
answered as unnecessary.

In resolving the issue, the Court of Appeals reiterated that the
State Human Rights Law and the City Human Rights Law set forth
distinct legal standards for establishing the existence of a
covered disability that can be reasonably accommodated.  Despite
those differing standards, the Court of Appeals concluded that
both statutes generally preclude summary judgment in favor of an
employer where the employer has failed to demonstrate that it
responded to a disabled employee's request for a particular
accommodation by engaging in a good faith interactive process
regarding the feasibility of that accommodation.

The case is WILLIAM JACOBSEN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH
AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Respondent, NO. 34 (N.Y.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision penned by Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam is
available at http://is.gd/7TzAMqfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Widow's Death Benefits Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, Third Department, in a memorandum and order
dated March 27, 2014, affirmed the decision of the Workers'
Compensation Board, which, among other things, ruled that the
employer and its third-party administrator were not entitled to
reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund.

The decision comes from a lawsuit under which Catherine T.
Gillard, wife of Peter Gillard, filed for workers' compensation
death benefits for the death of his husband, who was repeatedly
exposed to asbestos in the course of his work for the employer.
The employer and its third-party administrator thereafter sought
reimbursement for the death benefits from the Special Disability
Fund.

The case is In the Matter of the Claim of CATHERINE T. GILLARD,
as Widow of PETER GILLARD, Deceased, Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED
EDISON OF NEW YORK, INC., ET AL., Appellants, and SPECIAL
DISABILITY FUND, Respondent, WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,
Respondent, 515230 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision penned by Justice William E. McCarthy is available at
http://is.gd/tP53g1from Leagle.com.

Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., appellants, is represented
by:

         David W. Faber, Esq.
         Steven M. Scotti, Esq.
         CHERRY, EDSON & KELLY, LLP
         One Old Country Road
         Carle Place, NY 11514
         Phone: (516) 486-4640
         Fax: (516) 486-7732

Steven M. Licht, Esq., and Jill B. Singer, Esq., Special Funds
Conservation Committee, in Albany, for Special Disability Fund,
respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in Labor Law Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carletta Sims commenced a Labor Law and common-law
negligence action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly
sustained while performing asbestos abatement work during a
construction project at Midtown Plaza, which is owned by
defendant the City of Rochester.  According to the plaintiff, she
was scraping asbestos from the ceiling while standing on a free-
standing scaffold when the scaffold shifted and she fell to the
ground, thereby sustaining injuries.  A five-judge panel of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, concluded that the Supreme Court properly denied the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of
liability with respect to the Labor Law Sec. 240 (1) claim.
Accordingly, the order so appealed is unanimously affirmed.

The case is CARLETTA SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF
ROCHESTER, Defendant-Respondent, 350 CA 13-01663 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the decision released March 28, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/9SHX97from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

         Timothy C. Bellavia, Esq.
         PARISI & BELLAVIA, LLP
         16W. Main Street
         Suite 141
         Rochester, New York 14610
         Tel: (585) 232-8000

Scott P. Rogoff, Esq. -- srogoff@hblaw.com -- at Hiscock &
Barclay, LLP, for Defendant-Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Ex-Bayer Corp. Worker's Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Fullerton worked as a plant worker and a maintenance worker
for Bayer Corporation for over forty years.  His job duties often
required him to be in contact with a variety of chemicals
including toluene diisocyanate (TDI).  While Mr. Fullerton worked
for Bayer he began to develop lung problems.  Initially his lung
problems were attributed to occupational pneumoconiosis from
exposure to asbestos.  But a later biopsy showed no evidence of
occupational pneumoconiosis.  James Allen, M.D., suggested that
Mr. Fullerton could be suffering from inherited idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis.  Dr. Allen also noted that Mr. Fullerton had
recently stopped smoking and there was significant improvement in
his lung condition.  Samuel Yousem, M.D., then suggested that Mr.
Fullerton may have developed chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis
from TDI exposure.  This suggestion was repeated by Kevin Gibson,
M.D., and Mr. Fullerton applied for workers' compensation
benefits for chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis.  In April
2010, the claims administrator rejected the claim stating that it
was untimely filed and also that there was no causal connection
between Mr. Fullerton's condition and his occupation.  David
Rosenberg, M.D., then examined Mr. Fullerton and found that his
symptoms included manifestations of rales, decreased diffusion
capacity, and clubbing of the fingers which were more consistent
with a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.  Dr. Rosenberg
found that the symptoms associated with hypersensitivity
pneumonitis usually occur within four to eight hours after
chemical exposure but that Mr. Fullerton had never had any
immediate symptoms in response to exposure to TDI.  Dr. Rosenberg
found that Mr. Fullerton did not have hypersensitivity
pneumonitis due to his occupation.  Joseph J. Renn, M.D., then
evaluated Mr. Fullerton and found that he had a significant
history of cigarette smoking which supported a diagnosis of
pulmonary fibrosis.  On December 7, 2011, the Office of Judges
affirmed the claims administrator's decision.  The Board of
Review affirmed the Order of the Office of Judges on July 27,
2012, leading Mr. Fullerton to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in a memorandum
decision dated March 20, 2014, agreed with the conclusions of the
Board of Review and the findings of the Office of Judges.  The
Supreme Court of Appeals found that Mr. Fullerton has not
demonstrated that he developed a disease in the course of and
resulting from his employment and the evidence in the record
consistently shows that Mr. Fullerton suffers from idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis and not from chronic hypersensitivity
pneumonitis resulting from TDI exposure at work.

The Supreme Court of Appeals acknowledged that Mr. Fullerton
demonstrated that he worked in an area where TDI was present but
he did not establish that he was exposed to the chemicals and
that he developed a disease because of his exposure.

For the reasons stated, the Supreme Court of Appeals found that
the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear violation of
any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the
result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a
material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary
record.  Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is
affirmed.

The case is FRANK D. FULLERTON, Claimant Below, Petitioner, v.
BAYER CORPORATION, Employer Below, Respondent, NO. 12-0980 (W.
Va. Sup. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ub3hfNfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Jury Verdict in "Suttner" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Supreme
Court, Erie County, entered on April 15, 2013, which judgment
awarded the plaintiff money damages against defendant Crane Co.
upon a jury verdict.

The case is IN RE: EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to JOANN H. SUTTNER, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GERALD
W. SUTTNER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. A.W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND CRANE CO., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
206 CA 13-01373 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Order
dated March 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/GKaVfOfrom
Leagle.com.

Michael J. Ross, Esq. -- michael.ross@klgates.com -- K & L GATES
LLP, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Defendant-Appellant.  John
N. Lipsitz, Esq. -- JNL@lipsitzponterio.com -- at Lipsitz &
Ponterio, LLC, in Buffalo, New York, for Plaintiff-Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Opinion in "Scott" Suit Modified
-------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
modified its opinion dated March 26, 2014, in the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit captioned PATRICK SCOTT et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and
Appellant, NO. A137975 (Cal. App.), to add certain language.
There is no change in judgment in the modified opinion.  A full-
text copy of the modified opinion dated April 23, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Cyutvffrom Leagle.com.

Joseph D. Satterley, Esq., Dianna Lyons, Esq., Justin A. Bosl,
Esq., Ted W. Pelletier, Esq., and Michael T. Stewart, Esq., at
Kazan, McClain, Satterley, Lyons, Greenwood & Oberman, in
Oakland, California, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Patrick Scott
and Sharon Scott.

Ronald Frank Lopez, Esq. -- rflopez@nixonpeabody.com -- Ross M.
Petty, Esq. -- rpetty@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody;
Daniel P. Collins, Esq. -- Daniel.Collins@mto.com -- and Nicholas
C. Soltman, Esq. -- Nicholas.Soltman@mto.com -- at Munger, Tolles
& Olson; and Eric C. Tew, Esq. -- etew@dykema.com -- at Dykema
Gossett, for Defendant and Appellant Ford Motor Company.

The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Hugh F. Young, Jr.;
Snell & Wilmer and Mary-Christine Sungaila as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Defendant and Appellant Ford Motor Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borden Denied Summary Judgment in "Proctor" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated March 31, 2014, denied Borden
Chemical, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the asbestos
personal injury action styled JAMES AUGUSTUS PROCTOR and JOY C.
PROCTOR, Plaintiffs, v. ALCOA, INC., et al, Defendants, NO.
190040/13, MOTION SEQ. 006 (N.Y. Sup.), after finding that Mr.
Proctor's testimony regarding exposure to a Borden product is
sufficient to raise an issue of fact with respect to the
defendant's liability.  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/ifjWn5from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Judge Recommends Remand of PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the Motion to
Remand in the diversity asbestos-related personal injury action
styled ORALIA STONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS O. STONE, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS
CORPORATION LTD., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-470-
SLR-SRF (D.Del.), be granted, after finding that Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation, which removed the lawsuit, fails to explain
how the identification of a specific vessel goes further than the
pleadings to convey that Mr. Stone performed work on Foster
Wheeler naval marine boilers at the direction of a federal
officer.  A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation dated March 18, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/uiji2Bfrom Leagle.com.

Oralia Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Diane M. Coffey, Esq. --
DCoffey@NapoliBern.com -- at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik &
Associates LLP.

Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Cross
Defendant, represented by Bernadette M. Plaza, Esq. --
bplaza@goldfeinlaw.com -- and Willard F. Preston, III, Esq. --
wpreston@goldfeinlaw.com -- at Goldfein & Joseph.

Certain-Teed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas
E. Skiles, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Andrew G. Ahern, III, Esq., and Joseph W. Benson,
Esq.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Christian J. Singewald, Esq. --
singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com -- at White & Williams.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant and General Electric Company,
Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Goulds Pumps Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman,
Phillips, Esq., at Goldman & Spence, P.A..

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Eileen M. Ford, Esq. -- eford@moodklaw.com -- and Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Esq. -- mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- at Marks,
O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq. -- JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- at
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

John Crane Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Esq., at Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Ana Marina McCann, Esq. -- ammccann@mdwcg.com -- at Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


                             *********

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  * * *