CAR_Public/140505.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 88

                             Headlines


AARGON AGENCY: Sued for Violating Telephone Act in California
ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Chicken Products Recalled Due To Misbranding
AMERICAN COMPREHENSIVE: Failed to Pay Overtime, Ex-Worker Claims
AMERICAN OUTDOOR: Fettuccini Alfredo With Chicken Recalled
AMERIGROUP NEW YORK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

AMY'S KITCHEN: Class Action Needs to be Amended, Judge Rules
APPLE INC: Owes Class Counsel $13.25 Million, Judge Ruled
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Pereza" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
BATS GLOBAL: Providence, RI Sues U.S. Stock Exchanges
BCSB BANCORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Complaint

BIOVEST INT'L: Consolidated BiovaxID Suit Filed in January 21
BLUE CROSS: Suit Seeks to Halt Discrimination vs. HIV Patients
BOLZANO ARTISAN: Recalls Salami Type Products With No Inspection
BRIDGETON LANDFILL: To Pay $6.8MM Settlement for Noxious Fire
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: Faces Suit Over "Illegal" Hiring Policy

CARLSON RESTAURANTS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Calling on Cellphones
CEDARS-SINAI: Faces Overtime Class Action from Information Techs
CHAMPIONS CAPITAL: Suit Wants to Stop Illegal Telemarketing Drive
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Overtime Class Action in Manhattan

CHICAGO MERCANTILE: Faces Suit Over High Frequency Traders
CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Failure on Warning
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Richmond" Suit Over Auto Wire Harness
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Sued by Richmond City Over Auto Wire Harness
DOW CHEMICAL: Appeals $1.06BB Judgment in Urethane Suit

DUN & BRADSTREET: Exploits False and Inaccurate Info, Suit Says
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Pelvic Mesh Suits for $830 Million
EXELON CORPORATION: Appeal in NDT Funds Complaint Dismissed
EXELON CORPORATION: ComEd Has No Reserve for Outage Alert Suit
EXELON CORPORATION: Court Approved $4-Mil Constellation Accord

EXXONMOBIL: Faces Class Action Over Defective Fuel
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Challenges Home Warranty Plan Practices
FORD MOTOR: To Face Class Action From South Africans, Judge Rules
HOMELAND SECURITY: Refuge-Seekers to Face Extended Detentions
HULU: Can't Escape Video Privacy Class Action

HUNT OIL: Removed "Hansen" Suit to District Court of North Dakota
IKEA: Recalls $3.5 Mil. Children's Lamps Over Strangulation Risks
INTEL CORPORATION: Awaits Court Decision on Class Certification
INTEL CORPORATION: Employee Antitrust Litigation Trial Set in May
JAY'S FAMILY: Faces "Dodge" Suit in Tenn. Over Unpaid Overtime

KNOCKUM HILL: Recalls Pork Products Due To Misbranding, Allergen
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Hot Dogs Due To Misbranding, Allergens
LEOPARD TRANSPORT: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in Florida
LEOPARD TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime to Drivers, Suit Claims
LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Hears Suit Over Warrants Fiasco

LULULEMON INC: Judge Dismisses Yoga Tights Fraud Claims
MADOFF SECURITIES: Claims Filing Deadline Set
MAIN STREET: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Cal.
MARICOPA COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Failure to Disclose Data Breach
MASIMO CORPORATION: Physicians Healthsource Complaint Filed

MASIMO CORPORATION: Amended Pulse Oximeters Complaint Filed
MAURY COBB: Faces "Chabanava" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
METROPOLITAN WATER: Sued Over Negligent Sewer Maintenance
MFK LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Final Pre-Trial Conference Set for May 28

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Motions May Delay Start of Antitrust Lawsuit
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Sued Over Extreme Violence Among Players
NUTRIOM LLC: Recalls Dried Egg Products Due To Salmonella Risk
PELLA CORP: Faces Suit Over Architect and Designer Series Windows
PEPSICO INC: Faces "Aourout" Class Suit Over 4-MEI Carcinogen

PETCO: Judge Allows Reverse-Discrimination Suit to Proceed
PFIZER INC: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Oklahoma Over Lipitor Drug
PRIME PAK: Misbranding of Chicken Breast Tenders Prompts Recall
SCHIFF NUTRITION: Misrepresented Product Efficacy, Suit Says
SCHNUCKS KITCHEN: Recalls Curry Chicken Salad Due to Listeria

SERVICE INTERNATIONAL: Settled Garcia Case in November 2013
SKILCOR FOOD: Recalls Baby Back Ribs Without Import Inspection
SOUTH FLORIDA MESSENGER: Accused of Violating Telephone Act
TAKEDA PHARMA: Plaintiff's Bid for Sanctions in Actos Suit Nixed
TEXTRON INC: Court Approved Savings Plan Settlement Agreement

TOYOTA MOTOR: More Sudden Acceleration Cases Settle
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Removed "Nassif" Suit to Mass. District Court
TYSON FOODS: Chicken Nuggets Recalled Due To Contamination Risk
UNITED STATES: Defense Dept. Fails to Gather New Info
USA TRANSPORTER: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act

VALEO SA: Accused of Fixing Prices of Air Conditioning Systems
VICAL INC: Consolidation of Allovectin(R) Actions Sought
WARRANTY GROUP: Removed "Flanigan" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois
WORLDCARE TRANSIT: Did Not Properly Pay Drivers' OT, Suit Claims
WRAP-N-RUN LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Underpaid or Unpaid Wages


                            *********


AARGON AGENCY: Sued for Violating Telephone Act in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Floresca, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aargon Agency Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01293-
SVW-PLA (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark J. Bourassa, Esq.
          BOURASSA LAW GROUP LLC
          8668 Spring Mountain Road, Suite 101
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Telephone: (702) 851-2180
          Facsimile: (702) 851-2189
          E-mail: mbourassa@bourassalawgroup.com


ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Chicken Products Recalled Due To Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AdvancePierre Foods, an Enid, Okla. establishment, is recalling
approximately 8,730 pounds of frozen chicken breast products due
to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced
April 1.  The products were formulated with milk and soy, which
are not declared on the label.

The products subject to recall: [View Label (PDF Only)]

    10-pound bulk cases of "Our Down Home Style Chicken Breast
Fritters for Chicken Frying" with Lot Code 5440730403 or
5440800403, produced March 14 and 21, 2014. Only these lot codes
and dates are affected.

The recalled products bear the UPC Code 36541 and establishment
number "P-2260Y" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These
products were distributed to food service establishments in
Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas,
Utah and Virginia.

The problem was discovered by the company during an internal
label review and they contacted FSIS. The problem occurred when
the establishment inadvertently used labels with an incorrect
ingredient statement. FSIS personnel are responsible for
verifying that establishments are actively labeling the eight
most common food allergens.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Julie
Moeller, Customer Service Manager at (580) 616-4364 or (580) 977-
6948. Media with questions about the recall should contact Laura
Phillips, the company's media accounts director at (513)  381-
8347.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat
services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish
and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.

Retail distribution list: http://is.gd/6xPE1o


AMERICAN COMPREHENSIVE: Failed to Pay Overtime, Ex-Worker Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adeleke Bosoro, in his individual capacity and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. American Comprehensive Healthcare
Medical Group, P.C, d/b/a AmeriComp, Medical Services Management
Organization, LLC, Ifeanyi Obiakor, an individual, and Karen
Henry, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-01099-ENV-SMG (E.D.N.Y.,
February 20, 2014) alleges that despite the fact that the
Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week in a non-
exempt position, the Defendants misclassified him as a salaried
employee and failed to pay him overtime.

The Plaintiff worked as a medical assistant for the Defendants'
medical clinic for about a year and a half.

American Comprehensive Healthcare Medical Group, P.C. doing
business as AmeriComp is a New York corporation doing business
within the County of Kings, and whose principal place of business
is located in Brooklyn, New York.  American Comprehensive
Healthcare Medical Group, P.C. operates a medical clinic located
in Brooklyn, which does business as AmeriComp.  Medical Services
Management Organization, LLC is a New York corporation based in
Brooklyn.  The Individual Defendants are officers and owners of
the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN OUTDOOR: Fettuccini Alfredo With Chicken Recalled
----------------------------------------------------------
American Outdoor Products, a Boulder, Colo., establishment, is
recalling approximately 633 pounds of dehydrated Fettuccini
Alfredo with Chicken due to misbranding and undeclared allergens,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced April 2.  The products were formulated
with milk and wheat, known allergens, which are not declared on
the product label.

The following products are subject to recall:

    7.5-oz. foil pouches of  "Backpackers Pantry Fettuccini
Alfredo with Chicken"

The products were produced July 2, 2013 and have the product code
"07/02/2020" printed on the pouch.  The products bear the
establishment number "P-4933" inside the USDA mark of inspection.
The products were sold wholesale, online and to retail
establishments nationwide.

The problem was discovered by a retailer in Vermont, which
notified the company via telephone yesterday, April 1. After
investigation by the firm it was determined that the wrong back
panel was put into the labeling machine by mistake for some of
the products produced that day.  The recalled product is properly
identified on the front of the pouch, yet mistakenly has a label,
including ingredient list and nutrition information, for the
firm's "Jamaican Jerk style rice with chicken" printed on the
backside of the pouch, which could cause consumer confusion.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure
that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no
longer available to consumers. When available, the retail
distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Elaine
Sims at (303) 800-1404 or via e-mail at:
elaine@backpackerspantry.com. Media with questions about the
recall should contact Amie Souza at (303) 800-1402 or via e-mail
at: amie@backpackerspantry.com

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem

Retail distribution list: http://is.gd/Edm8xA


AMERIGROUP NEW YORK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Rios, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Amerigroup New York, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01093-DLI-
VMS (E.D.N.Y., February 20, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and her similarly
situated co-workers, who have been employed by the Defendant.
Throughout the relevant period, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant as a Community Relations Representative.

Amerigroup New York, LLC, is an insurance company that operates
throughout the United States, including New York.  The Defendant
offers eligible individual's government based health insurance
programs like Medicaid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
          Ilan Wesier, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com
                  mm@shulmankessler.com
                  iweiser@shulmankessler.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather Havette, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: hhavette@seyfarth.com


AMY'S KITCHEN: Class Action Needs to be Amended, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a consumer alleging that
Amy's Kitchen mislabels the use of sugar in its products as
evaporated cane juice must amend his class action, a federal
judge ruled in San Francisco.


APPLE INC: Owes Class Counsel $13.25 Million, Judge Ruled
---------------------------------------------------------
Deshayla Strachan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that after settling claims that it failed to honor consumer
warranties on iPhones and iPod Touches, Apple owe class counsel
$13.25 million, a federal judge ruled.

Apple had agreed last April to a $53 million settlement in the
class action led in San Francisco by Christopher Corsi, Charlene
Gallion, Raj Johal and a married couple, Sean Pennington and
Megan White.  The class alleged that Apple denied their warranty
claims if a strip of paper on the bottom of their devices had
turned pink or red, indicating that the device had been submerged
in water.  They said the chemically sensitive paper could change
color based on humidity or sweat.

Hundreds of class members each received up to $300 in the
settlement, depending on the type of device they owned.  The
settlement covered the original iPhone, as well as the iPhone 3G,
iPhone 3GS, and the first, second and third-generation iPod
Touch.

The co-lead class counsel at Fazio Micheletti in San Ramon,
Calif., and at Chimicles & Tikellis in Haverford, Pa., wanted the
court to set 30 percent of the settlement fund, or $15.9 million,
aside for attorneys' fees and costs.  They noted such an award
would still mean that approximately 132,000 class members would
receive $211 each for their devices, plus such payments to the
43,000 class members whose claims were being verified at the
time.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg opted April 14, 2014, to
instead apply the 9th Circuit benchmark of 25 percent.  "While
the results counsel achieved for the class are excellent, the
size of the fund is such that applying the standard benchmark is
manifestly sufficient to provide fair compensation," Seeborg
wrote.  "Accordingly, plaintiffs' counsel is awarded fees and
costs of 25% of the settlement fund remaining after deduction of
the expenses of settlement administration."

Seeborg clarified April 10, 2014, that his ruling had been
"premised on the mistaken understanding that settlement expenses
were to be deducted from the fund, and on the view that it would
therefore be inappropriate to allow fees on the portion of the
fund consumed by such expenses rather than distributed to the
class."  He nevertheless refused to disturb the 25 percent
benchmark, "notwithstanding the fact it will be slightly higher
than contemplated by the April 14th order."

Apple had argued unsuccessfully that the attorneys' fee recovery
should not exceed $8.78 million.

Seeborg also approved a $1,000 incentive award to each of the
three individual class representatives.  Pennington and White, as
husband and wife, will split a joint $1,000 award.

A settlement website describes eligible class members as all
owners of an iPhone or iPod Touch whose device was submitted for
repair or replacement in the United States under Apple's one-year
limited warranty or AppleCare Protection Plan, but was denied
warranty coverage because Apple said the iPhone or iPod touch had
been damaged by liquid.

The website also said: "To qualify for a cash refund, you must:
(a) be a United States resident; (b) Apple denied warranty
coverage for your iPhone on or before December 31, 2009, OR for
your iPod touch on or before June 30, 2010; (c) when it was
submitted to Apple for warranty coverage, your iPhone or iPod
touch was covered either by its original one-year limited
warranty or by an AppleCare Protection Plan; and (d) Apple denied
warranty coverage because Apple stated that your iPhone or iPod
touch had been damaged by liquid."


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Pereza" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam G. Pereza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A.; Brock & Scott, PLLC,
a Florida professional corporation; and Priya Onore,
individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-00299-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla.,
February 21, 2014) alleges is brought over alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          N. James Turner, Esq.
          N. JAMES TURNER, LLC
          37 N Orange Ave., Suite 500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (888) 877-5103
          E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com


BATS GLOBAL: Providence, RI Sues U.S. Stock Exchanges
-----------------------------------------------------
City of Providence, Rhode Island v. BATS Global Markets Inc, et
al, No. 14-2811 (S.D.N.Y.), is a securities class action brought
on behalf of public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of
sotck in the United States between April 18, 2009, and the
present on a registered public stock exchange or a United States-
based alternate trading venue, and were injured as a result of
the misconduct.  The case arises out of a scheme and wrongful
course of business whereby the Exchange Defendants together with
a defendant class of the brokerage firms entrusted to fairly and
honestly transact the purchase and sale of securities on behalf
of their clients and a defendant class of sophisticated high
frequency trading firms employed devices, contrivances,
manipulations and artifices to defraud in a manner that was
designed to and did manipulate the U.S. Securities markets and
the trading of equities in those markets, diverting billions of
dollars annually from buyers and sellers of securities to
themselves.

Reuters reports that the lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal
district court, as the high-speed trading industry came under
greater scrutiny following the publication last month of author
Michael Lewis' book "Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt."  A number
of regulators have said they are probing the industry, including
the Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission and
Commodities Futures Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit demands jury trial.

The complaint identified 14 financial services firms, which,
according to the lawsuit, were the largest brokerage firms
serving institutional and retail investors in the U.S. during the
class period.

The other defendants are:

     * Box Options Exchange LLC
     * Chicago Board Options Exchange Inc
     * Chicago Stock ExchangeInc
     * C2 Options exchange Inc.
     * Direct Edge ECN LLC
     * International Securities Exchange Holdings Inc
     * The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
     * Nasdaq OMX BX Inc.
     * Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC
     * National Stock Exchange Inc.
     * New York Stock Exchange LLC
     * NYSE Arca Inc.
     * OneChicago LLC
     * Bank of America Corporation
     * Barclays Plc
     * Citigroup Inc.
     * Credit Suisse Group AG
     * Deutsche Bank AG
     * The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
     * JPMorgan Chase & Co.
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
     * UBS AG
     * The Charles Schwab Corporation
     * E*Trade Financial Corporation
     * FMR LLC
     * Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC
     * Scottrade Financial Services Inc.
     * TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation
     * Citadel LLC
     * DRW Holdings LLC
     * GTS Securities LLC
     * Hudson River Trading LLC
     * Jump Trading LLC
     * KCG Holdings Inc.
     * Quantlab Financial LLC
     * Tower Research Capital LLC
     * Tradebot Systems Inc.
     * Tradeworx Inc.
     * Virtu Financial Inc., and
     * Chopper Trading LLC

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
     Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Tel: 631-367-7100
     Fax: 631-367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
             vserra@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
     Randi Bandman, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     30 Vesey Street, Suite 200
     New York, NY 10007
     Tel: 212-693-1058
     E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
             randib@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     David W. Mitchell, Esq.
     Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     600 West Broadway
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619-231-1058
     Fax: 619-231-7423
     E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
             bomara@rgrdlaw.com


BCSB BANCORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities class action on January 30, 2014,
voluntarily dismissed the complaint against BCSB Bancorp Inc.,
alleging breach fiduciary duties, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on February 14, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2013.

F.N.B. and BCSB Bancorp recently became aware that on December 9,
2013, a purported stockholder of BCSB Bancorp filed a putative
class action and derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Darr v. BCSB Bancorp, Inc.,
et al., at Case No. 03-C-13-014034, and naming as defendants BCSB
Bancorp, its board of directors and F.N.B. The lawsuit makes
various allegations against the defendants relating to F.N.B.'s
proposed acquisition of BCSB Bancorp, including that the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 19, 2013 in
connection with the proposed acquisition omits certain
information allegedly necessary for BCSB Bancorp's shareholders
to make an informed vote on the proposed transaction, that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to BCSB
Bancorp in approving the proposed transaction and that F.N.B.
aided and abetted those alleged breaches. On January 30, 2014,
the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint.

BCSB Bancorp Inc. is the holding company for Baltimore County
Savings Bank (the Bank). The Company's primary asset is its
investment in the Bank. The Company is engaged in the business of
directing, planning, and coordinating the business activities of
the Bank. The Bank is a community-oriented Maryland chartered
commercial bank dedicated to serving the financial service needs
of consumers and businesses within its market area, which
consists of the Baltimore metropolitan area. The Bank attracts
deposits from the general public and invests these funds in loans
secured by first mortgages on owner-occupied, single-family
residences in its market area and other real estate loans
consisting of commercial real estate loans, construction loans
and single-family rental property loans. The Bank also originates
consumer loans and commercial loans. Effective February 18, 2014,
FNB Corp acquired the entire share capital of BCSB Bancorp Inc.


BIOVEST INT'L: Consolidated BiovaxID Suit Filed in January 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed and served on January
21, 2014, against Biovest International, Inc.'s former parent
corporation, Accentia, alleging among other things that Company
failed to disclose material information concerning the results of
the Phase III clinical trial of BiovaxID and status of its
approval by the FDA, according to Biovest's Form 10-Q filed on
February 14, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2013.

On July 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013, purported class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida (Tampa Division) against Biovest's former parent
corporation, Accentia, and several current and former directors
and officers of Biovest and Accentia (the "Class Action").
Biovest was not named as a defendant in either complaint. The
complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to make false
statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Accentia and/or
Biovest to fail to disclose material information, concerning the
results of the Phase III clinical trial of BiovaxID and status of
its approval by the FDA. Plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of shareholders who purchased common
stock of Accentia or Biovest between July 24, 2008 and August 14,
2012 and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of
common stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations. On
December 4, 2013 the District Court entered an Order
consolidating the Class Action cases and appointing a group of
lead plaintiffs.  On January 21, 2014, an Amended Consolidated
Complaint was filed and served, with responsive pleading by
defendants required in March 2014. Although the time to respond
to this Class Action complaint is still underway, our officers
and directors believe this litigation to be without merit, deny
any wrongdoing or liability and intend to vigorously defend the
alleged claims.

Biovest International, Inc. (Biovest) operates through three
segments: Cell Culture Products and Services segment, Instruments
and Disposables segment and Therapeutic Vaccine. The Company's
Cell Culture Products and Services segment is engaged in the
production and contract manufacturing of biologic drugs and cell
production for research institutions worldwide. The Instruments
and Disposables segment is engaged in the development,
manufacture and marketing of patented cell culture systems,
equipment and consumable parts to pharmaceutical, diagnostic and
biotechnology companies, as well as research institutions
worldwide. The Therapeutic Vaccine segment is focused on
developing BiovaxID. As of September 30, 2011, Accentia
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. owned approximately 62% of interest in
the Company.


BLUE CROSS: Suit Seeks to Halt Discrimination vs. HIV Patients
--------------------------------------------------------------
John East, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana,
Louisiana Health Cooperative, Inc., and Vantage Health Plan,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00115-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La., February 20,
2014) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to halt the
Defendants' alleged abrupt and systematic policy of targeted
discrimination on the basis of the Plaintiff and class members'
disability -- their infection with the human immunodeficiency
virus, in violation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act.

BCBS is a Louisiana corporation, with headquarters in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.  BCBS offers insurance policies to residents of
every Parish in Louisiana through the federal healthcare
exchange.  Louisiana Health Cooperative is a non-profit health
care company, with headquarters in Metairie, Louisiana.  Vantage
is a Louisiana corporation, with headquarters in Monroe,
Louisiana.  Vantage offers Point of Sale insurance plans through
the federal healthcare exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Bushofsky, Esq.
          Timothy R. Farrell, Esq.
          Nicholas M. Berg, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 845-1200
          Facsimile: (312) 845-5500
          E-mail: jeffrey.bushofsky@ropesgray.com
                  Timothy.Farrell@ropesgray.com
                  nicholas.berg@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Amanda R. Phillips, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          Facsimile: (617) 951-7050
          E-mail: amanda.phillips@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Anthony C. Biagioli, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          One Metro Center
          700 12th Street, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005-3948
          Telephone: (202) 508-4776
          Facsimile: (202) 508-4650
          E-mail: anthony.biagioli@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Schoettes, Esq.
          Kenneth D. Upton, Esq.
          Susan L. Sommer, Esq.
          LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
          120 Wall Street, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10005-3904
          Telephone: (212) 809-8585
          Facsimile: (212) 809-0055
          E-mail: sschoettes@lambdalegal.org
                  kupton@lambdalegal.org
                  ssommer@lambdalegal.org

               - and -

          Scott A. Schoettes, Esq.
          LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND, INC.
          105 West Adams Street, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: sschoettes@lambdalegal.org

               - and -

          Harry Rosenberg, Esq.
          Bryan Edward Bowdler, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 584-9219
          Facsimile: (504) 568-9130
          E-mail: harry.rosenberg@phelps.com
                  bryan.bowdler@phelps.com

Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana is represented
by:

          Charles A. O'Brien, III, Esq.
          Allison Nunley Pham, Esq.
          BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA
          P.O. Box 98029
          5525 Reitz Avenue
          Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9029
          Telephone: (225) 295-2454
          Facsimile: (225) 297-2760
          E-mail: Andy.OBrien@bcbsla.com
                  allison.pham@bcbsla.com

               - and -

          Adam P. Feinberg, Esq.
          Anthony F. Shelley, Esq.
          MILLER AND CHEVALIER CHARTERED
          655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-6087
          Facsimile: (202) 626-5801
          E-mail: afeinberg@milchev.com
                  ashelley@milchev.com

               - and -

          Brandon Kelly Black, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP - B.R.
          8555 United Plaza Boulevard, Suite 500
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809-7000
          Telephone: (225) 248-2128
          Facsimile: (225) 248-3128
          E-mail: bblack@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Richard John Tyler, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          201 St. Charles Avenue, 50th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
          Telephone: (504) 582-8266
          Facsimile: (504) 582-8011
          E-mail: rtyler@joneswalker.com

Defendant Louisiana Health Cooperative, Inc., is represented by:

          Amy M. Winters, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 5100
          New Orleans,, LA 70170-5100
          Telephone: (504) 582-8390
          Facsimile: (504) 589-8390
          E-mail: awinters@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Donald W. Washington, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          600 Jefferson Street, Suite 1600
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Telephone: (337) 593-7600
          Facsimile: (337) 593-7601
          E-mail: dwashington@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Michele Whitesell Crosby, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          8555 United Plaza Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809-7000
          Telephone: (225) 248-2000
          Facsimile: (225) 248-3092
          E-mail: mcrosby@joneswalker.com

Defendant Vantage Health Plan, Inc. is represented by:

          Layna S. Cook, Esq.
          Daniel P. Guillory, Esq.
          Errol J. King, Jr., Esq.
          Malcolm Levy Leatherman, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          Chase North Tower
          450 Laurel Street, 20th Floor
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 381-7043
          Facsimile: (225) 382-0243
          E-mail: lcook@bakerdonelson.com
                  DGuillory@bakerdonelson.com
                  eking@bakerdonelson.com
                  lleatherman@bakerdonelson.com


BOLZANO ARTISAN: Recalls Salami Type Products With No Inspection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bolzano Artisan Meats LLC, a Milwaukee, Wis. establishment is
recalling approximately 5,723 pounds of salami products for
misbranding and because they were produced without the benefit of
federal inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  Products
produced under the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade,
and Consumer Protection (WDATCP) inspection program are eligible
for sale within the state of Wisconsin when they bear the
Wisconsin state inspection shield on the immediate package.  The
products being recalled, however, incorrectly bear the
Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program version of the USDA
Mark of Inspection, which requires federal acceptance into the
program.  Because the establishment is not part of the CIS
program, products they produced and distributed bearing the CIS
program version of the USDA Mark of Inspection cannot be sold
through interstate commerce.

The products subject to recall include:

    6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Old School Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz. packages
per case (UPC 7935 7389 6360)

    6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Pamplona Runner Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz.
packages per case (UPC 7935 7389 6353)

    6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Fin Oh Kee Oh Na Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz.
packages per case (UPC 7935 7320 3564)

    6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Pig Red Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz. packages
per case (UPC 7935 7320 3571)

    6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, Pitzotl Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz. packages
per case (UPC 7935 7322 1698)

    6-oz. or 12-oz. packages of "Bolzano Artisan Meats All
Natural Uncured, RauchZwiebel Salami," 6/6-oz. or 3/12-oz.
packages per case (UPC 7395 7320 3588)

The products subject to recall were produced between Sept. 20,
2013 and March 15, 2014, include batch numbers 1208 to 1214, and
bear the CIS program version of USDA Mark of Inspection with the
establishment number "EST. 692SEWI." Cases containing the
products subject to recall may bear the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (WDATCP) inspection
label, but the individual product packages may be misbranded with
the CIS program version of the USDA Mark of Inspection.  Products
bearing the Wisconsin state inspection shield on the immediate
package are not subject to this recall.  The recalled products
were distributed for institutional and retail sales nationwide as
well as sold over the internet.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel after receiving
information about the product being in commerce.  The company
began using new packaging labels with the CIS program USDA Mark
of Inspection before implementing all federal requirements that
would authorize use of the USDA Mark of Inspection through the
CIS program.  Wisconsin state inspection personnel were not aware
of the application of labels, and have been assisting FSIS in the
investigation of this issue.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact Scott Allen Buer, Owner, at (414) 238-4874.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat
services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish
and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


BRIDGETON LANDFILL: To Pay $6.8MM Settlement for Noxious Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
landfill operator will pay $6.8 million to compensate neighbors
for noxious fumes emitted from an underground fire.

Bridgeton Landfill, a subsidiary of Republic Services, settled
the 2013 class action in Federal Court.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys will get one-fourth of the award, leaving an average
award of $12,750 per household.

An underground fire at the defunct Bridgeton Landfill was
reported more than three years ago.  The fire brought noxious
odors to neighboring homes and businesses, with concerns about
the fire's proximity to radioactive waste at the adjacent West
Lake Landfill, also owned by Republic Services.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster sued Republic Services in
2013 for environmental violations.

An odor log maintained by the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources shows about 400 complaints since the fire started, with
the strongest odors occurring between April 2013 and July 2013.

Plaintiffs' attorney Ted Gianaris said he believes the settlement
is fair and helps the residents.

"It's what I call 'fair money fast,'" Gianaris told the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch.  "No one is hitting the lottery with this
settlement, but they're going to have options now when they
collect.  They can put a down payment on a house somewhere else
or pay off debts."

Those who accept the settlement are prevented from filing any
further nuisance claims for property damage due to the landfill's
odor, but it does not prevent lawsuits for health issues or any
potential nuclear event caused by the fire, Gianaris told the
Post-Dispatch.

A hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
Aug. 1.

"We are the first to acknowledge that the odors have been a
source of considerable public concern and frustration," Russ
Knocke, a Republic Services spokesman, said in a statement.  "We
share that frustration and hope that the resolution of this suit
will bring peace of mind to our community.  We also sincerely
appreciate the community's patience as we continue to do
everything within our power to rectify a complex and unfortunate
situation that we did not create."

Gianaris told the Post-Dispatch that lawyers were unable to
negotiate a buyout of residents.  The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, which is overseeing the cleanup of the
radioactive waste in the nearby Westlake landfill, has stated
that the landfill does not pose a health risk, so buyouts are not
an option with the project.

Bridgeton, pop. 11,630, is a St. Louis suburb.  Bridgeton, which
neighbors Lambert International Airport in northwest St. Louis
County, had a median household income of $44,694 in 2011,
according to city-data.com.


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: Faces Suit Over "Illegal" Hiring Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the California Department of
Social Services illegally refuses to hire people who have an
arrest, but no conviction, on their records, a class action
claims in Alameda County Court in Oakland, California.

The class claims that the California Department of Justice, also
a defendant, imposes the same illegal and unconstitutional
policy.

Lead plaintiff Laurence Roe claims the policy denies people the
right to work in "more than 75,000 community care facilities in
California."  He claims the Department of Social Services
instituted the new policy on the first week of April.  He seeks
class certification and an injunction.

Lead counsel is Peter Sheehan with The Social Justice Law
Project, of Oakland.


CARLSON RESTAURANTS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Carlson Restaurants / T.G.I.
Fridays stiffs workers for minimum wages, overtime and tips, a
class action claims in Federal Court in Manhattan.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Calling on Cellphones
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Caribbean Cruise Lines
illegally called thousands of people's cell phones with automatic
dialers, a class action claims in Federal Court in Sacramento.


CEDARS-SINAI: Faces Overtime Class Action from Information Techs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cedars-Sinai Medical center
stiffs information techs for overtime, a class action claims in
Superior Court in Los Angeles.


CHAMPIONS CAPITAL: Suit Wants to Stop Illegal Telemarketing Drive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kacocha, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Richard Stevenson, Champions Capital Inc., Electronic
Technology Solutions, Inc., AceWebAds.com, and AceRenting.com,
Case No. 7:14-cv-01052-NSR (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2014) seeks to
redress the alleged widespread, pervasive and unlawful
telemarketing campaign by which the Defendants have inundated
real property owners with unwanted and unsolicited offers to
"help" sell or rent their real property.

Champions Capital Inc. is a Canadian corporation headquartered in
Toronto, Ontario.  Champions owns or operates AceWebAds.com and
AceRenting.com.  Richard Stevenson is the president or owner of
the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Robert Denlea, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Kerry Ford Cunningham, Esq.
          DENLEA & CARTON LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 920-7400
          Facsimile: (914) 761-1900
          E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
                  jcarton@denleacarton.com
                  kcunningham@denleacarton.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Overtime Class Action in Manhattan
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Charles Schwab & Co. stiffs
its financial consultants for overtime, a class action claims in
Federal Court in Manhattan.


CHICAGO MERCANTILE: Faces Suit Over High Frequency Traders
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Chicago derivatives exchanges sold price data and unexecuted
order information to high-frequency traders "before anyone else
in the financial world," even before subscribers to its "real-
time" data service, allowing high frequency traders to trade on
nonpublic information, a class action claims in Federal Court in
Chicago.

William Braman, Mark Mendelson and John Simms filed a class
action against the CME [Chicago Mercantile Exchange] Group, and
Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).

"At all relevant times, the CBOT and the CME together comprised
the world's largest derivatives exchange and provided what it
labeled as real-time price data information on United States debt
instruments, agricultural products, energy, equity indexes,
foreign exchange rates and metals to the entire financial world.
The CBOT and CME charged exchange fees and data-fees for this
real-time price data to market users and the world's financial
marketplace falsely maintaining that the data sold was in real-
time," the complaint states.

But Braman et al. claim that at the same time, CME and CBOT "also
charged high frequency traders (HFTs) for the ability to see
price data and unexecuted order information before anyone else in
the financial world, including all the people who had paid and
continue to pay the defendants for seeing the same data first, in
real-time."

High frequency trading uses powerful computers to transact a
large number of trades at extremely fast speeds, capitalizing on
small percentage changes in market value faster than any human
trader could do.  It is the subject of "Flash Boys," a widely
reported new book by financial journalist Michael Lewis, who
contends in it, without mincing words, that the market is rigged
for high-frequency traders.

High frequency traders make up at least 50 percent of the trading
volume on U.S. stock exchanges, according to the New York Times.

According to the class action, from 2007 to 2014, "Defendants not
only permitted the HFTs to see price and market data, including
open orders, market orders and orders entered by class members
before all market traders and people who traded in United States
debt instruments listed on the CME and CBOT saw the price and
market data, they permitted the HFTs to execute trades using this
same data and order information before all other traders and
market participants.  In so doing, the defendants engaged in a
fraud on the marketplace, deceptive practice and failed to
maintain a marketplace that is free from market disruption and
market manipulation.

"The defendants concealed the fact that they were not providing
real-time price information and data by continuing to charge fees
to all non-HFTs for real-time data and price information.

"The defendants concealed the fact that they were not providing a
marketplace free of market manipulation because they were
allowing the HFTs to trade based upon non-public information,
specifically, the non-published and unexecuted orders of all
other users of the CME and CBOT.  In so doing, the defendants
failed to provide a marketplace that is free from market
manipulation and established an unequal and two-tiered
marketplace all the while inviting and soliciting the use of its
financial trading instruments for profit."

Plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the exchanges from
charging fees for real-time futures market data, and prohibiting
high-frequency traders from executing trades based on nonpublic
information.

They also want a refund of all fees paid during the class period,
and creation of a trust for defendants' ill-gotten gains.

The class is represented by R. Tamara de Silva, with assistance
from Michael O'Rourke with Moody & O'Rourke.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Failure on Warning
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chrysler Group failed to
warn about a dangerous defect in the tie rod assemblies of some
lines of Dodge Ram trucks, which causes loss of steering control
and increases the risks of crashes, a class action claims in
Federal Court in Eureka California.


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Richmond" Suit Over Auto Wire Harness
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Richmond on behalf of itself and all similarly situated
entities v. Delphi Automotive LLP, Delphi Automotive Systems,
LLC, DENSO Corp., Denso International America, Inc., Fujikura
Ltd., Fujikura America, Inc., Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.,
American Furukawa, Inc., Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc.,
Lear Corporation, Kyungshin-Lear Sales and Engineering, LLC,
Leoni AG, Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc., Leonische Holding, Inc.,
Leoni Wire Inc., Leoni Kabel GmbH, Sumitomo Electric Industries,
Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, Inc. Sumitomo Wiring
Systems, Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., K&S Wiring
Systems, Inc., Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.) Inc., S-Y Systems
Technologies Europe GmbH, Yazaki Corporation, S-Y Systems
Technologies America, LLC, Yazaki North America, Inc., Tokai Rika
Co., Ltd., TRAM, Inc., G.S. Electech, Inc., G.S.Wiring Systems
Inc., and G.S.W. Manufacturing Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-10795-MOB-
MKM (E.D. Mich., February 20, 2014) is based on the Defendants'
alleged illegal conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate
markets in connection with the sale of electronic wire harness
systems and related components installed in automobiles, trucks
and other vehicles beginning January 1, 2000.

Automotive Wire Harness Systems, which act as the central nervous
system of a motor vehicle, are electrical distribution systems
that act to direct and control electronic components, wiring, and
circuit boards in an automobile.

Delphi Automotive LLP is headquartered in Troy, Michigan, and is
a limited liability partnership incorporated under the laws of
England and Wales.  The Defendants manufacture, market, or sell
Automotive Wire Harness Systems throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rodger D. Young, Esq.
          Jaye Quadrozzi, Esq.
          YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
          27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 125
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 353-8620
          E-mail: efiling@youngpc.com

               - and -

          Louise H. Renne, Esq.
          K. Scott Dickey, Esq.
          Steve Cikes, Esq.
          RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 678-3800
          E-mail: lrenne@publiclawgroup.com
                  sdickey@publiclawgroup.com
                  scikes@publiclawgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: rsg@classcounsel.com
                  jrn@classcounsel.com
                  lew@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Karen L. Morris, Esq.
          Patrick F. Morris, Esq.
          R. Michael Lindsey, Esq.
          MORRIS AND MORRIS LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 426-0400
          E-mail: kmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com
                  pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com
                  rmlindsey@morrisandmorrislaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Tompkins, Esq.
          WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 6100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-3286
          E-mail: cet@willmont.com

Defendant Denso International America, Inc., is represented by:

          Brian C. Smith, Esq.
          David P. Donovan, Esq.
          Steven F. Cherry, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DOOR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6185
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
          E-mail: brian.smith@wilmerhale.com
                  david.donovan@wilmerhale.com
                  steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com

Defendant American Furukawa, Inc., is represented by:

          Craig D. Bachman, Esq.
          Kenneth R. Davis, II, Esq.
          LANE POWELL PC
          601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
          Portland, OR 97204-3158
          Telephone: (503) 778-2120
          Facsimile: (503) 778-2200
          E-mail: bachmanc@lanepowell.com
                  davisk@lanepowell.com

               - and -

          Larry S. Gangnes, Esq.
          LANE POWELL PC
          1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100
          Seattle, WA 98101-2338
          Telephone: (206) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (206) 223-7107
          E-mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com

Defendants Sumitomo Entities are represented by:

          Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
          E-mail: maggy.sullivan@lw.com

Defendant Yazaki North America, Inc. is represented by:

          John M. Majoras, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Suite 600
          Columbus, OH 43215-2673
          Telephone: (614) 281-3835
          Facsimile: (614) 461-4198
          E-mail: jmmajoras@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Michelle K. Fischer, Esq.
          Stephen J. Squeri, Esq.
          JONES DAY (CLEVELAND)
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
          Telephone: (216) 586-7096
          Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
          E-mail: mfischer@jonesday.com
                  sjsqueri@jonesday.com


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Sued by Richmond City Over Auto Wire Harness
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Richmond on behalf of itself and all similarly situated
entities v. Delphi Automotive LLP, Delphi Automotive Systems,
LLC, DENSO Corp., Denso International America, Inc., Fujikura
Ltd., Fujikura America, Inc., Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.,
American Furukawa, Inc., Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc.,
Lear Corporation, Kyungshin-Lear Sales and Engineering, LLC,
Leoni AG, Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc., Leonische Holding, Inc.,
Leoni Wire Inc., Leoni Kabel GmbH, Sumitomo Electric Industries,
Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, Inc., Sumitomo Wiring
Systems, Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., K&S Wiring
Systems, Inc., Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.) Inc., S-Y Systems
Technologies Europe GmbH, Yazaki Corporation, S-Y Systems
Technologies America, LLC, Yazaki North America, Inc., Tokai Rika
Co., Ltd., TRAM, Inc., G.S. Electech, Inc., G.S.Wiring Systems
Inc., and G.S.W. Manufacturing Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-10795-MAG-
MKM (E.D. Mich., February 20, 2014) arises from the Defendants'
alleged illegal conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate
markets in connection with the sale of electronic wire harness
systems and related components installed in automobiles, trucks
and other vehicles since January 1, 2000.

Automotive Wire Harness Systems, which act as the central nervous
system of a motor vehicle, are electrical distribution systems
that act to direct and control electronic components, wiring, and
circuit boards in an automobile.

The Defendants manufacture, market, or sell Automotive Wire
Harness Systems throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rodger D. Young, Esq.
          Jaye Quadrozzi, Esq.
          YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
          27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 125
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 353-8620
          E-mail: efiling@youngpc.com

               - and -

          Louise H. Renne, Esq.
          K. Scott Dickey, Esq.
          Steve Cikes, Esq.
          RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 678-3800
          E-mail: lrenne@publiclawgroup.com
                  sdickey@publiclawgroup.com
                  scikes@publiclawgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: rsg@classcounsel.com
                  jrn@classcounsel.com
                  lew@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Karen L. Morris, Esq.
          Patrick F. Morris, Esq.
          R. Michael Lindsey, Esq.
          MORRIS AND MORRIS LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 426-0400
          E-mail: kmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com
                  pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com
                  rmlindsey@morrisandmorrislaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Tompkins, Esq.
          WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 6100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-3286
          E-mail: cet@willmont.com


DOW CHEMICAL: Appeals $1.06BB Judgment in Urethane Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company is appealing an amended judgment in the
amount of $1.06 billion relating to a multiple civil class action
lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various
urethane chemical products, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on February 14, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a
previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of
polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system
house products. The Company cooperated with the DOJ and,
following an extensive investigation, on December 10, 2007, the
Company received notice from the DOJ that it had closed its
investigation of potential antitrust violations involving these
products without indictments or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the above described DOJ
antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District
Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court
certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year
period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of
"opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume
purchasers; these cases are substantively identical to the class
action lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994
through 1998. In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to
trial in the District Court with the Company as the sole
remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously
settled. On February 20, 2013, the jury in the matter returned a
damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the
Company, which would be trebled under applicable antitrust laws -
less offsets from other settling defendants - if the verdict is
not vacated or otherwise set aside by the District Court. The
Company filed post-trial motions on March 5, 2013, requesting the
District Court grant judgment in favor of the Company, grant the
Company a new trial and/or decertify the class.

On May 15, 2013, the District Court denied the Company's request
to overturn the verdict and, under antitrust laws, tripled the
damages verdict resulting in a $1.2 billion judgment. On July 26,
2013, the District Court entered an amended judgment in the
amount of $1.06 billion. The Company is appealing this amended
judgment.

In addition to the matters described above, there are two
separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada,
both of which are pending a decision on class certification.

The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will
occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with
respect to these matters.

The Dow Chemical Company combines the power of science and
technology to passionately innovate what is essential to human
progress. The Company connects chemistry and innovation with the
principles of sustainability to help address many of the
problems, such as the need for clean water, renewable energy
generation and conservation, and increasing agricultural
productivity. The Company conducts its worldwide operations
through global businesses, which are reported in six operating
segments: Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and
Infrastructure Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance
Materials, Performance Plastics, and Feedstocks and Energy. In
December 2013, W. R. Grace & Co announced that it has completed
the acquisition of the assets of the Polypropylene Licensing and
Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical Company.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Exploits False and Inaccurate Info, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Die-Mension Corporation, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation;
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation; and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-00392-DAP (N.D. Ohio, February 20, 2014) seeks to
remedy the alleged efforts by D&B and DBCC, a marketing and sales
company cloaked as "Dun & Bradstreet," to wrongfully exploit
information, often false and inaccurate, on D&B's reports to sell
expensive Internet-based credit-on-self products known as
CreditBuilder.

DBCC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Malibu, California.  DBCC marketed,
solicited, and sold CreditBuilder products in the stream of
interstate commerce throughout the country, including the state
of Ohio.  D&B are publicly-traded Delaware corporations with
their principal places of business in Short Hills, New Jersey.
D&B licensed, distributed, sold, and published small business
credit reports throughout the country, including the state of
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Christopher Collins, Esq.
          Frank Janecek, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: chrisc@rgrdlaw.com
                  frankj@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Ross E. Shanberg, Esq.
          SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP
          19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-5444
          Facsimile: (949) 622-5448
          E-mail: rshanberg@ssfirm.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Pelvic Mesh Suits for $830 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that drug and medical device maker
Endo International says it will pay $830 million to resolve
roughly 20,000 personal lawsuits from patients who say they were
injured by the company's vaginal mesh implants.

The Irish company said in a statement Wednesday that the
settlement is subject to a number of conditions and is not an
admission of liability.

Tens of thousands of women have sued Endo and other device makers
over mesh used to repair pelvic collapse in women.  Mesh implants
were initially pitched to doctors as an improvement over surgery,
but the Food and Drug Administration has concluded they carry a
higher risk of side effects including pain, bleeding and
infection.

On April 22, the FDA proposed regulating vaginal mesh repair
products as "high-risk" medical devices, subject to stricter
safety requirements.


EXELON CORPORATION: Appeal in NDT Funds Complaint Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on
January 31, 2014, dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on the Court's
decision to dismiss the amended complaint seeking, among other
things, an accounting for use of NDT funds, according to Exelon
Corporation's Form 10-K filed on February 14, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

On July 14, 2011, three people filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois naming ZionSolutions and Bank of New York
Mellon as defendants and seeking, among other things, an
accounting for use of NDT funds, an injunction against the use of
NDT funds, the appointment of a trustee for the NDT funds, and
the return of NDT funds to customers of ComEd to the extent
legally entitled thereto. On July 20, 2012, ZionSolutions and
Bank of New York Mellon filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failing to state a claim. On July 29, 2013, United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed the amended complaint. On August 26, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On January 31, 2014, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed
the appeal.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO) subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of
Columbia and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000
megawatts of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy
products and services to approximately 100,000 business and
public sector customers and approximately 1 million residential
customers. Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas
to more than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern
Illinois and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012,
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


EXELON CORPORATION: ComEd Has No Reserve for Outage Alert Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, Exelon Corporation's subsidiary,
Commonwealth Edison Company has not established a reserve for a
class action complaint alleging that ComEd violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, according to Exelon's Form 10-K filed on
February 14, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in Cook
County on behalf of a single individual and a presumptive class
that would include all customers in ComEd's service territory who
were enrolled by the Company in ComEd's Outage Alert text message
program. The complaint alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending approximately 1.2
million text messages to customers without first obtaining their
consent to receive such messages. The complaint seeks
certification of a class along with statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd from sending additional text
messages. Such statutory damages could range from $500 to $1,500
per text. However, ComEd is preparing a motion to dismiss this
class action complaint and will vigorously contest the
allegations of this suit. The ultimate outcome of this proceeding
is uncertain, and an amount, if any, which might be asserted,
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but may be material
to ComEd's results of operations and cash flows. As a result,
ComEd has not established a reserve for this complaint as of
December 31, 2013.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO) subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of
Columbia and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000
megawatts of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy
products and services to approximately 100,000 business and
public sector customers and approximately 1 million residential
customers. Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas
to more than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern
Illinois and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012,
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


EXELON CORPORATION: Court Approved $4-Mil Constellation Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation reported that on November 4, 2013, a U.S.
court approved the final settlement of Constellation Energy
Group, Inc.'s 2008 Securities Class Action for a payment of $4
million, according to Exelon's Form 10-K filed on February 14,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008 against Constellation. The cases were filed on
behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly
traded securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated
Debentures (Debentures), of Constellation between January 30,
2008 and September 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an
offering completed in June 2008. The securities class actions
generally allege that Constellation, a number of its former
officers or directors, and the underwriters violated the
securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus in connection with Constellation's June
27, 2008 offering of the Debentures. The securities class actions
also allege that Constellation issued false or misleading
statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which
contradicted public statements, including in connection with its
announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter
of 2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008
and the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The
securities class actions sought, among other things,
certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees,
and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there. On May 9, 2013, the federal court in Maryland
preliminarily approved the settlement of Constellation's 2008
Securities Class Action for a payment of $4 million, which will
be paid by Constellation's insurer. Notice of the settlement was
provided to class members in June 2013 and the court approved the
final settlement on November 4, 2013. This settlement will
resolve all of Constellation's litigation arising from the 2008
Securities Class Action lawsuit.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO) subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of
Columbia and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000
megawatts of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy
products and services to approximately 100,000 business and
public sector customers and approximately 1 million residential
customers. Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas
to more than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern
Illinois and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012,
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


EXXONMOBIL: Faces Class Action Over Defective Fuel
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ExxonMobil's Baton Rouge
refinery sent 5 million gallons of "atypical" gasoline to
Louisiana pumps, "causing harm to gasoline engines of up to
250,000 vehicles," a class action claims in Federal Court in
Baton Rouge, La.

Lead plaintiff James Smith claims in the lawsuit that "Exxon has
apologized for the damage its defective product has caused, but
has not released the details of the defect, or the location of
the sale of the defective and dangerous fuel."  Smith claims the
defective fuel was distributed to retailers "in and around south
Louisiana" from April, 1, 2013 to April 1 this year.

"The fuel was distributed at ExxonMobil branded stations and
other retail distribution points to the Plaintiff and putative
class members.  Exxon has stated to news agencies that 120,000
barrels, or 5,040,000 gallons, of gasoline were 'identified as
atypical' and causing harm to gasoline engines of up to 250,000
vehicles," according to the lawsuit.

Smith claims Exxon made false promises about the quality of its
"Top Tier Detergent Gasoline."

"The fuel sold by Exxon not only failed to meet the standards
promised by its advertising, but the fuel actively harmed vital
engine parts and rendered the engine inoperable, or in a
diminished functional capacity.  This diminished functional
capacity includes the reduced engine performance Exxon warned
could happen if customers used 'lower quality gasoline,'"
according to the complaint.

It continues: "Exxon has admitted to multiple sources that it
sold 120,000 barrels, or 5,040,000 gallons, of defective gas in
south Louisiana, and particularly in the Baton Rouge metropolitan
area, that damaged engines upon use.  Reports have surfaced of
damaged vehicles in Lafayette, New Orleans, and Slidell as well.

"Exxon could not determine, or would not admit, the nature of the
defect as of April 1, 2014, inhibiting the putative class members
from identifying signs of damage to their property, and thus
taking timely action to avoid continuing damages to their
property.  Commissioner Mike Strain of the Department of
Agriculture and Forestry has noted the need for detailed
information on the compound causing the damage.

"In spite of assertions its gas was manufactured to the highest
standards, Exxon recently announced it would be using 'stricter'
quality controls for its fuel manufacturing process as a result
of the damage caused by its defective fuel.

"Exxon instructed motorist who had concerns about fuel purchased
in the Baton Rouge area to call its North American Customer Care
number.

To date, Exxon has not published a list of those retail locations
that received and/or sold defective gas to assist damaged parties
in identifying the damage and reducing the impact of the
defective fuel.  To date, Exxon has not stated the nature of the
defect or methods to identify the damage it caused, and continues
to cause."

Smith says he bought the defective gas in March this year, and
his "vehicle was soon damaged by the defective gasoline.  The
damage was not known to plaintiff until he experienced trouble
starting his vehicle."  That hurt the resale value of his
vehicle, Smith says.

The explanatory section of the lawsuit concludes: "Before Exxon
determined the cause of the defect, before Exxon implemented
stricter production and quality control procedures, and after
declaring that the harmful and defective gas did not fail minimal
state testing, Exxon actively encouraged consumers to continue
buying Exxon gas since it 'met regulatory requirements.'  With
full knowledge that the contaminated gas would pass state
regulatory requirements, and still damage property, Exxon induced
many more buyers to risk the damage of their defective product.

"Exxon confirmed to the press that all 5,000,000 gallons of
defective gasoline had in fact been purchased by Plaintiff and
the putative class members as of April 1, 2014, and without any
word of an effective recall of even a single tainted gallon."

Smith seeks class certification and damages for negligence.

He is represented by Daniel Becnel Jr., of Reserve, La.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Challenges Home Warranty Plan Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Simoni, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. First American Financial Corporation, First
American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-01296-SJO-RZ (C.D. Cal.,
February 20, 2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged deliberate
fraudulent, tortious, misleading, and unfair business practices
in its marketing, sales, and administration of its Home Warranty
Plans by which it reaps millions of dollars in ill-gotten profits
from thousands of Policyholders nationwide, who are charged
Improper Site Fees where the Company sends repair personnel to
the Policyholders' residence while the Company knows that the
subject claim is categorically precluded from coverage under the
Policy.

First American Financial Corporation and First American Home
Buyers Protection Corporation are corporations incorporated in
Delaware with principal offices in California that market, sell,
and administer insurance policies sold nationwide to purchasers
of residential real property for coverage of various equipment
and systems used on the subject real property.  The Plaintiff is
ignorant of the true names of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Simoni, Esq.
          SIMONI CONSUMER CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES
          100 So. Doheny Drive, Suite 1101
          Beverly Hills, CA 90048-2998
          Telephone: (917) 621-5795
          E-mail: StephenSimoni@yahoo.com


FORD MOTOR: To Face Class Action From South Africans, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Ford Motor Co. and IBM must face a class action from black South
Africans accusing them of supplying the apartheid regime with
military cars and computers, a federal judge ruled in Manhattan.

In a nod to an ongoing legal controversy, U.S. District Judge
Shira Scheindlin's 30-page decision opens with quotations from
two federal appellate court opinions supporting her conclusion
that U.S. corporations can be held liable for alleged atrocities
that they perpetrate or aid abroad under the Alien Tort Statute.

"Given that the law of every jurisdiction in the United States
and of every civilized nation, and the law of numerous
international treaties, provide that corporations are responsible
for their torts, it would create a bizarre anomaly to immunize
corporations from liability for the conduct of their agents in
lawsuits brought for shockingly egregious violations of
universally recognized principles of international law," D.C.
Circuit Judge Judith Rogers wrote, in the first of these
quotations.

South Africans who say they were imprisoned and tortured under
apartheid first brought the case in 2002, shortly after the
centuries-old Alien Tort Statute began to be used against
corporate defendants to redress overseas wrongs.  The viability
of their case became uncertain as similar cases wound their way
through U.S. appellate courts and the Supreme Court.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, involved allegations that the
oil giant conspired with the Nigerian government to brutally
suppress dissent against oil exploration in the country's Ogoni
region.  The 2nd Circuit ruled in that case that corporations
could not be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), in a
decision that came to be known as Kiobel I.

Calling the decision a "stark outlier," Scheindlin wrote April
17, 2014, that the appellate majority here broke an "unbroken
line of controlling precedent."

"It is the only opinion by a federal court of appeals ... to
determine that there is no corporate liability under the ATS,"
the opinion states, citing conflicting findings by the 7th, 9th,
11th and D.C. Circuits.

The Supreme Court did not address this controversy, however, when
it dismissed claims against Royal Dutch on the grounds that U.S.
courts lacked jurisdiction to try foreign corporations for
conduct outside its borders.  That decision came to be known as
Kiobel II.

The Supreme Court likewise did not touch the issue in booting a
lawsuit against Daimler for alleged complicity in Argentina's
Dirty War, on the basis of the auto company's insufficient ties
to California to reach the state's "long-arm" statute.  But
Scheindlin said "this language makes no sense if a corporation is
immune from ATS suits as a matter of law."  "The Supreme Court's
opinions in Kiobel II and Daimler cannot be squared with Kiobel
I's rationale," she added.

The Kiobel I opinion relies on the faulty premise that "no
corporation has ever been held liable in a civil or criminal case
for violations of customary international law or norms,"
Scheindlin wrote.

Such an assertion ignores the Allied prosecution of Nazi
companies like I.G. Farben after World War II, the opinion
states.

Bruce Nagel, a partner at Nagel Rice representing the South
Africans, said he was "extremely pleased with the decision."

"Ford and IBM enabled the apartheid regime to function, and
justice requires that they answer for their wrongdoing," Nagel
said.

Other attorneys in the case have not yet returned requests for
comment.

April 17's decision marks the third time Scheindlin has advanced
the case.


HOMELAND SECURITY: Refuge-Seekers to Face Extended Detentions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that refuge-seekers facing deportation can spend more than a year
in detention during the asylum process, despite a law requiring a
decision within 10 days on whether they reasonably fear
persecution if sent back to their homeland, according to a class
action in Federal Court in Oakland, Calif.

Lead plaintiff Marco Antonio Alfaro Garcia, represented by the
ACLU and the National Immigrant Justice Center, claims the
government violates the Administrative Procedure Act by
unreasonably delaying interviews to determine whether immigrants
have a reasonable fear of returning to their countries of origin.

Immigration laws require that immigrants subject to removal who
fear returning to their home country be given an opportunity to
request protection in the United States.

Most of those who undergo what the lawsuit calls "the reasonable
fear process" have been deported but returned to the United
States because they were targets of violence and persecution in
their countries of origin, the complaint states.

"Some of these individuals have already tried to seek asylum
once, were summarily deported without a hearing after immigration
officers ignored or discouraged their requests, yet return again
because of the continued persecution or torture they face in
their home countries," according to the complaint.

Under the 1980 Refugee Act, a person qualifies for political
asylum if he or she has "a reasonable fear" of persecution in his
or her home country, due to race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a social group.  Granting of
political asylum in the United States, for most nationalities,
has been honored more in the breach than in the observance.  The
reasonable fear process also applies to people who are not lawful
permanent residents and face removal after having been convicted
of certain criminal offenses, but fear returning to their home
countries, according to the complaint.

After being arrested, immigrants are held in a detention center
while they go through a two-stage process to determine whether
they qualify for "withholding of removal" and relief under the
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment.

The immigrants are not eligible for a bond hearing to determine
whether their detention is justified and are "generally
imprisoned throughout the entire period in which the government
considers their claims for relief, including the reasonable fear
process, immigration court proceedings, and any appeals," the
complaint states.  Government regulations require that those
claiming a fear of persecution must receive within 10 days what
is known as a "reasonable fear determination," which determines
whether the immigrants have a valid argument for staying in the
country and can face an immigration judge.  But instead of
attempting to follow this official timeframe, the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented
goals that "'encourage' applicant interviews within 45 days,
adjudication of 85 percent of cases within 90 days, and monthly
reports on cases still pending after 150 days," the lawsuit
states.

Government data show that the average wait time from when an
immigrant is taken into custody to the time he or she is given a
reasonable fear determination is about 111 days, according to the
complaint.

"This includes an average of 49 days that individuals wait for
USCIS to accept jurisdiction of the case. Even after USCIS
accepts jurisdiction, individuals must wait an average of over 60
days for the Asylum Division to conduct the interviews and make
reasonable fear determinations before their cases can reach an
immigration judge," the lawsuit states.

The second stage in the asylum process, including the hearing
before the immigration judge, can take anywhere from several
months to more than a year, the complaint states.

"These delays have had drastic human consequences," according to
the lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff Garcia, a native of El Salvador who was deported
from the United States in 2005, re-entered the country two years
later after he was subjected to violence, threats and harassment
in his home country, he says.  Garcia, who has three U.S.-born
children with his U.S. citizen partner, was arrested in January
and charged with driving under the influence.  When told that he
was going to be removed from the country due to his previous
deportation, Garcia informed the immigration officer that he
feared returning to El Salvador because he had been beaten
multiple times by police and was wanted by a criminal group
because he provided information to prosecutors, the complaint
states.  Garcia waited nearly a month to be interviewed by an
asylum officer and has yet to receive a reasonable fear
determination. When he requested the status of his case, he was
told it would take four to six months for such a determination to
be handed down, the complaint states.

"As a result of his detention, Mr. Alfaro Garcia could not be
present for the birth of his youngest child.  He has also been
unable to provide financial support for his family since his
detention, forcing Ms. Gomez to try to support her family by
taking part-time work selling food on the weekends.  The children
cry almost daily because Mr. Alfaro Garcia is incarcerated," the
complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek class certification and an injunction
ordering the government to comply with its obligation to provide
reasonable fear interviews and determinations in a timely manner,
which "will hold the United States to the promise made to all
immigrants who seek refuge in this country, end improperly
extended detentions, and give hope to the many who seek a new
life free of persecution and torture." (8)

Named as defendants are Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland
Security; Lori Scialabba, Acting Director of USCIS; and Joseph
Langlois, Associate Director of Refugee, Asylum and International
Operations.


HULU: Can't Escape Video Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that as the
world of electronic privacy law becomes increasingly difficult to
navigate, a federal ruling on April 28 marked a start toward
clarifying what data sharing is OK -- and what can potentially
cost a company billions.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of
California is keeping Hulu on the hook for sharing users'
information and video preferences with Facebook Inc.  But she
ruled the video streaming site is not liable for sharing similar
information with comScore Inc., a metrics company that analyzes
Hulu's audience.

The difference boils down to how individual viewers were
identified and whether those identifiers are personal enough to
constitute a violation under the Video Privacy Protection Act.
In comScore's case, Hulu viewers were identified only by user ID
numbers, which Beeler ruled was insufficient, given the evidence,
to establish a VPPA violation carrying minimum statutory damages
of $2,500 per incident.

"The evidence shows comScore's role in measuring whether users
watched the advertisements," she wrote in a 27-page order issued
late on April 28.  "That information likely is relevant to an
advertiser's desire to target ads to them.  It does not suggest
any linking of a specific, identified person and his video
habits."

But questions remain as to whether the information Hulu
transmitted to Facebook breached the 1988 video privacy law,
Beeler said.  The law, written in the era of videotapes and VCRs,
bars the disclosure of customers' video selections and personally
identifiable information to third parties.

"There are material issues of fact about whether the disclosure
of the video name was tied to an identified Facebook user," she
wrote.

Judge Beeler's ruling keeps alive a 2011 class action filed by
plaintiffs lawyers at Parisi & Havens, Strange & Carpenter and
KamberLaw and marks a second defeat for defense lawyers who have
been trying to defuse the potentially expensive suit.  In
December, Judge Beeler rejected a separate motion for summary
judgment, finding Hulu users would not have to prove they
suffered actual harm in order to win statutory damages.

Hulu, represented by O'Melveny & Myers and Covington & Burling,
has argued it is not liable for privacy violations because it
disclosed only anonymous user IDs that were not linked to users'
first and last names or addresses.  But Judge Beeler, for the
first time, ruled unique ID numbers can, depending on the
context, qualify as personal identification.

"No case has addressed directly the issues raised by plaintiffs:
the disclosure of their unique identifiers and the videos they
are watching," Judge Beeler wrote.  "Most cases involve
identified customers linked to the videos they watch."

The facts reviewed by Beeler underscore the imperceptible way
that personal data can flow across the social media landscape.
In the wake of the April 28 order, plaintiffs lawyers are seeking
certification of a class of individuals who were registered Hulu
users and requested or viewed videos between April 2010 and June
2012, a two-year period when Hulu transmitted information to
Facebook each time a user loaded a video.

Hulu installed a Facebook "like" button on its video pages in
2010.  Users could click the button to share information about
videos with friends on the social network.  But even if a user
didn't click the button, Facebook cookies sent the title of the
video and sometimes the user's IP address, along with information
on associated Facebook accounts, back to the social networking
company, according to Beeler's ruling.

"Facebook could see its users and what they were watching,"
Judge Beeler wrote.

Now a central issue, according to Beeler, is whether Hulu
knowingly shared that information with Facebook.  "Hulu may not
have been able to read Facebook's cookies, but if it knew what
they contained and knew that it was transmitting . . .
information that 'identifies a person as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services' -- then Hulu is
liable under the VPPA," Judge Beeler stated.

Hulu had also argued that Facebook users consented to its data
collection policies, but Judge Beeler wrote there was not enough
information to rule on that question.

It's a significant decision with implications for businesses
keeping track of customers through user IDs, according to Marc
Rotenberg, who helped draft the video privacy act and is now
president and executive director of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center in Washington, D.C.

"I think it's a good decision for Internet users," he said.  "I
think it's a reminder to companies that if they're collecting
personal data, there may be consequences."

But Judge Beeler's ruling also contains some good news for
companies, according to Alston & Bird partner Dominique Shelton,
who defends corporate clients against privacy litigation in the
firm's Los Angeles office.  A number of business leaders have
been waiting for this ruling, Ms. Shelton said.

Judge Beeler's dismissal of the comScore allegations will allow
executives to breathe easier, she said, knowing they likely will
not be liable for providing data to metrics companies analyzing
website visitors.

The VPPA carries a minimum fine of $2,500 per violation.  Each
user whose information is misused is one violation, meaning some
websites could rack up millions of violations per day, according
to Ms. Shelton.

"Companies really need to understand what is in the content of
their cookies," she said.

The act has evolved greatly since it was enacted as a response to
a newspaper's publishing of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert
Bork's video store rentals.

"What companies need to be aware of," Ms. Shelton said, "is there
is a new environment in which this statute is being revisited to
try to apply to new technologies for which it was really never
intended."


HUNT OIL: Removed "Hansen" Suit to District Court of North Dakota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hansen, et al. v. Hunt Oil
Company, Case No. 13-2014-cv-00008, was removed from the Dunn
County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of North Dakota (Southwestern).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00021-DLH-CSM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derrick L. Braaten, Esq.
          Lindsey R. Nieuwsma, Esq.
          BAUMSTARK BRAATEN LAW PARTNERS
          109 N. 4th Street, Suite 100
          Bismarck, ND 58501
          Telephone: (701) 221-2911
          Facsimile: (701) 221-5842
          E-mail: derrick@baumstarkbraaten.com
                  lindsey@baumstarkbraaten.com

               - and -

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-6092
          E-mail: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Peterson, Esq.
          MACKOFF KELLOGG LAW FIRM
          38 2nd Ave. E.
          P.O. Box 1097
          Dickinson, ND 58602-1097
          Telephone: (701) 456-3210
          E-mail: cpeterson@mackoff.com

               - and -

          Cody L. Balzer, Esq.
          BALZER LAW FIRM, PC
          1302 Cleveland, Ave.
          Loveland, CO 80537
          Telephone: (970) 203-1515
          E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com

               - and -

          James Nicholas Murdock, Esq.
          Timothy J. Pearse, Esq.
          MURDOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          123 W. 1st Street, Suite 675
          Casper, WY 82601
          Telephone: (307) 235-0480
          E-mail: jnmurdock@murdocklawfirm.com
                  tpearse@murdocklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
          TARLOW & STONECIPHER, PLLC
          1705 West College Street
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 586-9714
          E-mail: mkelly@lawmt.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John W. Morrison, Jr., Esq.
          Paul Jonathan Forster, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
          100 West Broadway, Suite 250
          P.O. Box 2798
          Bismarck, ND 58502-2798
          Telephone: (701) 223-6585
          Facsimile: (701) 222-4853
          E-mail: jmorrison@crowleyfleck.com
                  pforster@crowleyfleck.com

               - and -

          Van H. Beckwith, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 953-6505
          E-mail: van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com


IKEA: Recalls $3.5 Mil. Children's Lamps Over Strangulation Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FindLaw reports that IKEA is recalling millions of children's
lamps worldwide because of a risk that pint-sized consumers could
strangle themselves on the lamp's cord.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, this
recall is an expansion of a December recall over the same issue.
In all, about 3.5 million lamps are now being recalled in the
United States.

Hanging Cord Poses Safety Risk

In December, IKEA announced the recall of the SMILA-series
wall-mounted lamps which came in a variety of shapes and colors.
The CPSC reported that in two European incidents, children were
entangled in lamps' cords, leading to death in one case.

This most recent recall expands to over a dozen similar
wall-mounted lamp styles with hanging cords, measuring "about 7
to 8 feet long."  IKEA had a similar issue with its window
blinds, having to recall millions of units in 2010.

There have been no injuries or deaths reported in the United
States related to these lamps' cords.  A voluntary recall like
this is a way for a company to potentially avoid future product
liability suits, not to mention consumer injuries and deaths.

If You Own a Recalled IKEA Lamp . . .

There is a remedy for this potential dangerous cord issue.  The
CPSC reports that IKEA is offering to send consumers a free
repair kit with self-adhesive fasteners "for attaching the lamp's
cord to the wall."  For its part, IKEA has cataloged the affected
models by name and by picture, and is encouraging consumers to
contact them for a repair kit.

If you believe you have one of the lamps affected in the recall,
consider the following:

Remove any recalled lamps from your walls.
Call (888) 966-4532 to receive a free repair kit.
Install the repair kit and secure the lamp cord to the wall.

You may also wish to use the lamps only in areas without infants
or small children, just to be safe.


INTEL CORPORATION: Awaits Court Decision on Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation is awaiting a court's decision on the class
certification issues relating to class-action lawsuits alleging
that the Company engaged in various actions in violation of the
Sherman Act and other laws, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on February 14, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

The Company states: "At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits
have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern
District of California, Southern District of California, District
of Idaho, District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District
of Maine, and District of Delaware, as well as in various
California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. These actions
generally repeat the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit
filed against us by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD
litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that we engaged in
various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws
by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our
manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive
or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with
AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with
certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's
participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The
class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that
consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher
prices for computers containing our microprocessors. We dispute
these class-action claims and intend to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings). The Delaware district court appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court. In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for our alleged failure to preserve
evidence. This motion largely copies a motion previously filed by
AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in
the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of a class of
members who purchased certain PCs containing products sold by us.
In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class.
The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's
Report, and a hearing on those objections was held in March 2011.
In September 2012, the court ruled that an evidentiary hearing
would be necessary to enable the court to rule on the objections
to the Special Master's Report, to resolve the motion to certify
the class, and to resolve a separate motion to exclude certain
testimony and evidence from the MDL plaintiffs' expert. The
hearing occurred in July 2013, and we are awaiting the court's
decision on the class certification issues.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The
plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which we are in the process of opposing. At our
request, the court in the California actions has agreed to delay
ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district court
rules on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings. Given the
procedural posture and the nature of these cases, including the
fact that the Delaware district court has not determined whether
the matters before it may proceed as a class action, we are
unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from these matters."

Intel Corporation, incorporated in 1968, designs and manufactures
integrated digital technology platforms. A platform consists of a
microprocessor and chipset. The Company sells these platforms
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), original
design manufacturers (ODMs), and industrial and communications
equipment manufacturers in the computing and communications
industries. The Company's platforms are used in a range of
applications, such as personal computers (PCs) (including
Ultrabook systems), data centers, tablets, smartphones,
automobiles, automated factory systems and medical devices. The
Company also develops and sells software and services primarily
focused on security and technology integration. In February 2014,
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings Inc announced that its
subsidiary Mindspeed Technologies Inc completed the sale of
assets of its wireless infrastructure business unit to Intel
Corporation.


INTEL CORPORATION: Employee Antitrust Litigation Trial Set in May
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation reported that the trial on antitrust class
action lawsuits alleging conspiracy to suppress employee
compensation is scheduled to begin in late May 2014, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 14, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 28, 2013.

The Company states: "Between May and July 2011, former employees
of Intel, Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc.,
Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class
action lawsuits in the California Superior Courts alleging that
these companies had entered into a conspiracy to suppress the
compensation of their employees. The California Superior Court
lawsuits were removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and were consolidated. The
plaintiffs' allegations referenced the 2009 and 2010
investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into employment
practices in the technology industry, as well as the DOJ's
complaints and subsequent stipulated final judgments with the
seven companies named as defendants in the lawsuits. The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants entered into certain
unlawful agreements not to cold call employees of particular
other defendants and that there was an overarching conspiracy
among the defendants. Plaintiffs assert one such agreement
specific to Intel, namely that Intel and Google entered into an
agreement starting no later than September 2007, not to cold call
each other's employees.

In September 2011, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation, which asserts the same state law claims as the state
court complaints, and also asserts claims under Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint seeks a declaration
that the defendants' alleged actions violated the antitrust laws;
damages, trebled as provided for by law under the Sherman Act or
Clayton Act; restitution, and disgorgement; and attorneys' fees
and costs. In April 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' state law claims but denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the Sherman Act and Clayton Act
claims.

In October 2013, the court certified a class consisting of
approximately 66,000 current or former employees of the seven
defendants. This so-called "technical class" consists of a group
of current and former technical, creative, and R&D employees at
each of the defendants. In January 2014, Intel filed a motion for
summary judgment which is scheduled for hearing in March 2014.
Trial is scheduled to begin in late May 2014. Given the
procedural posture and the nature of this case, we are unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, that might arise from this matter. We dispute the
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Intel Corporation, incorporated in 1968, designs and manufactures
integrated digital technology platforms. A platform consists of a
microprocessor and chipset. The Company sells these platforms
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), original
design manufacturers (ODMs), and industrial and communications
equipment manufacturers in the computing and communications
industries. The Company's platforms are used in a range of
applications, such as personal computers (PCs) (including
Ultrabook systems), data centers, tablets, smartphones,
automobiles, automated factory systems and medical devices. The
Company also develops and sells software and services primarily
focused on security and technology integration. In February 2014,
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings Inc announced that its
subsidiary Mindspeed Technologies Inc completed the sale of
assets of its wireless infrastructure business unit to Intel
Corporation.


JAY'S FAMILY: Faces "Dodge" Suit in Tenn. Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dodge, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Jay's Family Restaurant, Charlotte Davis, and David
Davis, Case No. 3:14-cv-00546 (M.D. Tenn., February 20, 2014) is
brought on behalf of all persons, who are or were employed by the
Defendants and who worked off-the-clock without receiving
compensation for all of the hours worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          Kara B. Huffstutter, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER PLC
          5409 Maryland Way, Suite 150
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  khuffstutter@gilbertfirm.com

                - and -

          Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER PLC
          101 North Highland
          Jackson, TN 38301
          Telephone: (731) 664-1340
          Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
          E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          H. Tom Kittrell, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KITTRELL, GIBSON & JONES
          404 James Robertson Parkway
          1623 Parkway Towers
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-0095
          E-mail: tomkittrell@lawyer.com


KNOCKUM HILL: Recalls Pork Products Due To Misbranding, Allergen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Knockum Hill Bar-B-Que, a Herndon, Ky. establishment, is
recalling approximately 350 pounds of hickory smoked, pit cooked
barbecue pork product due to misbranding and an undeclared
allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products are formulated
with a basting sauce containing margarine formulated with soy, a
known allergen that is not declared on the label of the pork
products. The soy in the margarine is in the form of soy
lecithin, a liquid soybean oil, and partially hydrogenated
soybean oil.

The products subject to recall bear the label:

    1 lb., white tubs of "KNOCKUM HILL BAR-B-QUE HICKORY SMOKED
PIT COOKED BARBECUED PORK"

The products were produced on April 11, 2014 and April 18, 2014.
The recalled product has an expiration date of April 25, 2014 or
May 2, 2014. The products bear the establishment number "Est.
18138" inside the USDA mark of inspection and the products were
distributed to retail establishments in Kentucky.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a routine
label review. After investigation it was determined that the
margarine used in the basting sauce contained soy products.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers or media with questions about the recall should contact
Oscar Hill at (270) 271-2957.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat
services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish
and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Hot Dogs Due To Misbranding, Allergens
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods Group, Inc., a Columbia, Mo., establishment is
recalling approximately 96,000 pounds of Oscar Mayer Classic
Wieners because the products may contain Classic Cheese Dogs in
the Classic Wieners' packages. The product labels are incorrect,
as they do not reflect the ingredients associated with the
pasteurized cheese in the cheese dogs, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.  The products were formulated with milk, a known
allergen, which is not declared on the product label.

The following products are subject to recall:

    16 oz. packages -- individual consumer packages -- of
"Classic Wieners Made with Turkey & Chicken, Pork Added" with
"USE BY 16 Jun 2014" date and product code "044700000632"

    Cases of 16 oz. packages -- distributed to retailers -- of
"Classic Cheese Dogs Made with Turkey & Chicken, Pork Added, and
Pasteurized Cheese Product" with "USE BY 16 Jun 2014" date and
case code "00447000005300"

The products were produced on March 2-3, 2014, and bear the
establishment number "Est. 537H" inside the USDA mark of
inspection. The products were distributed to Kraft distribution
centers and in retail stores nationwide.

The problem was discovered by a consumer who notified the company
on April 18, 2014. The company contacted the USDA the following
day regarding the issue.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure
that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no
longer available to consumers. When available, the retail
distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Kraft
Consumer Relations at (855) 688-4386.

Retailers with questions should contact their Kraft sales
representative or supplier. If they do not know their contacts,
retailers should call (855) 688-4386.  Media with questions about
the recall should contact Joyce Hodel, Kraft's corporate affairs
director, at (847) 646-4538.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem

Retail distribution list: http://is.gd/O5v3XH


LEOPARD TRANSPORT: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Oren Suess, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action v.
Leopard Transport, Inc.; Thomas Wilding, Individually; and Jason
Wilding, Individually, Case No. 5:14-cv-00227-ACC-PRL (M.D. Fla.,
February 20, 2014) is brought for the Defendants' alleged
violation of federal wage and hour laws.

Leopard Transport, Inc., is a Florida for profit corporation
headquartered in Ocala, Florida.  The Company provides non-
emergency medical transportation in Central Florida.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, managers or owners of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA
          501 N Reo St.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kristyne E. Kennedy, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          1900 Summit Tower Blvd., Suite 750
          Orlando, FL 32810
          Telephone: (321) 972-0028
          Facsimile: (321) 972-0099
          E-mail: kristyne.kennedy@csklegal.com


LEOPARD TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime to Drivers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oren Suess, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action v.
Leopard Transport, Inc.; Thomas Wilding, Individually; and Jason
Wilding, Individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-00427-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla.,
February 20, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers for time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Leopard Transport, Inc., is a Florida for profit corporation
headquartered in Ocala, Florida.  The Company provides non-
emergency medical transportation in Central Florida.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, managers or owners of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA
          501 N Reo St.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kristyne E. Kennedy, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          1900 Summit Tower Blvd., Suite 750
          Orlando, FL 32810
          Telephone: (321) 972-0028
          Facsimile: (321) 972-0099
          E-mail: kristyne.kennedy@csklegal.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Hears Suit Over Warrants Fiasco
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
three men arrested on Los Angeles County warrants meant for other
people deserve their day in court, their attorney told the 9th
Circuit.

The federal appeals court met April 9, 2014, to consider claims
over the unique identifying numbers that various agencies from
the California Department of Justice to the FBI make available to
police and jailers.  California's numbers are known as CII
numbers, and Los Angeles County uses LA Main numbers.

Los Angeles attorney Donald Cook said his three clients were
arrested because of the failure to train officers and jailers on
using these numbers.

"Now, the sad irony in all of this is they use these information
systems all the time, to catch people they want," Cook said in an
interview.  "But they won't use it to exonerate the innocent.
That's the maddening thing here."

Cook's clients, Kelvin Gant, Reginald Smith and Jose Ventura, are
the lead plaintiffs in a class action against Los Angeles and
Chino, as well as LA and San Bernardino counties, and their
respective police and sheriff departments.

Gant claimed he was arrested several times on a warrant meant for
his fraternal twin brother.  Smith alleged that in 2007 he found
himself shipped off to the Los Angeles County jail after he was
stopped by police in Antioch, Tenn., for a minor traffic
violation and mistaken for a different Reggie Smith with an
outstanding arrest warrant. Ventura was also arrested under a
warrant for another person after a traffic stop, he claimed.

"As a result, persons who are not the subject of warrants are not
only arrested on warrants meant for others, but can and are
arrested again and again on the same warrants," a 2008 version of
the complaint states.  "Moreover, whenever someone is arrested on
a warrant, the warrant is removed from the various data systems
law enforcement uses to check for outstanding warrants.  So if
the wrong person is arrested on the warrant, the warrant's
intended subject will no longer face arrest on the warrant.  In
other words, criminals get a free pass."

U.S. District Judge Gary Feess granted the defendants summary
judgment in 2011, but attorney Cook urged the court April 9,
2014, to reverse.  His brief argues that the warrants violated
the particularity requirement on warrants under the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The simple measure of
including the CII number on arrest warrants would help officials
ensure they did not arrest the wrong people, Cook said.

Judge Morgan Christen asked: "Is your particularity argument in
Smith's case that there was a requirement that the CII
information be added because it was readily available?"

"Yes, and I'd add a little bit more than that," Cook said. "Which
is, it's costless to do so. Since 1988, there are no paperless
arrest warrants in L.A. County. It's all electronic."

L.A. County's attorney Scott Caron has meanwhile argued that
forcing authorities to include CII numbers would burden
officials.

"The Fourth Amendment particularity clause does not require that
a CII number or numeric identifier be included on a warrant,"
Caron said. "And all the warrants in this case included name,
date of birth, address and a detailed physical description."

Though Judge Christen mentioned that Gant has allegedly been
arrested on the same warrant five or six times, Caron noted that
Gant is only pursuing claims over a single arrest in April 2008.

"But the reasonableness of detaining him is surely informed by
the fact that this was the fifth or sixth time,"" Christen
interjected.

"It might be if county of L.A. personnel knew that he had been
arrested for the fifth or sixth time on that warrant," Caron
said. "There's no allegation that L.A. personnel knew that
information."

"Opposing counsel's point is that if that had been entered then
county of L.A. would have known that," Christen said.  "If
there's readily available information, that can easily be entered
to avoid this risk or reduce this risk, why shouldn't that be
appropriate?"

Judge Sidney Thomas grilled Caron on why authorities should not
investigate if there are "objectively reasonable" discrepancies,
based on weight or height.

"It would be burdensome on law enforcement to sua sponte
investigate the identity of every arrestee," Caron said.
"Especially in the county of Los Angeles. We submitted evidence
in this case that over a 13-year-period there were 2 million
detainees in the L.A. County jail."

Thomas was not convinced.

"When you say that it's burdensome, I'm not sure that that's a
constitutional defense," he said.  "It's a practical defense and
certainly an important practical consideration.  But when you say
it's too burdensome for us to research an identity -- when it's
obvious that you have different characteristics that the identity
indicated on the warrant -- that strikes me as quite troubling."

During rebuttal, Judge Milan Smith asked Cook if officials would
have to conduct a "mini-investigation" on everyone they booked.

Cook urged the panel to consider how CII numbers could expedite
the process.

"When it comes to relying on CII numbers versus name, birth date,
et cetera, you go with the CII number," Cook said.  "And if you
see that they don't match? Boy, at that point you got to do
something.  And again, if you know the systems, the obvious thing
to do is punch it in, and you know the result right then and
there."

After the hearing, Cook said in an interview that L.A. Sheriffs
had officially arrested more than 2,000 people on warrants meant
for other people, and that the real number was probably higher.

"People outside of the police and the jails, particularly courts,
judges, what not, don't understand the criminal information
system," Cook said.  "Like the CII number. They focus on names
and birth dates when the police are far more interested in what
CII numbers say because CII numbers are this biometric identifier
matched to fingerprints.  No two people have the same CII number,
just as no two people have the same fingerprints.  And that's
something, that for understandable reasons, a lot of judges just
don't understand."

Cook blamed the warrant issue on "bureaucratic indifference and
sloth."

"Jails have to process a lot of people," Cook said in an
interview.  "They tend to rely very heavily on the outside
agency. Everybody says they're innocent.  And no one has told the
prison people, the jailer, that you should look at this
information."

James Thebeau argued for San Bernardino.  Jules Zeman with Los
Angeles firm Haight Brown & Bonesteel appeared for the city of
Chino.


LULULEMON INC: Judge Dismisses Yoga Tights Fraud Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Lululemon should not face securities fraud claims over its
failure to have a live model test yoga tights that proved too
sheer on the mat, a federal judge ruled.

In March 2013, sports outfitter Lululemon recalled the popular
black Luon fitness pants, made of a 86-percent-nylon and 14-
percent-lycra blend manufactured by a Taiwanese textile company.
Although the product once netted 17 percent of the company's
sales of women's bottoms and 6 percent of its total sales,
Lululemon lost billions pulling it off the shelves amid reports
of customer embarrassment in the downward-dog position.

Led by a Louisiana pension fund, shareholders filed a class
action lawsuit months later alleging that Lululemon's failure to
spot this defect while promoting the quality of the product
amounted to securities fraud.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest called that position a
stretch, in a 54-page opinion dismissing the lawsuit.

"This narrative requires the court to stretch allegations of, at
most, corporate mismanagement into actionable federal securities
fraud," Forrest wrote Friday.

"This is not the law," she added.

"We are not yet at a point when an apparel company's failure to
employ testing by live models renders statements touting high
quality false and misleading," an accompanying 40-page draft
order states.  "It is only reasonable to assume that if Lululemon
secretly knew that the (alleged) fix for its quality issues was
simply to employ more people to wear its yoga pants and exercise,
it would have done so -- rather than the alternative of losing $2
billion in market capitalization."

Lululemon's lawyer declined comment, and the plaintiffs' attorney
did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


MADOFF SECURITIES: Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------
The Madoff Victim Fund is the official vehicle for distributing
more than $4 billion in assets forfeited to the United States of
America as a result of criminal and civil actions brought by the
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York against
persons involved in the fraud at Madoff Securities.  The Hon.
Richard C. Breeden is the Special Master for the Department of
Justice administering the MVF.

If your own personal funds were invested in Madoff Securities
directly, or through purchases of indirect investment products
(including feeder funds such as Kingate Europe, Fairfield Sentry,
Thema International, Herald Fund, Primeo Select, Rye Select
Funds, Maxam Absolute Return, LuxAlpha or any others), you may be
eligible to recover a portion of your losses from The United
States Department of Justice.  Recoveries are limited to the
"ultimate investors" who lost their own personal funds as a
direct result of the Madoff fraud, irrespective of nationality.
Banks, trust companies, trustees, nominees, fund managers, feeder
fund administrators or similar intermediaries are not eligible
claimants.

Final Opportunity: Claims Must Be Postmarked by April 30, 2014

Information and claim forms are available at
www.madoffvictimfund.com

Submit claims to:

The Madoff Victim Fund
P.O. Box 6310
Syracuse, New York USA 13217-6310
Hotline: 001 (866) 624-3670


MAIN STREET: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaddiel Umlas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Main Street Acquisition Corp.; Steve Stewart, as
Corporate Officers of Main Street Acquisition Corp; Brett Samsky,
as Corporate Officer of Main Street Acquisition Corp; Nelson and
Kennard, A General Partnership; and Robert Scott Kennard, Case
No. 3:14-cv-00785-JSC (N.D. Cal., February 20, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irving L. Berg, Esq.
          THE BERG LAW GROUP
          145 Town Center, PMB 493
          Corte Madera, CA 94925
          Telephone: (415) 924-0742
          Facsimile: (415) 891-8208
          E-mail: irvberg@comcast.net


MARICOPA COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Failure to Disclose Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Maricopa County Community College District waited seven months to
inform 2.5 million students, graduates, employees and vendors
that its databases had been breached and their personal
information made available for sale online, a class action claims
in state court in Phoenix.

Lead plaintiff Jason Liebich, a current student at Phoenix
College, sued the college district in Maricopa County Court.
Liebich claims the FBI warned the Maricopa County Community
College District (MCCCD) in January 2011 that a number of its
databases had been breached and made available for sale on the
Internet.

The district's Information Technology Services employees also
became aware of the security breach in January 2011, and
repeatedly reported their findings to Vice Chancellor George
Kahkedjian, the lawsuit claims.  But the district failed to make
any changes to secure the databases, resulting in the breach of
14 databases on MCCCD servers in April 2013, according to the
complaint.

"To make matters worse, MCCCD failed to promptly disclose the
data breach and failed to notify victims of the data breach in a
reasonable or timely manner," Liebich says.  "MCCCD waited over
six months, until Nov. 27, 2013, to inform its current and former
students, employees, and vendors that the data system was
breached and their personally identifiable information may have
been sold and exploited."

In a letter sent to victims of the breach, the district claimed
it "recently discovered" the security breach, and offered one
year of credit monitoring to victims, according to the lawsuit.

The district operates 10 community colleges and two skill centers
in Maricopa County that employ more than 9,500 people and serve
265,000 students, according to the complaint.

Due to the data breaches, 2.5 million former and current
students, employees and vendors have had their "names, addresses,
phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of
birth, financial and bank account information, demographical
information, information related to employment, education, and
training, benefits information, academic information, financial
aid information, and Federal Employer Identification Numbers"
exposed on the Internet, making them vulnerable to identity
fraud, the class claims.

According to the lawsuit, MCCCD is now "falsely advising class
members that no data breach had occurred, including current
students who were never informed (in writing or otherwise) that a
data incursion had occurred."

Liebich says he was informed by the district that his personal
information was included in the breach and that he would receive
a letter of notification, but he never did.  In 2013, he found
fraudulent charges on his debit card, which "could have been
obtained as a result of the MCCCD breach."  He seeks class
certification, compensatory damages, credit monitoring, credit
restoration, and punitive damages for breach of contract and
negligence.  He is represented by Robert Carey with Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro in Phoenix.


MASIMO CORPORATION: Physicians Healthsource Complaint Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint was filed on January 2, 2014,
against Masimo Corporation by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.,
alleging that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
February 14, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

The Company states: "On January 2, 2014, a putative class action
complaint was filed against us by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint alleges that we sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection
Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for
each alleged violation, treble damages if the court finds the
alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs, and
injunctive relief. We believe we have good and substantial
defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that we will
prevail."

Masimo Corporation is a global medical technology company that
develops, manufactures, and markets noninvasive patient
monitoring products. It develops, manufactures and markets a
patient monitoring solution that incorporates a monitor or
circuit board and sensors, including single-patient use, reusable
and ReSposable sensors and patient cables. In addition, it offers
remote alarm/monitoring solutions and software. Its Masimo Signal
Extraction Technology (Masimo SET) provides capabilities of
Measure-Through Motion and Low Perfusion pulse oximetry to
address the primary limitations of conventional pulse oximetry.
Masimo SET has been validated in over 100 independent clinical
studies. It offers a remote monitoring and clinician notification
solution called the Masimo SafetyNet (SafetyNet), which includes
its Masimo SET or rainbow SET monitors at the patient's bedside
along with a central assignment station and wired or wireless
server. In March 2012, it acquired Spire Semiconductor, LLC.


MASIMO CORPORATION: Amended Pulse Oximeters Complaint Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
An amended putative class action complaint was filed on January
31, 2014, against Masimo Corporation alleging product liability
and negligence claims in connection with pulse oximeters provided
at the request of study investigators for trial use, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 14, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 28, 2013.

The Company states: "On January 31, 2014, an amended putative
class action complaint was filed against us in the United State
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by and on
behalf of two participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure,
and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama.
The complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters we provided at the request of
study investigators for use in the trial. A previous version of
the complaint also alleged a wrongful death claim, which the
court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney fees, injunctive
and other relief. We believe we have good and substantial
defenses to remained claims, but there is no guarantee that we
will prevail."

Masimo Corporation is a global medical technology company that
develops, manufactures, and markets noninvasive patient
monitoring products. It develops, manufactures and markets a
patient monitoring solution that incorporates a monitor or
circuit board and sensors, including single-patient use, reusable
and ReSposable sensors and patient cables. In addition, it offers
remote alarm/monitoring solutions and software. Its Masimo Signal
Extraction Technology (Masimo SET) provides capabilities of
Measure-Through Motion and Low Perfusion pulse oximetry to
address the primary limitations of conventional pulse oximetry.
Masimo SET has been validated in over 100 independent clinical
studies. It offers a remote monitoring and clinician notification
solution called the Masimo SafetyNet (SafetyNet), which includes
its Masimo SET or rainbow SET monitors at the patient's bedside
along with a central assignment station and wired or wireless
server. In March 2012, it acquired Spire Semiconductor, LLC.


MAURY COBB: Faces "Chabanava" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Tatsiana Chabanava, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Maury Cobb & Associates LLC, Maury Cobb,
Attorney at Law, and Richard Maury Cobb, Case No. 1:14-cv-01102-
ARR-JMA (E.D.N.Y., February 20, 2014)

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com

               - and -

          Igor B. Litvak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Ave P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796-4905
          Facsimile: (718) 228-8140
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


METROPOLITAN WATER: Sued Over Negligent Sewer Maintenance
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Farmers Insurance sued Cook County and every municipality in
it, claiming they failed to maintain sewer systems that could
handle increased rainfall due to climate change, causing
widespread sewer backups during heavy rains.

The Illinois Farmers Insurance Company and affiliates filed a
class action against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
of Greater Chicago, Cook County, the City of Chicago, and all the
dozens of municipalities in Cook County, in Chancery Court.

"During the past 40 years, climate change in Cook County has
caused rains to be of greater volume, greater intensity, and
greater duration than pre-1970 rainfall history evidenced,
rendering the rainfall frequency return tables employed by the
reclamation district and each named municipal defendant
inaccurate and obsolete, the 145-page lawsuit states.

"In or around 2008, the reclamation district, the County of Cook,
the City of Chicago, and other municipal defendants adopted the
scientific principle that climate change has caused increases in
rain fall amount, intensity, and duration during a rain in the
Cook County, as evidenced by their adoption of the Chicago
Climate Action Plan."

In other words, Farmers claims, the defendants knew they would
need to increase the stormwater storage capacity of their sewer
systems to prevent sewer water flooding.  But despite plenty of
advance time to prepare, defendants "failed to provide safe,
adequate stormwater control storage for stormwater, including but
not limited to raising the banks such as through the use of
quickly water-inflatable property protection systems, sandbags,
or other quick solutions," Farmers says.

Due to these failures, the rainfall on April 17-18, 2013 caused
sewer water to overflow and invade more than 600 homes or
businesses insured by Farmers Insurance, the company says.

In these two days, more than 7 inches of rain fell across Cook
County, causing the county to declare a state of emergency and
issue a flood warning.  April 2013 set a record as Chicago's
wettest April in history.

Farmers claims that the water invasions were so fast that
"geysers of sewer water shot out from floor drains, toilets,
showers and other basement floor openings in members of the
plaintiffs' class," and some people had to evacuate part or all
of their homes.

The Greater Chicago Water Reclamation District oversees the
Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, an engineering project begun in 1972,
which has completed 109.4 miles of deep, large-diameter
stormwater tunnels that have a total capacity of 2.3 billion
gallons. Three reservoirs, scheduled to be completed next decade,
will increase the system's storage capacity to 17.5 billion
gallons.

Farmers seek compensatory damages for negligent maintenance,
failure to remedy known dangerous conditions, and illegal
seizure.  It is represented by Stuart Brody with Sneckenberg,
Thompson & Brody.


MFK LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Robinson, And All Others Similarly Situated v. MFK LLC
d/b/a Mobilelink; MFK Mobilelink Austin, LLC; Master Mobilelink,
LLC; MFK Family L.P.; AFK Properties, LLC; Mobilelink San Antonio
LLC; Mobilelink Laredo LLC; Mobilelink Corpus Christi LLC; Afshan
Furqan Ahsan; Furkhan Khan; Lavanya Rao Lewis; and, Yousuf Hameed
Meghani, Case No. 4:14-cv-00419 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2014) is
a collective action brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MFK LLC, doing business as Mobilelink, MFK Mobilelink Austin,
LLC, Master Mobilelink, LLC, AFK Properties, LLC, Mobilelink San
Antonio, Mobilelink Laredo, LLC, and Mobilelink Corpus Christi,
LLC, are validly existing Texas limited liability companies.  MFK
Family L.P. is a validly existing Texas limited partnership.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, officers or managers of the
Defendant Corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Mitchell, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Dallas Street, Suite 3000
          Houston, TX 77002-4709
          Telephone: (713) 655-5756
          Facsimile: (713) 655-0020
          E-mail: michael.mitchell@odnss.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Final Pre-Trial Conference Set for May 28
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the NCAA cannot argue that not paying football and basketball
players helps it to support women's sports, a federal judge ruled
in a class action from college athletes suing for their right to
profit from their images used in video games and broadcasts.

The heated legal battle, now in its fifth year, involves the
NCAA's use of athletes' images in video games, merchandise and
other promotional materials.

In the first lawsuit , former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon
CLAIMED the National Collegiate Athletic Association violated his
and other athletes' right to make money off their likenesses.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken refused to dismiss the
athletes' third amended class action in October 2013.  The next
month she certified a class of athletes who seek an injunction
against the NCAA that would end the prohibition on athletes
entering their own licensing deals.

Shortly after the class certification, both the athletes and the
NCAA moved for summary judgment.  Wilken ruled partly in the
athletes' favor April 11, 2014.

The NCAA has argued that the pro-competitive effects of not
paying its athletes outweigh the anti-competitive effects, which
justifies its decision.

The athletes argued that by not offering recruits money from
broadcasting and licensing revenue, the NCAA deprives colleges
"of a tool that they could otherwise use to recruit the top
student-athletes," among other things.

The NCAA says the principle of amateurism provides competitive
benefits because it contributes to the popularity of college
sports.

Because there is conflicting evidence about whether paying
athletes would affect the popularity of college sports, Wilken
refused to grant summary judgment to either side on that issue.

The NCAA also argued that BY not paying its athletes, schools'
athletic budgets can better support more women's sports.  Wilken
rejected this argument.

"This is not a legitimate pro-competitive justification," the
judge wrote.

"It is 'improper to validate a practice that is decidedly in
restraint of trade simply because the practice produces some
unrelated benefits to competition in another market,'" Wilken
wrote, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sullivan v.
National Football League.

The NCAA could support women's sports and less prominent men's
sports in other, less restrictive ways, Wilken said.

"For instance, the NCAA could mandate that Division I schools and
conferences redirect a greater portion of the licensing revenue
generated by football and basketball to these other sports,"
Wilken wrote.

"The NCAA has not explained why it could not adopt more stringent
revenue-sharing rules," the judge wrote, granting the athletes
summary judgment on that issue.  "The challenged restraint is not
justified by the NCAA's claimed desire to support women's sports
or less prominent men's sports."

While the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the First
Amendment prevents an athlete from asserting a right of publicity
claim, Wilken noted that case law suggests that media
organizations do not have "an unfettered right to broadcast
entire sporting events without regard for the participating
athletes' right of publicity."

"Whether Division I student-athletes hold any ownership rights in
their athletic performances does not depend on the scope of
broadcasters' First Amendment rights but, rather, on whether the
student-athletes themselves validly transferred their rights of
publicity to another party," Wilken wrote.

While Wilken rejected the athletes' argument that full game
broadcasts were "commercial speech" under the First Amendment,
she did not rule for either party on the issue of whether video
clips and highlight footage are commercial speech.

"If plaintiffs seek to prove that a similar market would exist
for group licenses to use student athletes' names, images, and
likenesses in clips and highlight footage, they will have to
prove that there would be a demand for these clips and highlight
footage specifically for use in commercial speech that is not
protected by the First Amendment," Wilken wrote.

The athletes previously moved to amend the definition of the
class.  Wilken granted the motion so the definition would reflect
the athletes' third amended complaint, which reflects the
athletes' antitrust liability theory.

The trial is set to begin on June 9 in Wilken's courtroom, and a
final pre-trial conference is scheduled for May 28.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Motions May Delay Start of Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the NCAA has filed a flurry of
motions in federal courts, seeking rulings that could delay the
start of the landmark antitrust lawsuit brought by former UCLA
basketball star Ed O'Bannon and others.

The latest filings target both the judge assigned to the case and
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on issues that are at the center
of the trial, now scheduled to begin June 9 in federal court in
Oakland, Calif.  Among them is a request for U.S. District Judge
Claudia Wilken to reconsider an earlier ruling that the NCAA
cannot use the defense that money from big revenue sports like
football and basketball is used to fund smaller sports and
women's sports.

Other filings ask for the 9th Circuit to give the NCAA permission
to appeal the class action certification decision earlier by
Judge Wilken, and for any litigation over the video game portion
of the case to be either severed or for the trial to be postponed
until a reputed $40 million settlement reached last year between
the plaintiffs and EA Sports and others is finalized.

Lawyers for the NCAA also argued that they should be allowed to
appeal an earlier ruling by Judge Wilken dealing with First
Amendment broadcast rights to the 9th Circuit before there is any
trial.

"The issue is extremely important; the court's ruling, if upheld,
could fundamentally alter the nature of amateur athletics and
raises First Amendment issues of enormous consequence," NCAA
lawyers said.

The lead attorney for O'Bannon called the filings a last gasp
attempt to derail a lawsuit filed in 2009 over whether athletes
have the rights to market themselves and their own images instead
of the NCAA.

"They are significant in the fact they express a great deal of
desperation and lack of conviction in their position," said
attorney Michael Hausfeld.  "No one files this many briefs in
both district court and the court of appeals on this variety of
issues unless you feel you have a particular vulnerability."

There was no immediate indication from Judge Wilken when she
would rule on the filings.

Mr. O'Bannon sued the NCAA after seeing himself portrayed in a
video game as a member of the 1995 UCLA national team.  He and
his attorneys argued that the NCAA both used and profited by his
image without his consent and without him being compensated for
it.

Plaintiffs say they not only want monetary damages for the former
athletes, but an injunction that would force the NCAA to either
drop or alter many of its rules to allow such things as
additional compensation for athletes, the right for immediate
transfers, and scholarships that continue until an athlete has
graduated.

Some of those issues are now being debated by the five major
conferences in the NCAA, with some rule changes likely by the end
of summer.

Judge Wilken in April ordered the two sides to try and reach a
settlement, but Mr. Hausfeld said there was no progress in talks
and no further talks scheduled.

"There's a better chance of finding people lost in the Bermuda
triangle than settling before trial," he said.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Sued Over Extreme Violence Among Players
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the National Hockey League encourages violence between players
and fails to protect them from head injuries, nine players claim
in the second class action against the league in the past 6
months.

"Through the sophisticated use of extreme violence as a
commodity, from which the NHL has generated billions of dollars,
the NHL has subjected and continues to subject its players to the
imminent risk of head trauma and, as a result, devastating and
long-term negative health consequences," lead plaintiff Dan
LaCouture says in the 117-page federal lawsuit.

The players claim the NHL "vectored a culture of extreme violence
and packaged the spoils to adoring fans."

"Ultimately, the NHL has successfully extracted prolific sums of
money exploiting its players through extreme violence for many
decades," to the tune of $3.3 billion as of 2012, according to
the lawsuit.

In short, the NHL failed to protect its players from injuries
during practice or in games, the lawsuit states.

In addition to LaCouture, plaintiffs include Dan Keczmer, Jack
Carlson, Richard Brennan, Brad Maxwell, Michael Peluso, Tom
Younghans, Allan Rourke and Scott Bailey, all of whom claim to
have suffered brain injuries while on the ice.

Ten players sued the league in November 2013 in District of
Columbia Federal Court, in a complaint that closely tracks
similar charges made by NFL players, including accusations that
the league "inserted itself" into medical studies to downplay the
effects of repeated head trauma.

The players seek compensatory and punitive damages for
negligence, intentional harm and fraudulent concealment.

They are represented by Samuel H. Rudman with Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, of Melville, N.Y.


NUTRIOM LLC: Recalls Dried Egg Products Due To Salmonella Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nutriom LLC, a Lacey, Wash. establishment, is recalling an
additional 82,884 pounds of processed egg products that may be
contaminated with Salmonella, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced
on April 14.  The majority of the product included in this
expansion was originally identified in the public health alert
issued by the agency on March 26.

This release is being reissued to reflect an additional 82,884
pounds of products produced on dates that were not included in a
Feb. 15, 2014 release.

The recall expansion includes the products listed below.  The
following products were shipped to co-packers for incorporation
into consumer-size packages:

    3,884-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "H0613-B"

    1,989-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "I0413-A"

    958-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the lot
code "I0413-A"

    4,422-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "L1713-A"

The following products were packaged in consumer-sized packages:

    1.75-lb. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with lot code
2814-A and the Julian dates "0374," "0384," "2683" and "2693"

    66-gram spray bottles of "Bak-Klene Egg Wash" with the lot
code "L1013A"

    1.17-lb. packs of "OvaEasy UGRA, Reduced Cholesterol" with
the Julian dates "3228," "3229," "3230," "3231," "3281," "3282,"
"3283," "3284," "3337," "3338," "3339" and "3340"

    4.5-oz. cans of "OvaEasy Whole Plain Egg" with the Julian
date "2883"

    571-gram packs of "Vitovo Low Fat" with the Julian date
"3193"

    1.1-lb. bags of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag UGR, Heat & Serve (HS)"
with the Julian dates "3188"

    2-oz. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
dates "0074," "0084," "0094," "0354," "0364," "0374," "2243,"
"2253," "3463," "3473" and "3483"

    66-gram spray bottles of "Panera Egg Wash" with the Julian
dates "0144," "0154," "0164," "0174," "0214," "0224," "0234,"
"0244," "0284," "0294," "0304" and "0314"

    2-oz. pack of "Wise Company, Wise Blend" with the Julian date
"0943"

On Feb. 15, 2014, the company recalled 226,710 pounds of
processed egg products.  The following products listed below were
included in the initial recall.  The following products were
shipped to co-packers for incorporation into consumer-size
packages:

    1,383-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag Egg Mix, Butter
Flavor" with the lot code "C0513-A"

    2,540-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "B1913-A"

    2,409-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "B1913-B"

    4,712-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "E0713-A,B"

    1,265-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag, Heat and Serve"
with the lot code "F1813-A"

    4,155-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "I1113-A"

    6,132-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg, Cage Free"
with the lot code "J2913-A"

    9,345-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg, Cage Free"
with the lot code "A1414-A"

The following products were packaged in consumer-sized packages:

    3.06-lb. bags of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag Egg Mix, Butter Flavor"
with the Julian dates "3074" and "3075"

    2.34-lb. bags of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag, Reduced Cholesterol"
with the Julian dates "3122," "3123," "3124," "3127," "3128" and
"3129"

    4.5-oz. cans of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
date "2903," "1343" and "2893"

    4-oz. bags of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian dates
"0853" and "0863"

    4.5-oz. bags of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
dates "0853," "0863" and "0873"

    1.75-lb. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
dates "0813," "1083,"  "1093," "1433," "1443," "1573," "1723,"
"2063," "2163," "2173," "2183" "2243," "2253," "2183," "2533,"
"2543," "2553," "2563," "2623," "2633,""2673," "2683," "2693" and
"2703"

    3.2-oz. bags of "Wise Company, Wise Blend" with the Julian
dates "0953" and "0993"

    2-oz. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
dates "2073," "2063," "2163," "2603," "2613" "2903," "2913,"
"2953," "2963," "3173" and "3183"

    3.2-oz. packs of "Wise Company, Wise Blend" with the Julian
dates "1133," "1143," "1153," "1163" and "1353"

    1.17-lb. bags of "OvaEasy UGRA Boil-in-Bag, Reduced
Cholesterol" with the Julian dates "3129," "3130" and "3137"

    1.75-lb. packs of "OvaEasy" with the Julian dates "2163,"
"2173," "2183" and "2243"

    4.5-oz. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
date "2563"

    1.1-lb. packs of "OvaEasy UGR H&S" with the Julian dates
"3173," "3174," "3175," "3177," "3178," "3179," "3180," "3181,"
"3182," "3183," "3194," "3195," "3196," "3197," "3198" and "3199"

    1.1-lb. packs of "G0213-A UGR H&S" with the Julian dates
"3186," "3187," "3189," "3190" and "3191"

    128-gram packs of "Egg Crystal, Sea Salt and Pepper" with the
Julian date "3033"

    128-gram packs of "Egg Crystal, Sausage and Herb" with the
Julian date "3043"

    1.17-lb. packs of "OvaEasy UGR-A Reduced Cholesterol" with
the Julian dates "3141," "3142," "3148," "3149" and "3150"

    3-oz. packs of "eFoods Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian dates
of "3173" and "3183"

On March 26, 2014, FSIS and the company did not reach agreement
pertaining to products subject to expansion of the initial
recall.  FSIS acted within the scope of its authority and
responsibility and issued a public health alert. To read the
public health alert, click here.

As part of the investigation in the detention and seizure of
product identified in the public health alert, FSIS identified
and verified USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Salmonella
sample results that validated the public health safety of four of
the lots included in the public health alert. As such, FSIS has
determined these products do not need to be removed from
commerce. With public health as the focus, Nutriom LLC has agreed
to voluntarily recall the remaining product identified in the
March 26, 2014 public health alert.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses due to
consumption of these products.

The dried egg products in the recall expansion were produced from
Jan. 2013 through Jan. 2014, and bear the establishment number
"INSPECTED EGG PRODUCTS PLANT 21493G" inside the USDA Mark of
Inspection. These products were shipped nationwide and to U.S.
military installations in the United States and abroad, and to
Mexico.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are
diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever within 12 to 72 hours after
eating the contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7
days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons,
however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to
be hospitalized. Older adults, infants and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their
health care provider.

FSIS inspects egg products under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
FDA typically takes jurisdiction of egg products after they leave
the egg facility if they are incorporated into FDA-regulated
products. In this case, USDA is leading the recall rather than
FDA, because the products are in consumer packages with an
identifiable USDA Mark of Inspection, and FSIS had jurisdiction
over the product when the contamination occurred. FSIS and FDA
are continuing to work together to ensure food safety, and the
management of this recall is such an example.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare and consume egg
products that have been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F. The
only way to confirm that egg products are cooked to a temperature
high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer
that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Rodrigo
Etcheto, Marketing Director, at (360) 413-7269, ext. 110.
Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Julie
Cuffee, Customer Service Representative, at (360) 413-7269, ext.
101.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem

Retail distribution list: http://is.gd/mxafS3


PELLA CORP: Faces Suit Over Architect and Designer Series Windows
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Arnold, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pella Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00449-DCN
(D.S.C., February 20, 2014) is an action for damages caused by
alleged defective windows designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, and sold by Pella Corporation.

Pella Corporation is an Iowa Corporation.  Pella designed,
manufactured, marketed, advertised, warranted, and sold its Pella
Architect and Designer series windows to the Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff's builders, and the Classes and the Classes' builders,
as well as the general public throughout Oregon and the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Griffin, Esq.
          GRIFFIN & MCCANDLISH
          1631 NE Broadway, #721
          Portland, OR 97232
          Telephone: (503)-224-2348
          E-mail: mark@markgriffin.com

               - and -

          Jordan A. Chaikin, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          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 -

          John P. Mandler, Esq.
          Shane A. Anderson, Esq.
          FAEGRE, BAKER LAW FIRM-MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE
          90 South Seventh Street
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: john.mandler@faegrebd.com
                  shane.anderson@faegrebd.com


PEPSICO INC: Faces "Aourout" Class Suit Over 4-MEI Carcinogen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Souzan Aourout, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pepsico, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01289-RGK-FFM (C.D.
Cal., February 20, 2014) alleges that Pepsi systematically failed
to disclose to consumers that Pepsi One contains significant
levels of 4-methylimidazole, a chemical designated by the state
of California as a carcinogen.

Pepsi is a North Carolina company with its principle place of
business in Purchase, New York.  Pepsi has sold soft drinks,
including Pepsi One, and other products throughout the state of
California and the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Scott Alan George, Esq.
          Parvin K. Aminolroaya, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
                  sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
                  paminolroaya@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Alyson Oliver, Esq.
          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW GROUP PC
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 200
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 327-6556
          Facsimile: (248) 436-3385
          E-mail: notifications@oliverlg.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: jeff@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Bassma Zebib, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BASSMA ZEBIB
          811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1708
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 920-7037
          E-mail: zebiblaw@gmai1.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


PETCO: Judge Allows Reverse-Discrimination Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a reverse-discrimination suit brought by a white former
employee of Petco who claimed the company posted Spanish-only
signage and failed to prevent repeated racial taunts by his
predominantly Hispanic colleagues can proceed thanks to a New
Jersey federal judge's ruling.

U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson on April 28 denied dismissal of
claims lodged under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
(LAD) by a man claiming he was subjected to a hostile work
environment as the only Caucasian working on the floor of Petco's
Monroe, N.J., distribution center.

The judge said plaintiff Frank McQuillan satisfied the heightened
pleading standards required in reverse-discrimination cases where
the litigant is a member of a majority class.

Mr. McQuillan "has alleged a causal connection of his status as a
white person and the ongoing harassment to which [he] contends he
was subjected at Petco," said Judge Wolfson, sitting in Trenton.
Mr. McQuillan was hired by Petco in 2012 as an "order picker" --
a warehouse worker who prepares orders to be shipped.  He claims
signs regularly were posted in Spanish with no English
translation, and he was constantly referred to by Hispanic
co-workers as a "gringo," a derogatory Spanish term typically
directed at white Americans, and "maricon," which is derogatory
to gays.

The suit alleges that not only did management fail to cease those
behaviors, but a Hispanic manager once verbally assessed
McQuillan's work performance as "not bad for a white boy."  Also,
Mr. McQuillan claims he was not provided a scanning headset to
assist with the work, whereas other workers got one.  Mr.
McQuillan claims management told him no one was available to
train him on the equipment, though Hispanic employees hired after
him all were given the headset, allowing them to work faster than
him.

In January 2013, Mr. McQuillan sustained a shoulder injury on the
job later diagnosed as a torn rotator cuff by a doctor from
Petco's health carrier, U.S. HealthWorks.  The doctor advised
management that McQuillan could return to work on light duty, but
was told no such roles were available.

Mr. McQuillan sought workers' compensation benefits.  Petco
management in February 2013 told McQuillan's attorney to "just
tell him he's fired," the suit alleges.  The complaint asserted
five claims under the LAD, which Petco moved to dismiss.  But on
April 28, Judge Wolfson denied the motion as to three of those
claims, and dismissed the other two without prejudice, allowing
Mr. McQuillan an opportunity to amend the complaint.

The judge first dispensed with Petco's argument that the
nonspecific term "Caucasian" doesn't fit within a particular
race, color, national origin or ancestry.  Mr. McQuillan "makes
it plain that these Hispanic supervisors and co-workers were
treating him differently because he was white," Judge Wolfson
said, rejecting Petco's "hypertechnical approach" to statutory
definitions.

Judge Wolfson noted the heightened pleading standard attached to
nonminority litigants, who must show that the defendant is the
"unusual employer who discriminates against the majority" -- a
standard Mr. McQuillan met, she said.

He "paints a picture that -- due to his color -- he suffered
harassment and discrimination in a predominantly nonwhite work
environment, which ultimately affected his job performance,"
Judge Wolfson said.

Mr. McQuillan's complaints, when considered together, make out a
claim of hostile work environment, she added, noting his
allegations that the racial taunts occurred daily and the
withholding of work equipment affected his performance.

Judge Wolfson also upheld claims that Petco failed to accommodate
Mr. McQuillan's shoulder injury.  Petco allegedly "did not make
any effort, let alone a good-faith effort, to discuss with
plaintiff whether any reasonable accommodations were
appropriate," she said.

The judge said Petco can't deny a request for a reasonable
accommodation without discussion and later assert that no
accommodations were available, which "would effectively excuse
defendant from engaging in the interactive process."

Judge Wolfson did dismiss two counts of disability discrimination
-- because Mr. McQuillan failed to allege that Petco replaced
him, or attempted to replace him, after his firing -- but gave
him two weeks to remedy the deficiency.

Mr. McQuillan's attorney, Kevin Costello of Costello & Mains in
Mount Laurel, said the complaint was immediately amended and
refiled.

Mr. Costello said anti-discrimination laws were passed with
disenfranchised groups in mind, but there shouldn't be a
heightened pleading standard for non-minority litigants.
"I don't believe in the concept of reverse discrimination,"
Mr. Costello said.

"Either one inappropriately discriminates, or one does not," he
said, adding that the practice is "equally objectionable
regardless of who commits it or against whom it's committed."
Petco's counsel, Ebone‚ Hamilton Lewis -- enlewis@littler.com --
of Littler Mendelson in Newark, didn't return a call on April 29.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Oklahoma Over Lipitor Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marina J. Jackson; and, Gerald R. Jackson v. Pfizer Inc., Case
No. 5:14-cv-00157-HE (W.D. Okla., February 20, 2014) is an action
for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of
the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry A. Tawwater, Esq.
          Darren M. Tawwater, Esq.
          TAWWATER LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          14001 Quail Springs Parkway
          Oklahoma City, OK 73134
          Telephone: (405) 607-1400
          Facsimile: (405) 607-1450
          E-mail: lat@tawlaw.com
                  dtaw@tawlaw.com

               - and -

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


PRIME PAK: Misbranding of Chicken Breast Tenders Prompts Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Pak Foods, a Gainesville, Ga., establishment, is recalling
approximately 24,000 pounds of fully cooked breaded chicken
breast products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  The products were formulated with egg
and wheat, known allergens, which are not declared on the product
label.

The following products are subject to recall:

    2, 5-lb. bags in a 10-lb. box of "Sugar Lake Farms Fully
Cooked Breaded Chicken Breast Tenders" with the product code
77422 printed on the box.

    2, 5-lb. bags in a 10-lb. box of "Sugar Lake Farms Fully
Cooked Spicy Breaded Chicken Breast Chunks" with the product code
77448 printed on the box.

The products were produced from Dec. 12, 2012 to March 21, 2014.
The products bear the establishment number "P-9165" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.  The products were distributed to
hotels, restaurants and institutions nationwide.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector who notified the
company on April 17, 2014.  After investigation by the firm, it
was determined that the company didn't list all ingredients on
their products' packaging labels.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure
that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no
longer available to consumers. When available, the retail
distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact John Appling at (770) 536-8708, ext. 1105 or via e-mail
at: jappling@primepakfoods.com

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem

Retail distribution list: http://is.gd/ljdqFt


SCHIFF NUTRITION: Misrepresented Product Efficacy, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Mitchell on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., a Utah
corporation; Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., a Utah corporation;
and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:14-cv-00387-JAH-RBB (S.D. Cal.,
February 20, 2014) accuses the Defendants of issuing deceptive
advertising and false claims regarding the efficacy of the Move
Free products.

The Defendants manufacture, distribute, market, and sell Move
Free(R), a line of glucosamine and chondroitin-based joint-health
dietary supplements that purportedly provide a variety of health
benefits centered around protecting joint cartilage from
breakdown and repairing it, improving joint function, and
reducing joint pain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Howard C. Wu, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          12670 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 523-5469
          Facsimile: (858) 523-5450
          E-mail: howard.wu@lw.com


SCHNUCKS KITCHEN: Recalls Curry Chicken Salad Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schnucks Kitchen, an O'Fallon, Mo., establishment, is recalling
approximately 130 pounds of Curry White Meat Chicken Salad
product due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Chicken salad product, in three-pound bags, was produced on
April 24, 2014, and shipped to Schnucks retail grocery locations
for deli distribution in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and
Wisconsin. The following product is subject to recall:

    3-lb. sealed plastic bags containing "CURRY WHITE MEAT
CHICKEN SALAD WITH WALNUTS." [View Label (PDFOnly)]

Because the products were sold at deli counters, consumer
packaging may vary. Plastic containers in various sizes may bear
a purchase date between April 24, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Bulk case
labels or packaging may bear the case code 0989674 or 0963124 as
well as establishment number "EST. P-13562" inside the USDA mark
of inspection.

The problem was discovered when routine product sampling by FSIS
personnel tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes on April 28,
2014. This product was held by the firm and did not enter
commerce.  Further investigative sampling by the company later
determined bulk walnuts from an outside supplier, an ingredient
used in the product, may have been contaminated with the
pathogen. FSIS and the company have received no reports of
illnesses associated with consumption of these products. FSIS is
working in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration to
further investigate the source of the contamination.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive
infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant
women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths,
premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn.
In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older
adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is
treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories
who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating
contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health
care provider about eating the contaminated food.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be
frozen and in consumers' freezers.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Joannie
Taylor, Director of Consumer Affairs, at (314) 994-4400. Media
with questions regarding the recall can contact Lori Willis,
Director of Communications, at (314) 994-4602.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at askkaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


SERVICE INTERNATIONAL: Settled Garcia Case in November 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
In November 2013, Service International Corp., settled the Reyvis
Garcia and Alicia Garcia case, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on February 14, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v.
Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a
Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, f/k/a
Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. , was filed in December 2004, in
the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 04-25646 CA 32. Plaintiffs
are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was
buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the
cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Initially,
the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the
plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia. Plaintiffs
claimed that due to poor recordkeeping, spacing issues and maps,
and the fact that the family could not afford to purchase a
marker for the grave, the burial location of the decedent could
not be readily located. Subsequently, the decedent's grave was
located and verified. In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their
complaint, seeking to certify a class of all persons buried at
this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located, claiming that
this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps, and surveys at the
cemetery. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class
action complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief. On May 4, 2011, the trial court
certified a class and we appealed that ruling. On July 31, 2013,
the Court of Appeals reversed the order certifying the case. In
November 2013, we settled this case for an amount which is not
material to the Company."

Service International Corp., formerly Service Corporation
International, is a provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada. Its
operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries,
funeral service/cemetery combination locations, crematoria, and
related businesses. The Company operates in two segments: funeral
and cemetery operations. Its funeral service and cemetery
operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries,
funeral service/cemetery combination locations, crematoria, and
related businesses. The Company sells cemetery property and
funeral and cemetery products and services at the time of need
and on a preneed basis. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it completed its acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.


SKILCOR FOOD: Recalls Baby Back Ribs Without Import Inspection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skilcor Food Products, an importer of record in Brampton,
Ontario, is recalling approximately 36 pounds of fully cooked
pork baby back ribs in honey garlic barbeque sauce, because they
were not presented at the border for USDA FSIS inspection, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection,
a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

FSIS issues a Public Health Alert for an imported product when
the country of origin recalls the product. FSIS issues a recall
for an imported product when the product is not presented for
inspection at the U.S. border.

The following product is subject to recall:

    18 pound cases containing 1.5 pound packages of  "Cobblestone
Farms Fully Cooked Pork Baby Back Ribs in Honey Garlic Barbeque
Sauce" bearing package code "Sell By 2015-AL-08" and case code
"15201"

The product bears the Canadian mark of inspection with
establishment number "624." The product was distributed to a
retailer in New York.

The problem was discovered when FSIS import staff reviewed
records and discovered that the independent third party carrier
did not present product for USDA inspection at the U.S. -
Canadian border.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about illness
should contact a healthcare provider.

A failure-to-present (FTP) occurs when importers fail to present
a shipment to FSIS for import inspection prior to the product
entering U.S. commerce. Failure-to-present will result in the
recall of the product.

Presently, FSIS analysts compare Custom and Border Protection
Automated Commerce Environment summary data to shipments received
in the FSIS Public Health Information System to identify
shipments that may not have been presented for inspection at the
border. As part of this process, this only occurs after the
product has entered U.S. commerce.

FSIS is working on solutions to prevent future failure-to-present
episodes from occurring, including outreach to industry, foreign
food safety agencies and importers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact Don Bernier at (905) 501-0111.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat
services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish
and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.

Retail distribution list: http://is.gd/pqV7eM


SOUTH FLORIDA MESSENGER: Accused of Violating Telephone Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven A. Edelstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. South Florida Messenger Service, Inc., a
Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-20638-UU (S.D. Fla.,
February 20, 2014) alleges that South Florida Messenger Service,
Inc., has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending facsimile advertisements to persons and entities, which
do not contain statutorily required language.

South Florida Messenger Service, Inc., is a for-profit Florida
corporation with its principal place of business in Hollywood,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT & BENNETT
          1200 Anastasia Avenue, Office Suite #360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-5925
          Facsimile: (206) 333-0792
          E-mail: richardbennett27@gmail.com

               - and -

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          P.O. Box 70327
          Washington, DC 20024
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com


TAKEDA PHARMA: Plaintiff's Bid for Sanctions in Actos Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that a judge
in Illinois has rejected a plaintiff's request for sanctions
against Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc. and its affiliates
for the destruction of evidence related to its diabetes drug
Actos and the allegations that it increases the risk of bladder
cancer.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Deborah Mary Dooling said it was
not appropriate to sanction Takeda for pre-suit destruction of
evidence.  "In the absence of any showing that the lost documents
contained evidence either beneficial to plaintiff or detrimental
to Takeda, this court cannot find that plaintiff has suffered
prejudice," Judge Dooling said.  "Under these circumstances,
imposing sanctions here would only serve to punish Takeda."

In contrast, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty, citing "grave
concerns" about the drug manufacturer's conduct, sanctioned
Takeda and its affiliates by ordering a jury in the first federal
Actos bellwether trial be informed that 46 files were missing.
The jury in the case awarded more than $9 billion, most of that
punitive damages against Takeda and Eli and Company, which had an
agreement to co-promote Actos for a period of time.  Judge
Dooling said the Louisiana federal court's ruling is not binding
on her.

The court, applying a six-factor test from the Illinois Supreme
Court's 1998 decision in Shimanovsky v. GMC, said the plaintiff
failed to show prejudice from the destruction of the evidence and
the plaintiff waited to file her motion for sanctions until two
weeks before the case was set for trial.  But the court found
that Takeda acted in bad faith by destroying documents prior to
the filing of the first Actos bladder cancer lawsuit "in clear
contravention of a products liability litigation hold pertaining
to Actos that has been in place since July 19, 2002."

Takeda destroyed files for 19 current or former employees between
2008 and 2012, including for its chief executive officer,
research and development managers and sales people.

The plaintiff alleged the duty to preserve evidence was triggered
July 19, 2002, when Takeda started a litigation hold in response
to a lawsuit alleging Actos caused liver failure.  The court
agreed Takeda voluntarily undertook a duty to preserve evidence
for all Actos-related documents with its 2002 litigation hold.

The plaintiff did not bring a claim for spoliation of evidence.


TEXTRON INC: Court Approved Savings Plan Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court on February 10, 2014, entered an order giving
final approval of the settlement between Textron Inc., and
Textron Savings Plan participants and final judgment in a class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
February 14, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2013.

As reported in Textron's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2010, on August 21, 2009, a
purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court in Rhode Island by Dianne Leach, an alleged
participant in the Textron Savings Plan.  Plaintiffs alleged that
the company and certain of its present and former employees,
officers and directors had violated the United States Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by imprudently permitting
participants in the Textron Savings Plan to invest in Textron
common stock. The complaints sought equitable relief and
unspecified compensatory damages.

As reported in Textron's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 29, 2012, on December 13, 2012, as a
result of a mediation process overseen by an independent
mediator, the parties reached an agreement in principle, subject
to settlement documentation and court approval, to settle the
plaintiffs' claims for an immaterial amount. On August 21, 2013,
the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement, certifying a settlement class, and approving the form
and manner of class notice. On February 10, 2014, the Court
entered an order giving final approval of the settlement and
final judgment in the case. Neither Textron nor any of the other
defendants in the settlement admitted any wrongdoing with respect
to the allegations in the case.

Textron Inc. is a multi-industry company engaged in aircraft,
defense, industrial and finance businesses to provide customers
with products and services worldwide. It operates in five
segments: Cessna, Bell, Textron Systems and Industrial, which
represent its manufacturing businesses, and Finance, which
represents its finance business. Cessna is a general aviation
company with two principal lines of business: Aircraft sales and
aftermarket services. Bell Helicopter is a supplier of military
and commercial helicopters, tiltrotor aircraft, and related spare
parts and services in the world. Textron Systems is a supplier to
the defense, aerospace, homeland security and general aviation
markets. Industrial segment designs and manufactures a range of
products under three principal product lines. The Company's
Finance segment, or the Finance group, offers commercial finance
business. In March 2014, the Company acquired Beech Holdings,
LLC, the parent of Beechcraft Corp.


TOYOTA MOTOR: More Sudden Acceleration Cases Settle
---------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that a handful
of more civil cases over deaths and injuries associated with
sudden acceleration in Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles have settled,
according to a joint status report filed by Toyota Motor Corp.
and plaintiffs in California federal court.

Eight more cases have settled, leading to a tally of 139 cases
that have resolved so far.

The settlement process "is continuing to make good progress as
the parties attempt to resolve the various personal injury,
wrongful death and/or property damage cases" pending in federal
court, Los Angeles County Superior Court, and a Texas state-court
multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs lawyers wrote in court
papers filed on April 22 in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Two official, "intensive settlement process" conferences, as well
as informal meetings, have been held.  Four of six cases resolved
prior to the March 17 settlement conference.  Another case has
been resolved over the telephone.

Settlement conferences were slated to be held in Texas and
California.

In March, Toyota agreed to pay $1.2 billion to the U.S.
Department of Justice for making misleading statements to the
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration and Congress
regarding its knowledge of defects associated with floor mats and
sticky gas pedals.

The multidistrict litigation over Toyota's sales practices and
products liability is pending in the Central District of
California.


TRACTOR SUPPLY: Removed "Nassif" Suit to Mass. District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Nassif v. Tractor Supply Company,
et al., Case No. BECV2014-00010, from the Berkshire Superior
Court to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Springfield).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:14-cv-10379-MAP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Garcia, Esq.
          Carlin J. Phillips, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & GARCIA, LLP
          13 Ventura Drive
          North Dartmouth, MA 02747
          Telephone: (508) 998-0800
          Facsimile: (508) 998-0919
          E-mail: agarcia@phillipsgarcia.com
                  cphillips@phillipsgarcia.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diane M. Saunders, Esq.
          Todd M. Torres, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART
          One Boston Place, Suite 3220
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 994-5704
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5701
          E-mail: diane.saunders@ogletreedeakins.com
                  todd.torres@ogletreedeakins.com


TYSON FOODS: Chicken Nuggets Recalled Due To Contamination Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc., a Sedalia, Mo. establishment, is recalling
approximately 75,320 pounds of frozen, fully cooked chicken
nugget products that may be contaminated with extraneous
materials the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced April 4.

The following products are subject to USDA recall:

    5-lb. bags of "Tyson Fully Cooked White Meat Chicken Nuggets
- 16142-928" with a "Best if Used By" date of "Jan 26 2015" or
Feb 16 2015." The manufacturer codes "0264SDL0315 through 19" and
"0474SDL0311 through 14" can also be found on the bags. These
products were produced Jan. 26, 2014 or Feb. 16, 2014 and shipped
nationwide to one retail warehouse club chain.

    20-lb. bulk packs of "Spare Time Fully Cooked Nugget-Shaped
Chicken Breast Pattie Fritters w/Rib Meat - 16142-861" with
identifying case codes of "0264SDL0315 through 19" and
"0474SDL0311 through 14." These products were produced Jan. 26
and Feb. 16, 2014 and were shipped for institutional use in
Indiana and Arkansas.

The product bags bear the establishment number "P-13556."

The problem was discovered after the firm received consumer
complaints that small pieces of plastic were found in the
products. The problem was traced to a product scraper inside a
blending machine.

The company has received reports of minor oral injury associated
with consumption of these products. FSIS has received no
additional reports of injury or illness from consumption of these
products.  Anyone concerned about an injury or illness from
consumption of these products should contact a healthcare
provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and
that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no
longer available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Tyson
Foods Consumer Services toll free at (866) 328-3156. Media with
questions about the recall should contact Dan Fogleman, of Tyson
public relations, at (479) 290-2166.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
www.AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen"
live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10
a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-
888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring
System can be accessed 24 hours a day at:
www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


UNITED STATES: Defense Dept. Fails to Gather New Info
-----------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Army says it has not located any new information about the
health effects on veterans who were subjected to Cold War-era
drug experiments known as Operation Paperclip.

The Army was ordered to submit a report on its efforts to locate
veterans in response to a class action that claimed at least
7,800 soldiers had been used as guinea pigs in Project Paperclip.
Soldiers were administered at least 250 and perhaps as many as
400 types of drugs, among them Sarin, one of the most deadly
drugs known, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene
gas and LSD.

Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, the U.S.
government sought drugs to control human behavior, cause
confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and
vision, induce hypnosis, and enhance a person's ability to
withstand torture.

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

The defendants succeeded in dismissing claims against Attorney
General Eric Holder and the CIA, and in November 2103, Judge
Wilken gave both sides some relief , granting the Defense
Department, Army and CIA summary judgment on certain claims, and
giving the plaintiffs summary judgment only on one claim against
the Army.

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

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

In an injunction accompanying the summary judgment order, Wilken
directed the Army to provide such test subjects with newly
acquired information that may affect their well-being.

The judge also required the Department of the Army to submit a
report of its efforts to find new information, and its plan to
get that information to affected people.

The Army submitted a plan in March describing a "multi-step
process" that takes "several weeks" to locate information.

In response to the report, Wilken found the plan was "unduly
time-consuming and vague" and dealt largely with the Army's
actions before the lawsuit and the injunction.

Wilken ordered the Army to file a revised plan.

"Although the Army states that it is unaware of any such
information in its possession and goes to lengths to describe its
past efforts to collect and disseminate information, it does not
describe any effort to confirm the lack of information in its
possession since the entry of the injunction," Wilken wrote in
the four-page order.  "Moreover, the plan must include an actual
timeline for completion of the search for newly acquired
information."

The Army has submitted its revised report, in which its lawyers
reiterated that the Army could not find any newly acquired
information related to the test subjects.  The Army said it
contacted its medical research institutes that deal with
infectious diseases and chemical defense, and the Defense
Department's Office of Force Health Protection and Readiness, and
found no new information that has not already been distributed.
The Army also addressed Wilken's characterization of its "unduly
time-consuming and vague" plan in her previous order.

"The Army respectfully advises the Court that, because of the
contingent nature of some of the steps involved in this process,
it cannot state with precise certainty when the process directed
by the Court will be completed," the Army's attorney Joshua
Gardner wrote.

The Army said it is developing a "performance work statement"
describing the databases it will search, which should be
completed by May 5.

"As a rough estimate, if conducted in-house, the search for newly
acquired information concerning health effects is estimated to
take approximately 1,800 work hours to complete," Gardner wrote.
"This is just an estimate, and may need to be revised as the
project progresses."


USA TRANSPORTER: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Escarria, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. USA Transporter Services, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-60435-
WJZ (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

USA Transporter Services, Inc., is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Broward County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Markel, Esq.
          THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
          3191 Grand Avenue #1513
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 458-1282
          Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
          E-mail: David.Markel@markel-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Jallo, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          200 S.W. 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: jallo@kolawyers.com


VALEO SA: Accused of Fixing Prices of Air Conditioning Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated 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-10796-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
February 20, 2014) accuses the Defendants of engaging in a long-
running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise,
maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the
market and customers in the United States for Air Conditioning
Systems.

"Air Conditioning Systems" are systems that cool the interior
environment of a vehicle and are part of the thermal segment 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 Air Conditioning
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


VICAL INC: Consolidation of Allovectin(R) Actions Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
Various parties filed motions to consolidate two putative class
action complaints against Vical Incorporated, alleging that the
Company made false and misleading statements regarding its
business prospects and the prospects for Allovectin(R), according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 14, 2014, with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

In late October and early November 2013, two putative class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against us and certain of our
current and former officers. In general, the complaints allege
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding our business prospects and the
prospects for Allovectin(R), thereby artificially inflating the
price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. On December 31, 2013, various
parties filed motions to consolidate the cases and for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel
("Motions to Consolidate"). A hearing on the Motions to
Consolidate was set for February 14, 2014. The Company plans to
vigorously defend against the claims advanced.

Vical Incorporated researches and develops biopharmaceutical
products based on its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) delivery
technologies for the prevention and treatment of serious or life-
threatening diseases. The Company has three active independent
clinical and preclinical development programs in the areas of
infectious disease and cancer, including a fully enrolled Phase
III clinical trial using its Allovectin immunotherapeutic in
patients with metastatic melanoma; a completed preclinical
program, with an allowed investigational new drug application,
using its CyMVectin prophylactic vaccine formulated with its
Vaxfectin adjuvant to prevent cytomegalovirus, infection before
and during pregnancy, and a preclinical program with therapeutic
and prophylactic vaccines for herpes simplex virus type II
formulated with its Vaxfectin adjuvant.


WARRANTY GROUP: Removed "Flanigan" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Flanigan v. The Warranty Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2014CH-00956, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01261 to the
proceeding.

On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff Erroll Flanigan filed a Summons
and Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, seeking damages for The Warranty Group's and American
Protection Plans LLC, d/b/a American Residential Warranty's
alleged violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq.
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          John C. Ochoa, Esq.
          Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 239-3362
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
                  jedelson@kamberedelson.com
                  jochoa@edelson.com
                  meisen@edelson.com

Defendant The Warranty Group, Inc. is represented by:

          Norman K. Beck, Esq.
          Bonnie LuAnn Keane, Esq.
          David Luger, Esq.
          Kevin P. McCormick, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: nbeck@winston.com
                  bkeane@winston.com
                  dluger@winston.com
                  kmccormick@winston.com

Defendant American Protection Plans LLC, doing business as
American Residential Warranty, is represented by:

          Francis C. Rowland, Esq.
          Storrs Whitworth Downey, Esq.
          BRYCE DOWNEY & LENKOV LLC
          200 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 377-1501
          E-mail: frowland@bdlfirm.com
                  sdowney@brycedowney.com


WORLDCARE TRANSIT: Did Not Properly Pay Drivers' OT, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rickey Norman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Worldcare Transit Service, LLC, 6501 Investments LLC,
d/b/a World Food and Petro Mart, Sawan Tiwari, and Suraj Tiwari,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00187-RTR (E.D. Wis., February 20, 2014) is
brought on behalf of similarly situated current and former
employees that worked as drivers for the Defendants.

Mr. Norman alleges that it is the Defendants' policy to
compensate their Drivers at a straight-time rate when the Drivers
work more than 40 hours in a workweek, denying the Drivers
overtime premium compensation for those hours.

The Defendants provide non-emergency medical transportation
services in specialized medical vehicles to individuals, who are
disabled or elderly and are in need of transportation assistance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua J. Brady, Esq.
          GALANIS POLLACK JACOBS & JOHNSON SC
          839 N Jefferson St., Suite 200
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-5400
          E-mail: jbrady@gpjlaw.com


WRAP-N-RUN LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Underpaid or Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aldrin Hernandez-Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Wrap-N-Run LLC, George Pavlounis,
and Peter Pavlounis, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01061-ALC (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid
or underpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation.

Wrap-N-Run LLC is a New York limited liability company with its
office in Nassau County.  The Individual Defendants own the
Company.  The Defendants' business is a limited-service
restaurant doing business as Wrap-N-Run Grill and located at 1125
Lexington Avenue, in New York.  This location is now closed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Sal Hoffmann, Esq.
          WISEMAN & HOFFMANN
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1400
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 686-2110
          Facsimile: (212) 686-4766
          E-mail: Ashlegal@aol.com


                             *********

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  * * *