CAR_Public/140528.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 105

                             Headlines


AMERICAN SHUTTLE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Faulty MacBook Logic Boards
APPLE INC: Attorneys Attempt to Derail Employment Class Action
BAYSIDE SOLUTIONS: Removed "Ash" Class Suit to N.D. California
BLUCORA INC: Lied About Web Properties' Tie to Malware, Suit Says

BLUCORA INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Wash.
CARRIER CORPORATION: Accused of Defective Evaporator Coils
CLIFFS NATURAL: Has Misled Investors About Bloom Lake, Suit Says
COATESVILLE VETERANS: VA Settles Four Medical Malpractice Suits
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Account Managers Seek Payment of OT Wages

CONN'S INC: Sued Over Violation of Securities and Exchange Act
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
CSK AUTO: Faces "Saye" Suit Over Background Check Practices
DYNOTEX INC: Faces "Tan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EBAY INC: Attorney General to Investigate Data Breach

EBAY INC: Sold Skype for Too Little, Class Suit Says
EXTENDED STAY: Faces Calif. Class Action Over Background Checks
FAMILY TREE: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violation
FIRST AMERICAN: Must Face Class Action Over Sub-Escrow Services
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Dinco" Suit Over Faulty Ignition Switches

GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "Witherspoon" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri
GENERAL MOTORS: Suit Blames Law Dep't for Ignition Switch Problem
GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Grunblatt" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
HOME DEPOT: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Energy Star Mark
HOMELAND PATROL: Sued for Not Paying Class Members Overtime Wages

IMPERVA INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action in California
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
JACK IN THE BOX: Judge Tosses OT, Minimum Wage Class Action
JAGUEY BAKERY: Removed "Estopinan" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
KEURIG GREEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Product Marketing

KOP KILT: Sued Over Unlawful Pay Practices Pursuant to FLSA
LANSAL INC: Recalls Walnuts for Possible Listeria Contamination
LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Bien" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Seeks Preliminary Approval for $31MM Settlement

MORGAN'S FOODS: Removed "Elortegui" Shareholder Suit to N.D. Ohio
NIELSEN COMPANY: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.2 Million
NOVARTIS AG: "Winkelman" Suit Transferred to N.J. District Court
OAKHURST DAIRY: Faces "O'Connor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Pay
PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Court Revives $10.1BB Consumer-Fraud Case

PL PHASE ONE: Accused of Failure to Pay Wages Pursuant to FLSA
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Faces Class Action Over "Memory" Drug
RAMQ: Faces Class Action Over Extra Medical Fees
SAFEWAY: Being Sold to Albertson's for Too Little, Suit Claims
SERVICELINK: Faces Class Action Over Unjust Enrichment

SIMPLY FASHION: "Simms" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
SOUTHEASTERN SHUTTLE: Sued for Failing to Pay Lawful Wages
STATE FARM: Fixes Rate for Auto Repair, Suit Says
STORM SOLUTIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Actos Suit

TJX COMPANIES: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premium
TOYO TIRE: Faces Class Action for Conspiring to Fix Prices
TRAVIS COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Wiretapping
TRC INC: Faces "Trent" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TRU COLORS: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Mislabeled Teas Suit Wins Class Status
VIROPHARMA INC: Court Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed
WARNER MUSIC: Judge Allows Ex-Interns to Form Class in FLSA Suit
WORTHINGTON MILITARY: Removed Class Suit to Alaska District Court
XI'AN FAMOUS: Class Did Not Receive Overtime Pay, Suit Claims

* Farmers Insurance Files Class Actions v. Chicago Communities


                            *********


AMERICAN SHUTTLE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro L. Martin, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective
action, v. American Shuttle Inc., d/b/a Super Shuttle Miami, Case
No. 1:14-cv-21604 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.

American Shuttle Inc., is a domestic corporation located at 2595
NW 38 St., Suite 200. It provides non-taxi metered shuttle
transportation services to and from Miami International Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Lloyd Feldman
      FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
      501 North Reo Street
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Faulty MacBook Logic Boards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Legal reports that Uriel Marcus of San Jose California
and Benedict Verceles of Houston Texas, by and through their
attorneys, bring a Class Action lawsuit against Apple over faulty
MacBook (Pro and Air) logic boards that continue to be sold until
this day.  According to the complaint, Apple's "cover-up" shows
that they "had knowledge of the defect, yet willfully and
intentionally decided to hide the defect, resulting in continuing
damage to the Class."  It was interesting to discover that the law
firm that's behind this latest Class Action lawsuit was also the
one behind a 2012 Class Action against Apple on the very same
subject matter.

This Class Action Covers Ten Areas of Law

1. Violations of California Business and Professions Code

2. Violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil
Code

3. Violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

4. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

5. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

6. Violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

7. Fraud under Texas Common Law

8. Violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

9. Money Had and Received

10. Unjust Enrichment

The Plaintiffs' Allegations

Plaintiffs are purchasers of Apple laptops including the MacBook
Pro, MacBook, and MacBook Air that were sold with defective logic
boards.

Plaintiffs purchased the subject computers and used the logic
boards, believing them to be suited for the purpose for which they
were intended: operating the computer.

Since purchasing these computers, Plaintiffs have had to replace
their logic boards, because, when used as instructed and intended,
their logic boards failed.  Plaintiffs and Class members have also
lost the monetary value of their computers, such that the laptops
are worth significantly less because they contain the defective
logic board as original equipment.

Plaintiffs learned that far from being the only one experiencing
such problems with the logic boards, there were thousands of other
similar customer complaints on Apple's website.

In fact, Plaintiffs' experiences with the logic boards are typical
of thousands of other Apple purchasers who have registered their
complaints with Apple, and have documented their problems with the
logic boards on various website forums dedicated to Apple
products, including Apple's own website.  The similarity of the
user complaints about the logic board further evidences the
uniformity of the product defects alleged herein.

Plaintiffs have suffered injury in fact and loss of money or
property, and they have been damaged in the amount they paid for
the defective replacement logic boards they had to purchase to use
their laptop computers.  Plaintiffs have also been damaged by the
loss of value due to the fact that Apple sold their laptops with
improperly designed components.  Moreover, if no adequate and
functional replacement logic board exists, Plaintiffs have
suffered damages in the amount of the full price they paid for
their laptop computers.

In the specific case of Plaintiff Benjamin Verceles, the complaint
states that he "purchased a MacBook Pro, which came with the
defective logic board, in July 2011.  Less than one month later,
Mr. Verceles's laptop ceased to function.  Plaintiff took his
laptop to the Apple Store where the Apple representative said that
the cause was a defective logic board.  Since his computer was
under warranty, the logic board was repaired free of charge.  Less
than two years later, the new replacement logic board also failed.
After taking the computer to the Apple, Plaintiff was informed
that the replacement logic board was defective and that Apple
would not pay for the repair.  Plaintiff was charged $310.00 plus
tax of $25.58, for a total of $335.58 for the repair."

In the specific case of Uriel Marcus, it's acknowledged that he
didn't purchase an extended warranty and the problem occurred
after 18 months from purchase.

Various Other Notes from the Class Action

In section five of this Class Action the complaint states that
"From December 2010 through July 2012, more than 356 'customer
reviews' of the laptop failures have been posted to the Apple
Online Store.  The web page listing 'MacBook Pro Logic Board
Failure' has been viewed more than 140,000 times.  The vast
majority of the reviews are extremely negative, notifying Apple
again and again about its defective logic boards.  They go on to
list Apple customers complaining about this issue on various
online forums.

The complaint also added this negative twist: "To ensure that the
logic board would be fit for the ordinary or particular purposes
for which the computer was intended, Apple should have adequately
tested the logic boards prior to releasing them for commercial
sale.  Had Apple exercised reasonable care in testing its logic
board, it would have discovered that the logic board is improperly
designed and causes premature failure of the computer.

Apple also outsources its manufacturing to Chinese subcontractors
and Chinese plants that have been criticized for worker suicides,
excruciating working hours, and employing child labor.  Reports
have also surfaced that the plant managers are expected to pay
bribes or 'cooperation money' to local Chinese Communist Party
Officials.

The leadership at Apple responsible for shifting manufacturing to
China in an effort to decrease supply chain costs includes current
Apple CEO Timothy Cook, who was Senior Vice President for
Worldwide Operations when the increased manufacturing in China
began."

As in most Class Actions, the Plaintiffs are seeking a minimum of
five million dollars from Apple if they're found guilty.

The Class Action lawsuit was filed in Texas Southern District
Court, Brownsville Office in Cameron County.  The case was
assigned to Judge Andrew S Hansen and referred to Magistrate Judge
Ronald G. Morgan.  This lawsuit was submitted by the Rosales Law
Firm located in Harlingen, Texas and signed by Omar Rosales
specifically on May 15, 2014.


APPLE INC: Attorneys Attempt to Derail Employment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Apple
attorneys attempted to derail an employment class action pending
in federal court on May 22, arguing the company's retail employees
aren't entitled to wages for time spent in security checks because
the checks aren't mandatory.

Apple dictates employees who bring bags or personal Apple
technology to work must submit to security screenings before
leaving the store.  But employees who choose not to bring such
items are not screened, Julie Dunne, cochairwoman of Littler
Mendelson's retail practice group, told U.S. District Judge
William Alsup.

"People are bringing laptops so they can watch movies on the bus
or during their breaks," Ms. Dunne said.  "They're bringing their
iPods so they can listen to music."

A potential class of thousands of Apple Inc. employees is seeking
compensation for time spent waiting in lines to have their bags
and personal Apple devices checked, as a theft-prevention measure,
after they clocked out.  If Judge Alsup finds those security
checks were required, as plaintiffs attorneys with New York's
McLaughlin & Stern claim, Apple could be on the hook to pay wages
for that time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judge Alsup seemed to relish playing devil's advocate during the
May 22 hearing.

First he questioned the plaintiffs' assertion that employees need
the items they bring to work.  "I got along for 60 years without a
cellphone," Judge Alsup said.  "Why is it so important that
someone has a cellphone?"

But later he asked Dunne: "Could someone argue that maybe it's not
so easy to leave those things behind, and it's a necessity of
life?"

Apple insists the screenings are optional.  "Because Apple does
not require any employee to bring a bag or personal Apple
technology to work, employees who report to work without bags or
personal technology are fully capable of performing their jobs,"
Ms. Dunne's team wrote in its motion for summary judgment.

McLaughlin & Stern partner Lee Shalov --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- argued on May 22 that
Ms. Dunne was skewing the law.  Apple employees are required to
submit to security screenings.  Whether they can avoid those
screenings by sacrificing and leaving important items at home is
immaterial, he told Judge Alsup, who is presiding over Frlekin v.
Apple, 13-3451.

"Now they want to add a whole new requirement to the mandatory
cases," Mr. Shalov said.  "And how do they do it? They engage in
some sleight of hand.  It's very clever."

If Judge Alsup sides with Apple, the results could be absurd,
Mr. Shalov said.  To illustrate the repercussions, he referenced a
pending Supreme Court case in which employees were not compensated
for time spent waiting to pass through metal detectors: Integrity
Staffing Solutions v. Busk.

"By Apple's reasoning, the security screenings in Busk would not
be compensable because employees can 'choose' not to wear clothes
to work, and, therefore, can avoid the company's metal detectors,"
he wrote in his team's brief.  "Similarly, employees can
theoretically 'choose' not to have hair and thereby avoid spending
time needed to don protective headware."  In March, Judge Alsup
denied plaintiffs' request to stay proceedings in this case until
Busk is decided.

Judge Alsup promised to rule on summary judgment within a week.
In their motion, Apple's attorneys also brought up the employment
history of the suit's four named plaintiffs.  Amanda Frlekin, who
resigned from Apple in 2013, was counseled for taking excessively
long breaks, which she lied about, and calling her manager a
"cunt," according to Apple attorneys.  Adam Kilker was fired in
2013 for engaging in a scheme where he bought merchandise with his
employee discount and returned it at another store for full price,
according to the motion.  Dean Pelle was fired in 2013 after
engaging in a heated confrontation with a customer, and admitted
he filed the suit as revenge, according to Apple attorneys. And
Apple staff gave Brandon Fisher the option to resign in 2012
instead of being fired for continued performance problems,
according to the motion.

Judge Alsup did not address the plaintiffs' employment history on
May 22.

Mr. Shalov declined to comment after the hearing.  Ms. Dunne
referred comment to Apple, and Apple did not immediately respond
to an emailed request for comment.


BAYSIDE SOLUTIONS: Removed "Ash" Class Suit to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ash, et al. v. Bayside Solutions,
Inc., Case No. RG14720701, was removed from the Alameda County
Superior Court of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02183-WHO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM P.C.
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5029
          E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net
                  josh@thiermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Epstein, Esq.
          ERIC M. EPSTEIN, APC
          1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-5366
          Facsimile: (310) 556-8021
          E-mail: emepstein@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Natalie Ann Pierce, Esq.
          Roxanna Iran, Esq.
          Kai-Ching Cha, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: npierce@littler.com
                  RIran@littler.com
                  kcha@littler.com


BLUCORA INC: Lied About Web Properties' Tie to Malware, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Parmelee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Blucora, Inc., a Delaware corporation, William J.
Ruckelshaus, and Eric M. Emans, Case No. 2:14-cv-00706-RSL (W.D.
Wash., May 12, 2014) is a securities class action brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Blucora securities between
November 5, 2013, and February 20, 2014, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, the Plaintiff contends.  Specifically, he says, the
Defendants failed to disclose that Blucora's main Web properties
were tied to malware, viruses and browser hijackers that attack
computers, and that Blucora's search volumes had been boosted due
to a rise in illicit search traffic.

Blucora is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices situated in Bellevue, Washington.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Blucora
operates Internet search, online tax preparation and e-commerce
businesses in the United States and internationally.  The
Company's search business, InfoSpace, provides search technology,
aggregated content, and search services to its distribution
partners and directly to consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Janissa A. Strabuk, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jstrabuk@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Elaine Chang, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: LGlancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  RProngay@glancylaw.com
                  EChang@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory Lewis Watts, Esq.
          Barry M. Kaplan, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI (WA)
          701 Fifth Ave, Suite 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 883-2500
          Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
          E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com
                  bkaplan@wsgr.com


BLUCORA INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2014, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class
action complaint against Blucora, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  The complaint, which
seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, was
filed on behalf of a class consisting of those persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Blucora securities
between November 5, 2013 and February 20, 2014, inclusive.  The
complaint alleges that Blucora issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's revenue prospects
during the Class Period.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Blucora securities
during the Class Period may move the Court no later than July 14,
2014 to serve as lead plaintiff if they meet certain legal
requirements.  Class members may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain absent class members in the lawsuit.  If you
wish to view the complaint, discuss the Blucora litigation, or
have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact Michael Burnett of Scott+Scott --
mburnett@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or
visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

Blucora operates internet search, online tax preparation and
e-commerce businesses in the United States and internationally.
The Company's search business, InfoSpace, provides search
technology, aggregated content, and search services to its
distribution partners and directly to consumers.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose material adverse facts concerning Blucora's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Blucora's main
web properties were tied to malware, viruses, and browser
hijackers that attack computers; (2) Blucora's search volumes had
been boosted due to a rise in illicit search traffic; (3) a
significant portion of Blucora's traffic was derived from malware,
illicit traffic, pirated content and/or click fraud, including,
involuntary clicks, artificial clicks, and illicit clicks; and (4)
that Blucora's relationship with Google was impaired and that
Google was unlikely to renew its contract on the same terms as its
prior agreement.

On February 18, 2014, Gotham City Research LLC published a
research report stating, among other things: (i) "+60% of
[Blucora]'s revenue will evaporate in coming quarters, as Google
realizes it is better off without [Blucora]"; (ii) "[a]t least 50%
of [Blucora]'s traffic is derived from malware, click fraud,
illicit traffic (e.g., child pornography), and otherwise suspect
traffic"; and (iii) Blucora "is likely to receive scrutiny from
Google, Inc. -- one of Blucora's major customers -- as well as
advertisers, and regulatory agencies."

On this information, Blucora stock prices declined $2.00 per
share, over 8%, to close at $21.70 per share on February 18, 2014,
on unusually heavy volume.  After the market closed on February
20, 2014, Blucora filed a Current Report on Form 8-K announcing
that Google had only partially renewed its Google Services
Agreement.  On this news, shares of Blucora declined $1.77 per
share, over 8%, to close at $19.80 per share on February 21, 2014,
on unusually heavy volume.  This resulted in significant losses to
class members.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


CARRIER CORPORATION: Accused of Defective Evaporator Coils
----------------------------------------------------------
Janet Young, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. Carrier Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00974 (N.D. Ohio May 5,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of law in
connection with designing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing,
selling, warranting, and servicing air conditioners containing
defective evaporator coils.

Carrier Corporation is a Delaware Corporation located in
Farmington, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER
      18th Floor, One West Fourth Street
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 345-8291
      Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
      E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

     Jonathan Shub, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS
     Ste. 1380, 1515 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Telephone: (215) 564-2300
     Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
     E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

           - and -

     Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
     GOLDMAN, SCARLATO & KARON
     Ste. 204, 700 West St. Clair Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Telephone: (216) 622-1851
     Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
     E-mail: karon@gsk-law.com


CLIFFS NATURAL: Has Misled Investors About Bloom Lake, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its
Division of Investment, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., Joseph
Carrabba, Laurie Brlas, Terry Paradie, and David B. Blake, Case
No. 1:14-cv-01031-PAG (N.D. Ohio, May 12, 2014) alleges that
throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misrepresented to
investors that Bloom Lake, a mine located in Quebec, Canada, was a
premium asset given its established rail and port infrastructure
and "fantastic" facilities.

The Defendants also repeatedly misled investors regarding the
sustainability of the Company's dividend, which Cliffs
dramatically increased by 123% on the first day of the Class
Period, the Plaintiff contends.

Headquartered in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Cliffs is an international
mining and natural resources company that derives substantially
all of its revenue from the production and sale of iron ore and
coal.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          CLIMACO WILCOX PECA TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
          E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com
                  sdsimp@climacolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Himmel, Esq.
          Michael T.G. Long, Esq.
          Jamie R. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Joseph A. Fischetti, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          65 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 597-2500
          Facsimile: (973) 597-2400
          E-mail: mhimmel@lowenstein.com
                  mlong@lowenstein.com
                  jgottlieb@lowenstein.com
                  jfischetti@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          James A. Harrod, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Catherine E. McCaw, Esq.
          Rebecca Boon, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554 1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  jim.harrod@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com
                  catherine.mccaw@blbglaw.com
                  Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com


COATESVILLE VETERANS: VA Settles Four Medical Malpractice Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mercury News' Kristina Scala and The Associated Press report
that four veterans died due to medical malpractice at the
Coatesville Veterans Affairs Medical Clinic, leading to more than
$1 million in settlements with the U.S Department of Veterans
Affairs, according to reports from The Center for Investigative
Reporting.

According to the report, the government agency paid nearly $1.4
million to four families in wrongful death cases following
treatment at the Coatesville facility.

Those malpractice cases include:

    * Failure to monitor a patient; filed on June 26, 2003 and
closed on Jan. 1, 2005 for $100,000.

    * The improper management of a psychiatric patient; filed on
Oct. 3, 2005, and closed on Feb. 2, 2008, for $495,578.

    * A wrongful diagnosis or misdiagnosis of a patient; filed on
April 16, 2010, and closed on Aug. 19, 2011, for $300,000.

    * Failure to monitor a patient; filed on April 23, 2010, and
closed on Dec. 1, 2011, for $500,000.

The lawsuits filed against the Coatesville facility are just four
out of a reported 1,000 wrongful death cases filed against
Veterans Affairs facilities nationwide and resulting in $200
million in settlements.

Congressman Patrick Meehan, D-7th District, issued a statement
responding to President Barack Obama's press conference Wednesday
regarding reports of misconduct at Veterans Affairs medical
facilities.

"The president spoke of accountability at his press conference
[Thurs]day but is showing none," Mr. Meehan said in the prepared
statement.  "The horrors that have been exposed at V.A. facilities
across the country are shameful, and addressing them requires less
talk and more decisive action."

Mr. Meehan is pushing for Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki
to be replaced.

"Secretary Shinseki has served his country bravely and honorably
for a long time," Mr. Meehan said.  "Yet given the scope of these
problems, and the debt of honor we owe to our veterans and wounded
warriors, it's time for new leadership at the Department of
Veterans Affairs.  President Obama should have told the secretary
that [Thurs]day."

With outrage mounting over practices at VA facilities, President
Obama declared on May 21 that allegations of misconduct at the
hospitals will not be tolerated, and he left open the possibility
that Shinseki, a disabled war veteran, could be held accountable.

"I will not stand for it -- not as commander-in-chief but also not
as an American," President Obama said following an Oval Office
meeting with the embattled Mr. Shinseki.

Congress moved to keep up the pressure on the administration, with
the House set for an evening vote on a measure that would give the
VA secretary more authority to fire or demote senior hospital
executives.  The White House said it supported the goal of seeking
greater accountability at the VA but had unspecified concerns
about the legislation.

The growing furor surrounding the Department of Veterans Affairs
centers on allegations of treatment delays and preventable deaths
at VA hospitals.  The department's inspector general's office says
26 facilities are being investigated nationwide, including a
Phoenix hospital facing allegations that 40 people died while
waiting for treatment and staff keeping a secret list of patients
in order to hide delays in care.

The allegations have raised fresh concerns about the
administration's management of a department that has been
struggling to keep up with the influx of new veterans returning
home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  President Obama's
comments on May 21 -- his first on the matter in more than two
weeks -- signaled a greater urgency by the White House to keep the
matter from spiraling into a deeper political problem in a midterm
election year.

"We are going to fix whatever is wrong, and so long as I have the
privilege of serving as commander-in-chief, I'm going to keep on
fighting to deliver the care and the benefits and the
opportunities that you and your families deserve, now and for
decades to come," President Obama said.

The president's remarks did little to quell the criticism of both
the VA troubles and his own handling of the matter.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war,
said President Obama's comments were "wholly insufficient in
addressing the fundamental, systemic problems plaguing our
veterans' health care system."  And the American Legion, the
nation's largest veterans service organization, said President
Obama was making an "unfortunate" decision by keeping Shinseki at
the helm of the VA.

"Words are nice, and even somewhat comforting, but when will the
VA's house be cleansed of those who are soiling it and dishonoring
the system?" American Legion National Commander Daniel M.
Dellinger said in a statement.

Several GOP lawmakers also are seeking Mr. Shinseki's resignation,
as are Georgia Reps. John Barrow and David Scott, who on May 21
became the first Democrats to call for the secretary to step down.
Mr. Barrow is facing one of the most challenging re-election
fights of any House Democrat.

Mr. Shinseki, a retired Army four-star general, did not appear
with the president publicly Wednesday.  While President Obama
spoke of the secretary warmly, saying he had put his "heart and
soul" into improving care for the nation's veterans, he added that
there would be "accountability throughout the system" if the
allegations are proven true.

The White House's more immediate concern appears to be quickly
getting the results of the VA's internal reviews of the hospital
troubles.  Mr. Shinseki is due to give President Obama a
preliminary report next week, with a broader review being overseen
by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors scheduled to wrap
up in June.

Nabors, who also took part in the Oval Office meeting with
Mr. Shinseki, headed to Phoenix on May 21 to meet with staff at
the VA hospital that is at the center of the allegations.

The current director of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, Sharon
Helman, has been placed on leave while the VA's inspector general
investigates the claims raised by several former VA employees.
Investigators probing the claims say they have so far not linked
any patient deaths in Phoenix to delayed care.  A report is due in
August.

Last year, Ms. Helman was awarded a $9,345 bonus in addition to
her $169,000 annual salary.  Mr. Shinseki rescinded the bonus on
Wednesday, the VA said.  A spokesman said the bonus had been
awarded through an administrative error.

On Capitol Hill, House lawmakers were taking up a bill that would
give the VA secretary more power to discipline the 450 career
employees who serve as hospital directors or executives in the
agency's 21 regions.

Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Veterans Affairs
Committee, sponsored the measure, saying VA officials who have
presided over mismanagement or negligence are more likely to
receive bonuses or glowing performance reviews than any sort of
punishment.

The VA's "widespread and systemic lack of accountability is
exacerbating all of its most pressing problems," Mr. Miller said.

Meanwhile, two Republican senators introduced legislation to
prohibit payment of bonuses to employees at the Veterans Health
Administration through next year.  Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina and Deb Fischer of Nebraska said the VA should focus its
spending on fixing problems at the agency, "not rewarding
employees entrenched in a failing bureaucracy."  Mr. Burr is the
senior Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and
Fischer is on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Both have
called for Mr. Shinseki to step down.

The House passed a bill in February that would eliminate
performance bonuses for the department's senior executive staff
through 2018.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Account Managers Seek Payment of OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Ambrosia, Jane Lacap, Keith Swick, Bill Chan,Cosmin Banu,
Shahid Rahmatullah, Dana Rogers, Tony Trinh, Christian Halloran,
Novelett Witt, Art Baimkin, Angelito Muyot Jr., Jason Ruis, Keshav
Lilburn Kamath Peet Sapsin, and Alicia Erby v. Cogent
Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02182-EDL (N.D. Cal.,
May 12, 2014) alleges that Cogent failed to pay the Plaintiffs,
who were employed as account managers for the Defendant, overtime
as required by federal and California law.

Cogent is a Delaware corporation with domestic and international
offices, including an office in Houston, Texas, and an office in
Washington, D.C.  Cogent is an Internet and network service
provider offering Internet access, data transport, and collocation
services through their Internet data centers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas E. Duckworth, Esq.
          Monique Olivier , Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
          E-mail: tom@dplolaw.com
                  monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Todd Slobin, Esq.
          Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
          Sidd Rao, Esq.
          Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993


CONN'S INC: Sued Over Violation of Securities and Exchange Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laborers Pension Trust Fund - Detriot and Vacinity, et al,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Conn's, Inc., et al, Case No. 4:14-cv-01229 (S.D. Tex. May 5,
2014), is a class action brought against the Defendants alleging
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5.

Conn's, Inc., is located at 4055 Technology Forest Boulevard,
Suite 210, The Woodlands, Texas 77381. The Company is a specialty
retailer that offers consumer goods and related services, in
addition to propriety credit and financing services to its
consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas Robert Ajamie, Esq.
     AJAMIE LLP
     711 Louisiana St., Ste 2150
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 860-1600
     Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
     E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Latonya Lee, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiff
similarly situated, known and unknown, v. The Children's Place
Retail Stores, Inc., d/b/a The Children's Place, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03258 (N.D. Ill. May 05, 2014) is brought against the Defendant
for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201,
et seq., the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 251 et seq.,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS Section 105/1 et seq., and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS Section
115/1, et seq.

The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., d/b/a The Children's
Place, provides retail clothing services in the Chicagoland area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


CSK AUTO: Faces "Saye" Suit Over Background Check Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raphael Saye, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, v. CSK Auto, Inc. d/b/a
O'Really Auto Parts, an Arizona Corporation, et al, Case No. 2:14-
cv-03470 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for the alleged failure to provide proper "pre-
authorization" disclosure and failure to provide proper "adverse
action" disclosures prior to acquisition and use of consumer
and/or investigative consumer reports to conduct background checks
on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former
employees.

CSK Auto, Inc., d/b/a O'Really Auto Parts, is an Arizona
corporation headquartered in Springfield, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexandria Marie Witte, Esq.
      Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
      Melissa Grant, Esq.
      Raul Perez, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: alexandria.witte@capstonelawyers.com
              arnab.banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
              melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
              raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com

           - and -

      Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
      ASAF LAW
      8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (424) 254-8870
      Facsimile: (888) 254-2651
      E-mail: asaf@lawasaf.com

           - and -

      Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: MGreenstone@glancylaw.com


DYNOTEX INC: Faces "Tan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shuping Tan, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, v. Dynotex, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-02813
(E.D.N.Y. May 5, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and requidated damges, declaratory relief, cost and
interest and attorney's fees pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
sections 201 et seq.

Dynotex, Inc., is a New York Corporation located at 236 Greenpoint
Ave., Bldg. 6, 2F1., Brooklyn, New York, 11222.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


EBAY INC: Attorney General to Investigate Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Law Tribune reports that two of the state's top
lawyers are urging Connecticut consumers who use eBay to change
their passwords as soon as possible in light of a cyberattack on
the online market place.

Attorney General George Jepsen and state Department of Consumer
Protection Commissioner William Rubenstein said that eBay
announced on May 21 that the cyberattack had compromised a
database of encrypted passwords and other non-financial data.
There are about 660,000 active eBay users in Connecticut, the
company says, though it is not clear how many may be impacted by
the breach.  The online company will send emails to all their
users, and customers will be prompted to change their password
upon signing into their eBay account.

"My office will be looking into the circumstances surrounding this
breach as well as the steps eBay is taking to prevent any future
incidents," said Mr. Jepsen.  "However, the most important step
for consumers to take right now is to change their password and to
choose a strong, unique password that is not easily guessed."

It's likely that Mr. Jepsen's office won't be the only one looking
into the eBay breach.  Several technology-oriented websites are
reporting that while eBay's data breach reportedly started three
months ago, the company detected it only two weeks ago, and didn't
inform the public until May 21.

The eBay breach has exposed customer names, email addresses,
physical addresses, phone numbers, and birthdays -- all of which
had not been encrypted.  Financial information, which had been
encrypted on PayPal, was apparently not affected.

The attack on eBay affected 233 million accounts.  That makes it
much larger than the attack on Target last December, which
resulted in the theft from the retailer of approximately 40
million credit card records and 110 million personal data records
Rubenstein said that anyone "who had been using their eBay
password for other internet or email accounts should immediately
assign different passwords for those accounts to protect them from
being accessed through this breach.  While it's not recommended,
many people use the same password over and over.  Recent massive
data breaches underline the importance of personal password
management -- keep your passwords unique for each account."

The Attorney General's Office and Department of Consumer
Protection recommend that all consumers regularly change passwords
and PIN numbers, whenever possible, to help protect personal and
financial information.  They also advise consumers to beware so-
called "phishing" scam emails in the wake of the breach and avoid
clicking on links or opening attachments on any unsolicited
emails.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Fitzsimmons, head of the
Attorney General's Privacy Task Force, is assisting Mr. Jepsen
with this matter.


EBAY INC: Sold Skype for Too Little, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that foregoing an initial public
offering, eBay sold Skype and its affiliates at an unfair price,
and the new owner then flipped the companies for $8.5 billion,
three times what it paid, a shareholder claims in Santa Clara
County Superior Court


EXTENDED STAY: Faces Calif. Class Action Over Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff
Yahaira Camacho has filed a class action lawsuit against ESA
Management LLC, the operator of Extended Stay America Hotels,
alleging the company obtained consumer reports on job applicants
without their authorization, in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

ESA Management, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., operates an
estimated 684 Extended Stay America hotels throughout the United
States.  According to the FCRA class action lawsuit, Ms. Camacho
applied for a job at a California Extended Stay America hotel in
July 2013.

Ms. Camacho alleges that ESA Management did not provide her with a
written disclosure stating that her consumer report may be
obtained for employment purposes and that the company did not ask
her to authorize the company to obtain the report.  "At each of
its hotels, ESA Management obtains consumer reports for employment
purposes without a valid disclosure and a valid, signed
authorization as part of the application process," the class
action lawsuit says.

According to the FCRA class action lawsuit, ESA Management
obtained background reports, which included results from a sex
offender registry search and a criminal records search, for job
applicants without first obtaining their written authorization to
do so.  Ms. Camacho alleges that ESA Management background check
policy violates the FCRA, which requires companies to provide
clear disclosures and obtain written authorization before
obtaining consumer reports.

The job application reportedly included the following disclosure:
"I authorize the investigation of all statements contained in this
application and release from all liability any persons or
employers supplying such information, and I also release Extended
Stay Hotels from any liability that might result from making this
investigation."

Ms. Camacho's class action lawsuit argues that this statement
fails to comply with the FCRA for four reasons.  First, it does
not inform job applicants that a consumer report will be obtained.
Second, it does not seek written authorization from the job
applicant to obtain the consumer report.  Third, the statement is
included on the same page as numerous other statements instead of
on a separate page that consists only of the disclosure and
authorization that is required under the FCRA.  Finally, the
statement includes language that releases the defendant from
liability.

By filing the background check class action lawsuit, Ms. Camacho
seeks to represent all individuals who applied for work with an
Extended Stay America hotel in the United States, and for whom a
consumer report was obtained as part of the employment application
process in the last five years.

The class action lawsuit indicates that Class Members are entitled
to recover statutory damages of "not less than $100 and not more
than $1,000" pursuant to the terms of the FCRA.

Ms. Camacho is represented by Timothy D. Cohelan --
tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- Isam C. Khoury -- ikhoury@ckslaw.com --
Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- and Kimberly D. Neilson
-- kneilson@ckslaw.com -- of Cohelan Khoury & Singer, and Sahag
Majarian II of Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II.

The Extended Stay Hotels FCRA Class Action Lawsuit is Yahaira
Camacho, et al. v. ESA Management LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
01089, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


FAMILY TREE: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Family Tree DNA after
customers claimed their privacy was violated.  Customers claimed
their genetic test results were posted on public websites in
violation of state law.

Family Tree sold DNA testing kits to consumers, who, after using
the kits, returned them to Family Tree for the company to perform
an analysis, according to a complaint filed May 13 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska.

Michael Cole claims after Family Tree analyzes the DNA sample,
customers can visit a website to conduct ancestry research based
on the test results.  Mr. Cole claims unbeknownst to and without
the consent of its customers, Family Tree also published the
results of the genetic tests on its publicly available websites.

Family Tree's practice of releasing information about its
consumers' genetic makeup without their permission, carries
serious and irreversible privacy risks and violates Alaska's
Genetic Privacy Act, according to the suit.  Mr. Cole claims he
bought a DNA testing kit in 2013 in order to learn more about his
family history and only expected to receive the results for his
own use.

However, contrary to the requirements of Alaska's Genetic Privacy
Act, Family Tree allegedly published the results not just on its
own website but on a subsidiary of Ancestry.com, according to the
suit.  Mr. Cole claims there are several exceptions to this rule,
including determining paternity, but the class action lawsuit
alleges that Family Tree does not meet of those standards and as
such should require "informed and written consent."

Instead, the website allegedly asks whether or not a user wants to
join a project that will help them establish their family history,
according to the suit.  Mr. Cole claims in violation of Alaska's
Genetic Privacy Act, Family Tree allows users to access these
records of DNA testing without the consent of users.

Family Tree also allegedly provides the same information to at
least one other website, according to the suit, which Cole
contends he had no idea this would happen when he agreed to
purchase a Family Tree DNA testing kit.

Mr. Cole claims had he known that Family Tree would disclose his
full test results, he would not have purchased a DNA test from the
company or he would have only done so in exchange for a discount
from the price paid.

Mr. Cole is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,
or, if the court finds that Family Tree's violation of the Genetic
Privacy Act resulted in profit or monetary gain, $100,000.  He is
being represented by Douglas Mertz of Mertz Law and Jay Edelson,
Rafey S. Balabanian, Benjamin H. Richman, J. Dominick Larry and
David I. Mindell of Edelson PC.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Sharon L. Gleason.

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska case number: 1:14-
cv-00004


FIRST AMERICAN: Must Face Class Action Over Sub-Escrow Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bernheim Law Firm on May 16 disclosed that in the largest
class action trial judgment ever entered against a real estate
escrow company, a Los Angeles judge decided on May 12 that First
American Title Company unlawfully overcharged more than 70,000
persons for escrow related services.

Following a two month trial, Judge John J. Kralik ruled that class
members who paid First American more than $100 for sub-escrow
services were entitled to reimbursement, as were those who paid
First American a fee of more than $15 for a single wire transfer.
Judge Kralik also awarded class members interest and court costs.
Attorney Steven Jay Bernheim of Beverly Hills, who represented the
class along with Santa Monica attorney Taras Kick and other
counsel, estimates that the total amount of the judgment,
including interest and costs, will exceed $3 million when all
calculations are finalized.

The class members were persons who bought, sold or refinanced
California homes from June 15, 2003 to October 8, 2007.

First American fought the class action lawsuit, filed by homeowner
Patrick Kirk, for seven years before it went to trial, and made at
least six separate, unsuccessful attempts to convince the court to
dismiss the case.

During the two month trial, the court heard or read testimony from
33 witnesses and considered 300 exhibits.

First American Title Company, the defendant in the case, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of First American Title Insurance Company,
which is itself wholly owned by First American Financial, a
publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange (ticker
symbol FAF).  All First American companies are headquartered in
Orange County, California.

Attorney Bernheim commented: "I would not be surprised if, in
light of this verdict, many people decide not to do business with
First American in the future, given their track record revealed at
trial and in the judge's decision."

First American was represented at trial by attorneys Ronald Kent,
Joel Siegel, Michael Duvall, and Sonia Martin, all of the law firm
of Dentons US LLP.

The case is Kirk v. First American Title Company, Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC372797.

In a related matter, the California Department of Insurance has
filed an accusation against First American Title Company and its
parent charging that First American violated the law by failing
"to correctly charge" for title policies or services.  A public
hearing is scheduled for early next year.  The Department of
Insurance accusation states that if First American's alleged
violation of the law is found to be willful, this would constitute
grounds for the Insurance Commissioner to suspend or revoke, in
whole or in part, First American's license to do business in
California.

For further information or comment, please contact
Steven Jay Bernheim, Esq. at 818.995.8530 or 310.975.4728 (mobile)

For a response comment on behalf of First American Title Company,
please contact Ronald Kent, Joel Siegel, or Michael Duvall, all at
213.623.9300 or Sonia Martin at 415.882.5000


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Dinco" Suit Over Faulty Ignition Switches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Dinco, David Butler, Curtis Blinsmon, Aaron Henderson,
Grace Belford, Nathan Terry, Michael Pesce, Rhonda Haskins,
Jennifer Gearin, Arlene Revak, George Mathis, Mary Dias, Sheree
Anderson, Michael Amezquita, Lorraine De Vargas, Dawn Tefft,
Bonnie Taylor, Jerrile Gordon, Keisha Hunter and Les Rouse,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03638 (C.D. Cal., May 12,
2014) arises from GM's alleged breach of its obligations and
duties, including:

     (i) its concealment of, and failure to disclose that, as a
         result of defective ignition switches, at least 2.19
         million Defective Vehicles have the propensity to shut
         down during normal driving conditions and create an
         extreme and unreasonable risk of accident, serious
         bodily harm, and death;

    (ii) its failure to disclose the defects despite the
         Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and
         Documentation Act obligations it assumed under the
         Purchase Agreement, through which GM acquired virtually
         all of the assets and certain liabilities of Old GM; and

   (iii) its continued sales of Defective Vehicles after the date
         of the 2009 Sale Order.

General Motors LLC is a foreign limited liability company formed
under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM was incorporated in 2009 and on
July 5, 2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed
certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation through a
Section 363 sale under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Andrew M. Volk, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  andrew@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Rachel E. Freeman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
                  michellak@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin F. Calcagnie, Esq.
          Scot D. Wilson, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com

               - and -

          Jon C. Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 587-5065
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: JonC@cuneolaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "Witherspoon" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Witherspoon v. General
Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 1416-CV08092, was removed from the
16th Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, at Independence,
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri.  The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:14-cv-00425-HFS to the proceeding.

The action involves claims related to the design, manufacture,
supply, and subsequent recall of allegedly "defective ignition
systems" in vehicles manufactured by General Motors Corporation
before it filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code on June 1, 2009.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that these ignition systems "could fail under
normal operating conditions causing the vehicle to shut off [and]
lose power, disabling many vehicle systems including power
steering, the braking system and the airbag deployment system."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Todd E. Hilton, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  hilton@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5620
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert J. Hoffman, Esq.
          Matthew N. Sparks, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          1200 Main Street, Suite 3800
          Kansas City, MO 64105-2122
          Telephone: (816) 374-3200
          Facsimile: (816) 374-3300
          E-mail: rjhoffman@bryancave.com
                  matt.sparks@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq.
          Robert B. Ellis, Esq.
          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: rgodfrey@kirkland.com
                  abloomer@kirkland.com
                  rellis@kirkland.com
                  leonid.feller@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Suit Blames Law Dep't for Ignition Switch Problem
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that it is
"inconceivable" the general counsel's office of General Motors Co.
didn't know about the fatal ignition-switch problems when the
company entered bankruptcy in 2009, according to a new court
filing.

The filing challenges previous GM statements that chief executive
Mary Barra and general counsel Michael Millikin learned of the
defective switches only in January of this year, while low-level
employees knew a decade ago.  GM declined comment on May 22, and
its attorney, Scott Davidson of King & Spalding, didn't return
messages.

Eight class action plaintiffs filed the amended complaint in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan on May 21, outlining the details of
a federal investigation into the automaker's conduct.  They
concluded: It is "inconceivable that individuals within GM's upper
management and general counsel's office did not know about the
ignition switch defect in GM vehicles, or the attendant contingent
liabilities, when GM entered bankruptcy in June 2009."

The latest action is part of dozens of suits filed in the court
seeking to hold GM liable for damages and penalties due to the
ongoing scandal involving faulty switches that resulted in
hundreds of injuries and at least 13 deaths.

GM has asked U.S. District Judge Robert Gerber to enforce its
immunity to suits under its bankruptcy protection.  The company
previously filed a motion seeking an injunction against the suits
and an order to enforce the court's 2009 sales order, which
created the so-called New GM that was free of liabilities from the
Old GM.

Noting that the suits do not claim injury, loss of life or
property damage due to the switch failures, GM argued, "This
motion to enforce involves only litigation in which the plaintiffs
seek economic losses against New GM relating to an Old GM vehicle
or part, including, for example, for the claimed diminution in the
vehicle's value, and for loss of use, alternative transportation,
child care or lost wages for time spent in seeking prior repairs."
But the plaintiffs argue there is more substance to their suit
than that.  They say GM violated their due process rights by not
informing them about the defect at the time of the bankruptcy;
that the company committed a fraud on the bankruptcy court because
it failed to disclose the defects and potential for liability; and
that it misled the U.S. government during negotiations over the
bankruptcy and its $50 billion taxpayer bailout by not disclosing
the defect.

The eight plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan Flaxer --
jflaxer@golenbock.com -- of Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe,
and Alexander Schmidt -- schmidt@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz.  Mr. Schmidt told CorpCounsel.com on May 22
that GM is ignoring the public health and safety aspects of the
suits.

"The thrust of the claims is under state consumer fraud and
protection statutes, which are designed to prevent corporations
from falsely advertising products," Mr. Schmidt said.  "The
statutes provide for penalties regardless of economic loss to
deter corporate behavior like this."

A second aspect is breach of warranty, he said.  "The cars didn't
have the value they were advertised to have, and people paid more
than they should have for a fatally defective car."

Mr. Schmidt said owners will have a hard time reselling these
cars.  "There is real economic diminution in value there," he
argued.

Meanwhile, in related news, a Texas attorney is seeking to depose
Mr. Millikin in a suit filed in that state.  But GM has asked the
Supreme Court of Texas to transfer all lawsuits against it to a
state multidistrict litigation panel.

Plaintiffs attorney Bob Hilliard opposes the move. He told the
Detroit News this week: "As soon as I ask for GM to make its
general counsel, Millikin, immediately available for deposition to
get to the bottom of this cover-up and to hopefully shed some
light on the issue of whether and for how long GM's legal
department delayed immediate and forthright disclosure of the
defect so as to buy more time to circle the wagons, GM delays the
litigation."

And, citing sources, Bloomberg News reported on May 21 that GM is
"overhauling its legal department" in the wake of the scandal.
The change includes assigning North America general counsel Lucy
Clark Dougherty to advise the newly appointed head of global
safety, Jeff Boyer, on legal issues, the article said.

"Transforming GM's legal culture won't be easy because in-house
lawyers have spent their careers battling to keep potentially
incriminating safety information out of the hands of trial
lawyers," according to the Bloomberg story.

In a statement, GM told Bloomberg that Mr. Millikin, who turns 66
in August, has no current plans to retire and will remain in his
position "at an important time for the company."


GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Grunblatt" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel Grunblatt, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-02985-CBA-JMA (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME DEPOT: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Energy Star Mark
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan and Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, report that the
Home Depot Inc. urged a New Jersey federal judge on May 16 to toss
a class action alleging some models of Whirlpool Corp. washing
machines were improperly marketed as Energy Star-qualified, saying
the claims were preempted because the federal government had
exclusive control of the energy-efficiency program.

The home improvement giant joined a motion to dismiss filed on
May 14 by co-defendants Lowe's Home Center, Sears Holdings Corp.,
Fry's Electronics Inc. and Whirlpool Corp., which said that a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report shows the government
is the exclusive administrator of the Energy Star program and that
it has a process to ensure energy efficiency.

"Such exclusive control enables the federal government to protect
the integrity of the Energy Star mark while balancing often
competing policy objectives of keeping the Energy Star program
inexpensive, predictable, efficient and uniform," Home Depot said
in its motion to dismiss.

Filed in January 2012, the suit claims that advertisement for
Whirlpool's Maytag Centennial washing machines promised lower
energy bills for consumers who bought the more expensive, Energy
Star-certified machines.  However, the plaintiffs contend their
energy bills actually increased since purchasing the machines in
2009.

"Class members were hit with a costly double-whammy: a higher up-
front price due to the substantial price premium that Energy Star
washing machines command in the marketplace, followed by higher
energy bills over the washing machine's useful life, since its
energy efficiency is substantially worse than what was promised,"
the complaint said.

Energy Star is a government-backed program aimed at promoting
energy-efficient products in order to reduce energy consumption
and improve energy security.

The Energy Star-qualified washing machines are required by the
U.S. Department of Energy to exceed minimum standards for energy
and water efficiency, with qualified machine models using about 37
percent less energy and 50 percent less water than standard
models, the complaint said.

In their May 14 motion, the co-defendant companies said that the
findings and assessments in the EPA's report show that the suit's
state law claims, which piggyback on the federal government's
decision to disqualify an appliance from the Energy Star program,
must be dismissed under the doctrines of implied conflict and
field preemption.

The companies say that the claims present "substantial" obstacles
to the government's goal of preserving and protecting the Energy
Star program and threaten the government's ability to ensure the
program meets its objectives.

"Indeed, claims like the ones asserted here ultimately threaten
the continued viability of the Energy Star program by disrupting
the program's uniformity and predictability," the companies said
in their brief.

One of the defendants' attorneys, Galen Bellamy of Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, told Law360 on May 16 that consumer class actions
over the Energy Star qualification have only just begun to pop up
in recent years, despite the program's decades-long tenure.

"The Energy Star program has been under the exclusive control of
the EPA and DOE for more than 20 years and has been very
successful," he said.  "These lawsuits undermine the core
objectives of the Energy Star program."

The plaintiffs are represented by James Cecchi of Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Antonio Vozzolo and Christopher
Marlborough of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, and Scott A. Bursor and Joseph
I. Marchese of Bursor & Fisher PA.

Whirlpool, Lowe's, Sears and Fry's are represented by David R.
Kott -- dkott@mccarter.com -- of McCarter & English LLP.

Home Depot is represented by Nicholas Stevens of Starr Gern
Davison & Rubin PC.

The case is Charlene Dzielak et al. v. Whirlpool Corp. et al.,
case number 2:12-cv-00089, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


HOMELAND PATROL: Sued for Not Paying Class Members Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Junior A. Pacheco and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Homeland Patrol Corporation, Augusto Cordero and
Mirtha E Cordero, Case No. 1:14-cv-21739-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 12,
2014) alleges that the Defendants willfully and intentionally
refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Homeland Patrol Corporation is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  The Individual Defendants
are corporate officers, owners or managers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IMPERVA INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP on May 16
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Imperva, Inc. publicly traded securities
between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014.  Imperva develops, markets,
sells, services, and supports data center security solutions that
protect high value applications and data assets in physical and
virtual data centers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations and business and its financial results.  The
complaint alleges that, as a result of defendants' false
statements, Imperva securities traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, with its stock price reaching a
high of $65.53 per share on March 6, 2014.  The complaint alleges
that certain of the Company's officers and directors were able to
sell $25.9 million worth of their Imperva stock at inflated
prices, including $11.8 million worth of stock sold by the Chief
Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer.

On April 9, 2014, Imperva reduced its first quarter revenue
guidance to $31.0M to $31.5M from its previous outlook of $34.0M
to $35.0M.  Prior to the Company's warning, analysts' consensus
revenue estimate was $36.5M to $37.0M.  Imperva stated that the
lowered revenue guidance was impacted primarily by extended sales
cycles on deals over $100,000.  As a result of this news,
Imperva's stock plummeted $21.73 per share to close at $28 per
share on April 10, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 44% on volume
of 10.9 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Imperva publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 10, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action,
have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or
interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker --
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at 619-230-0063 Ext.118.  More
information concerning this action is also available at
www.johnsonandweaver.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholders' rights law firm with offices
in New York, New York and San Diego, California.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 16 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of INSYS
Therapeutics, Inc. securities between May 1, 2013 and May 8, 2014,
seeking to recover damages for violations of the federal
securities laws.

To join the INSYS class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the Complaint, the Company failed to disclose and/or
materially misstated its true financial and business condition
because: (i) the Company engaged in illegal and/or unethical off
label marketing of Subsys(R); (ii) the Company was exposed to
potential fines and other disciplinary actions as a result of its
Subsys marketing practices; and, (iii) as a result, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On December 12, 2013, after the market closed, the company
announced that, "it has received a subpoena from the Office of
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services
("HHS") in connection with an investigation of potential
violations involving HHS programs.  The subpoena requests
documents regarding Subsys, including INSYS' sales and marketing
practices relating to this product."  This caused the Company's
shares to fall $7.73 per share, or over 17%.

On May 8, 2014, a news source published an article detailing
charges against a Michigan doctor who allegedly accounted for 20%
of total nationwide Subsys prescriptions.  The doctor was charged
by federal prosecutors with defrauding Medicare, private insurers,
and prescribing unnecessary medications to patients.  This caused
the Company's shares to fall $6.64 per share, or over 16%.

On May 11, 2014, analyst firm, Bronte Capital, published a report
further highlighting the claims against the Michigan doctor, and
the problems attendant to INSYS' marketing of Subsys, including
allegedly illegal off-label marketing.  This caused INSYS shares
to fall $5.04 per share, or 15%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 14, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


JACK IN THE BOX: Judge Tosses OT, Minimum Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that restaurant
chain Jack In The Box Inc. is off the hook from a putative class
action in Oregon seeking minimum wage and overtime pay, after a
district judge on May 15 sided with the company's argument that
named plaintiffs failed to properly file consent for their Fair
Labor Standards Act claims.

Granting Jack In The Box's motion for summary judgment, Judge Anna
J. Brown tossed the four-year-old suit without prejudice because
the named plaintiffs failed to file written consent forms, as
required by the FLSA, within three years of their terminations,
which would have given the court jurisdiction over their federal
claims, according to the order.

"[O]n this record, the court concludes plaintiffs failed to file
the required written consents with the court within the
limitations period, and, therefore, their FLSA collective action
was not commenced within the limitations period.  Accordingly,
unless equitable tolling or estoppel applies, plaintiffs' FLSA
action is time-barred," Judge Brown said, before also knocking
down the plaintiffs' attempts to argue that equitable tolling or
estoppel apply.

The suit was originally lodged by three former employees, with a
fourth coming on board during the filing of an amended complaint.
Throughout the various amended complaints, the former employees
contended that Jack In The Box failed to pay minimum wage and
overtime in violation of both the FLSA and Oregon law, made
unauthorized deductions from employee paychecks and failed to pay
all wages due upon the plaintiffs' terminations.  Additionally,
the former employees said the company did not issue wages when due
as required by Oregon law.

With Jack In The Box's counsel only having brought up its consent
form argument after the statutory period ran out on the newest
named plaintiff on March 31, the plaintiffs alleged that the
restaurant chain attempted to "run out the clock" and that the
court should let the case move forward anyway.  But the court
tossed this argument due to Jack In The Box's early use of a
statute of limitations argument and the case's long record.

"The record, however, reflects plaintiffs' decision to engage in
extensive pre-certification discovery and in a class-certification
process involving two theories under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and the FLSA collective action itself extended the
litigation during this same time.  The court does not find any
evidence that defendant deliberately delayed these proceedings for
this purpose at any stage," Judge Brown said.

The plaintiffs had also argued that they were not required to fill
out written consents for claims brought as an individual and that
they gave Jack In The Box constructive notice of their claims.
"Plaintiffs assert . . . [they] filed this case in a dual capacity
as individuals and as a collection action," according to the
order.

But Judge Brown dismissed the individual claims argument as all
claims had been argued on the part of a proposed class.  Further,
the judge said that constructive notice argument stood on shaky
ground.

"It is questionable whether plaintiffs' signed authorizations for
the release of their personnel records in connection with state-
law wage claims are sufficient to constitute the required written
consents to become a party to an FLSA collective action because
there is not any indication in those documents of any FLSA claims
. . . Moreover, even if plaintiffs' authorizations for defendant
to release their personnel records were construed as written
consents under the FLSA, plaintiffs did not file the
authorizations with the court until May 31, 2013," Judge Brown
noted.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jon M. Egan of Jon M. Egan PC.

Jack In The Box is represented by Douglas S. Parker --
dparker@littler.com -- Jennifer Neth Warberg and Don Stait --
dstait@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case  is Jessica Gessele, et al. v. Jack In the Box Inc, case
number 3:10-CV-00960-BR, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon.


JAGUEY BAKERY: Removed "Estopinan" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Estopinan v. Jaguey
Bakery, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-010372 CA 01, was removed from
the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-21734-JLK to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff's overtime in accordance with the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail address: agp@rgpattornevs.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carmen Rodriguez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
          15715 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 411
          Miami, FL 33157-1884
          Telephone: (305) 254-6101
          Facsimile: (305) 254-6048
          E-mail address: crlaborlaw@gmail.com


KEURIG GREEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Product Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorie Rehma, et al., on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01131 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2014), is accused that
the Defendants monopolized the market for the sale of single-serve
brewers, as well as the market for the sale of single servings or
"portion packs" of coffees or other beverages that are used in
those brewers.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Waterbury, Vermont.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ
      750 B Street, Symphony Towers Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101-5050
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: rickert@whafh.com


KOP KILT: Sued Over Unlawful Pay Practices Pursuant to FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Graudins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. KOP KILT, LLC d/b/a The Titled Kilt Pub, et al, Case
No. 2:14-cv-02589 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2014), seeks to put an end to
the alleged unlawful pay practices, violating the Fair Labor
Standarda Act, 43 P.S. Section 333.101, et seq., the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collective Law, 43 P.S. Section 260.1, et seq.,
and Pennsylvania common law.

KOP KILT, LLC, is a limited liability company that operates a
restaurant under the trade name The Tilted Kilt located at 401 S.
Schuylkill Avenue, Norristown, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


LANSAL INC: Recalls Walnuts for Possible Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shellie Nelson, writing for WQAD, reports that hummus and dip
products sold at Target and other stores, as well as walnuts sold
to retailers in Illinois and Missouri, are the subject of two new
recalls associated with possible Listeria contamination.

More than 14,000 pounds of hummus and dip products are being
voluntarily recalled by Lansal Inc.  The recalled products are
certain items sold under the Archer Farms, Giant Eagle, Trader
Joe's and Tryst brand names.  The recall was declared after
routine testing of the products by the Texas Department of Health.
The recalled Archer Farms products were sold nationwide and had
use-by dates in early June 2014.  The recalled Trader Joe's
products were sold in 17 states, including Iowa and Illinois, and
had use-by dates in April and May 2014.

The recall is "due to concerns about possible Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women," according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Sherman Produce is also recalling some bulk and packaged walnuts
sold to retailers in Missouri and Illinois, also as a
precautionary measure against possible Listeria monocytogenes.  An
FDA sampling detected Listeria monocytogenes in walnuts at the
facility.

Both manufacturers said no illnesses have been reported in
connection with either recall.

Consumers who bought the recalled products were advised to throw
them out or return them for a full refund.  The products should
not be eaten.

The Lansal consumer question line is 877-550-0694.  Sherman
Produce can be reached for questions at 314-231-2896.


LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Bien" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn E. Bien, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LifeLock, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00416-SRB (D.
Ariz., March 3, 2014), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violation of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

LifeLock, Inc., is a Delaware corporation located at 60 East Rio
Salado Parkway, Suite 400, Tempe, Arizona 85281.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 3rd Ave., 20th Fl.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

           - and -

      Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC
      1850 N Central Ave., Ste. 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Telephone: (602) 240-6900
      Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
      E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com

           - and -

      Patrick V Dahlstrom
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 S LaSalle St., Ste. 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Boris Feldman, Esq.
      Brian Danitz, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI LLP
      650 Page Mill Rd.
      Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
      Telephone: (650) 858-4444
      Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
      E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
              bdanitz@wsgr.com

           - and -

      Cynthia Ann Ricketts, Esq.
      SACKS RICKETTS & CASE LLP
      2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 1230


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Kroenig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., a Maryland
Corporation, et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-03471 (C.D. Cal. May 5,
2014), is a class action brought against the Defendants for
violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by failing to
provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure and failing to provide
a disclosure that appears in a document that consists solely of
the disclosure.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland Corporation located
at 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 150N, Sacramento, California
95833. It owns and operates a variety of healthcare facilities and
provides medical, homecare, non-medical and staffing services in
health care throughout the State of California and maintains
hundreds of health care facilities nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb L. H. Marker, Esq.
      Christopher P Ridout, Esq.
      Hannah Belknap, Esq.
      RIDOUT LYON AND OTTOSON LLP
      555 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-7380
      Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
      E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com
              c.ridout@rlollp.com
              h.belknap@rlollp.com

           - and -

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
      Sean M Blakely, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC
      249 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
              npoper@mahoney-law.net
              sblakely@mahoney-law.net


MIDLAND NATIONAL: Seeks Preliminary Approval for $31MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that the lead plaintiffs
in a class action alleging Midland National Life Insurance Co.
deceived buyers of some of its annuity products asked a California
federal judge on May 15 for preliminary approval of a settlement
worth an estimated $31 million.  Midland denies any wrongdoing as
part of the deal, and contended that its annuity products are
legal as sold, according to the settlement proposal.


MORGAN'S FOODS: Removed "Elortegui" Shareholder Suit to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Elortegui v. Morgan's
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-14-825389, was removed from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01034 to the proceeding.

On April 15, 2014, Enrique Elortegui commenced the action on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public
shareholders of Morgan's Foods, Inc.  The Plaintiff, as a
shareholder of Morgan's Foods simultaneously initiated a
shareholder derivative suit.

On March 30, 2014, Morgan's Foods entered into a merger agreement
with Defendants Apex Restaurant Management, Inc. and Apex Brands
Foods, Inc., whereby Apex agreed to acquire all of the outstanding
common shares of Morgan's Foods for a price of $5 per share.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
          The Hoyt-Block Building, Suite 400
          700 West St. Clair Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          E-mail: jbr@crklaw.com
                  jcohen@crklaw.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
          Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 1019
          E-mail: kbronson@milberg.com
                  jsleater@milberg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Q. Lewis, Esq.
          Harry D. Cornett, Jr., Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: john.lewis@tuckerellis.com
                  harry.cornett@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Edmund W. Searby, Esq.
          David A. Carney, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          PNC Center
          1900 East 9th Street, Suite 3200
          Cleveland, OH 44114-3482
          Telephone: (216) 621-0200
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: esearby@bakerlaw.com
                  dcarney@bakerlaw.com


NIELSEN COMPANY: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.2 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
name synonymous with the entertainment industry and a mainstay in
the field of research and audience preference may have dropped the
ball when it came to determining its own employees' preferences
and tolerance for denial of overtime, meal breaks and rest
periods.  To that end, a California overtime law punitive class
action was recently settled to the tune of $1.2 million.

The defendant in the overtime pay dispute is The Nielsen Company
(US) LLC, the well-known media research enterprise that has been a
mainstay of audience measurement and research since the 1950s.
According to court documents, lead plaintiff Tony Benado served as
a member representative for Nielsen. Part of his job was to visit
the homes of individuals and families enrolled with Nielsen for
the purposes of monitoring their television viewing habits and
other forms of media consumption.

While commuting time was duly paid during the majority of the day,
Mr. Benado alleged that he and members of the punitive class were
denied an hours' worth of pay for the initial drive in to the
first visit of the day.  This also happened in association with
the last visit of the day.  In other words, the clock would start
running when they arrived at the first home, and stop at the point
where they would leave for the last home.  The commute from and to
their own residences was not paid by the employer, or so it was
alleged.

The unpaid wages were interpreted as unpaid overtime by the class
members, who also accused the media measurement juggernaut of
stiffing them out of meal breaks and rest periods.

The overtime pay lawsuit was filed last May, with the parties
entering into mediation in November.  A settlement was announced
in mid-April that would benefit all members of the class who may
have worked for Nielsen from May 8, 2009 going forward. In
settling the dispute, Nielsen denied all allegations and was not
required to admit to any wrongdoing.

There were actually two classes involved in the class action -- a
nationwide class and a California class.  The latter class was
deemed to receive one-third of the settlement after fees and
expenses according to California overtime law, with the nationwide
class receiving two-thirds of the settlement total after fees and
expenses.

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


NOVARTIS AG: "Winkelman" Suit Transferred to N.J. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Winkelman, et al. v.
Novartis AG, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00160, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).
The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02918-CCC-JAD to the proceeding.

The case is an action for equitable and injunctive relief arising
out of Novartis' sale of Excedrin Migraine at an alleged higher
price than the pharmacologically identical product Excedrin Extra
Strength.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          Matthew Brian George, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  amz@girardgibbs.com
                  mbg@girardgibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
          BAKER SANDERS LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-4799
          Facsimile: (516) 741-3777
          E-mail: tmuhlstock@bakersanders.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          John T. Coyne, Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue
          PO Box 2075
          Morristown, NJ 07962-2075
          Telephone: (973) 993-8100
          E-mail: jcoyne@mdmc-law.com

               - and -

          Aton Arbisser, Esq.
          Daniel Raphael Paluch, Esq.
          KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6048
          Telephone: (310) 788-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 788-1205
          E-mail: aarbisser@kayescholer.com
                  daniel.paluch@kayescholer.com


OAKHURST DAIRY: Faces "O'Connor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher O'Connor, et al, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Oakhurst Dairy, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00192 (D. Me. May 5, 2014), arises in pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and the
Minimum Wage and Overtime Law, 26 M.R.S.A. Sections 661 et seq, to
recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation.

Oakhurst Dairy is located in Portlabd, Maine and is wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carol Garvan, Esq.
      Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
      JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP
      160 Capitol Street, PO Box 79
      Augusta, ME 04332
      Telephone: (207) 623-5110
      E-mail: cgarvan@johnsonwebbert.com
              jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Court Revives $10.1BB Consumer-Fraud Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an
Illinois appeals court revived a $10.1 billion judgment against
tobacco giant Philip Morris USA for smokers of light and low-tar
cigarettes.

Sharon Price and Michael Fruth filed the class action way back in
2000, and the case made national headlines when Judge Nicholas
Byron, now retired from Madison County Circuit Court, awarded them
damages totaling $10.1 billion in 2003.  It was the first time a
tobacco company lost a consumer-fraud case, according to the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch.

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgment in 2005, agreeing
with defense arguments that the Federal Trade Commission had
authorized the cigarette companies to use words like light and low
tar on cigarette packaging and in advertising.

A refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the verdict in 2006
left the case dead in the water.  Two years later, however, in the
unrelated case Altria Group Inc. v. Good, the FTC intimated to the
high court that it never intended to authorize the use of the low-
tar and light terms on cigarette labeling.

The Supreme Court resolved Altria Group on Dec. 15, 2008, a week
after the commission rescinded a 1966 guidance concerning
representations of tar and nicotine content that cigarette
manufacturers could use.  This change led Price and Fruth to
petition for relief from judgment, and the case bounced around for
a few more years before Judge Dennis Ruth shot them down.

In the latest twist to this 14-year courtroom saga, a three-judge
panel of the Fifth District Appellate Court found April 29, 2014,
that Ruth exceeded the scope of his review in ruling for Philip
Morris.

"We conclude that the trial court exceeded the scope of section
2-1401 review when it attempted to predict how the supreme court
would rule on the question of damages," Justice Melissa Chapman
wrote.  "For these reasons, the order denying the petition for
relief from judgment must be reversed."

Justices Bruce Stewart and S. Gene Schwarm concurred.

Altria-owned Philip Morris told the Madison County Record that it
would seek an immediate review of the ruling.  The appellate
court's decision is stayed automatically while the review is
pending.

"Almost 10 years ago, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
Price judgment as contrary to Illinois law," Altria Client
Services senior vice president and associate general counsel
Murray Garnick said told the Record in a statement.  "The Fifth
District Court of Appeals' decision . . . conflicts with that
ruling and essentially overrules a decision of a higher court."


PL PHASE ONE: Accused of Failure to Pay Wages Pursuant to FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irina Agurok, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. PL Phase One Operations GP, Inc. d/b/a Xfinity Live,
et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-02587 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. section et
seq.

PL Phase One Operations GP, Inc., does business under the name of
Xfinity Live! Philadelphia located at 3601 South Broad Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19148.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Faces Class Action Over "Memory" Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a so-called "memory" drug allegedly based on a jellyfish protein
doesn't work, and has "potentially life-threatening side-effects,"
a man claims in a class action lawsuit.

Leo Guevara sued Quincy Bioscience, of Madison, Wisc. in Superior
Court, alleging false advertising, unfair competition and
violation of California consumer laws.  Guevara says he bought the
drug at issue, Prevagen, from a (nonparty) Walgreens in January.
Quincy pushes the drug by claiming it "improves memory" and
provides "brain cell protection," Guevara says, citing Quincy's ad
materials.

"Prevagen has been clinically shown to improve memory within 90
days," boasts the product's website, checked this morning.  A
disclaimer in small print states:  "These statements have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.  This product is
not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

The product's box promises Healthy Brain Function, Sharper Mind
and Clearer Thinking.

Guevara says that Quincy fails to warn consumers that the
supplement is not only ineffective but may cause fainting,
irregular heartbeat, chest pain, vertigo, tremors, seizures,
strokes, and exacerbates multiple sclerosis.

Quincy was aware that the Food and Drug Administration found that
Prevagen was connected to 1,000 "adverse events" to consumers from
May 2008 until December 2011, Guevara says in the lawsuit.

Prevagen claims that the diet supplement includes an ingredient
called apoaequorin -- "a unique protein originally obtained from a
specific species of jellyfish called Aequorea victoria found in
the Puget Sound."

"Apoaequorin is a protein our brains need for healthy function but
is diminished in the aging process," Prevagen says on its website.

But in an October 2012 letter, the FDA allegedly warned Quincy
that its unapproved and synthetic version of apoaequorin should be
regulated and marketed as a drug.

"Defendant's failure to warn and misleading claims, were designed
to, and did, lead plaintiff and other consumers to believe that
the product would only result in the stated benefits if consumed
and not potentially cause these adverse events," the 12-page
lawsuit states.

Guevara asks the court to enjoin Quincy from the "ongoing
deception of thousands of California and nationwide consumers."
He also seeks an accounting and statutory, general, special,
exemplary damages and costs.

Guevara is represented by Michael Kelly -- mlk@KirtlandPackard.com
-- with Kirtland & Packard of El Segundo.

Quincy Bioscience did not immediately respond to an emailed
request for comment.

There is no basis in science for classifying a substance as a
"diet supplement" rather than a "drug."  Companies can sell diet
supplements with little to no regulation because complaisant
regulators let them.


RAMQ: Faces Class Action Over Extra Medical Fees
------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that a request for a class action suit has
been filed against the provincial health ministry and Quebec's
health insurance board over extra billing by some doctors and
clinics.  The request for the suit was filed on May 15 in Superior
Court by Philippe Leveille but made public on May 16.

Mr. Leveille and his lawyers allege that two Montreal eye clinics
regularly charged patients extra fees for an anasthesiological
agent, which are drugs that are supposed to be covered by the
government.  But he and his lawyers believe that many Montreal
clinics and doctors are charging patients extra fees or up to 10
times the cost of drugs they're supposed to be covered for.  They
allege that provincial health insurance board RAMQ tolerated this
illegal practice.  So Mr. Leveille and his lawyers believe several
hundred thousand Quebecers could have been illegally billed this
way.

The College de Medecins and former health minister Rejean Hebert
recognized the problem and the new health minister Gaetan Barrette
also acknowledged the extra charges when he was head of the
Federation of Quebec's Medical Specialists.  He called the charges
a trick of the trade that allowed doctors to defray the costs of
running their private clinics.

Mr. Leveille's initiative is asking all Quebecers who paid extra
for anaesthetic drugs or agents to be part of the class action
suit.  They have created a website, Surfacturation.ca, to help
those who might have been charged unfairly.  Mr. Leveille was part
of another class action suit against the government on behalf of
patients treated for macular degeneration. That suit was settled
for $6 million.


SAFEWAY: Being Sold to Albertson's for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Safeway
too cheaply through an unfair to Albertson's, for the equivalent
of $36.15 per share -- below market price -- shareholders claim in
a federal class action in Oakland, California.


SERVICELINK: Faces Class Action Over Unjust Enrichment
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ServiceLink unjustly enriched
itself by doing real estate closings in Georgia without a member
of the Georgia bar, a class action claims in Federal Court in
Newnan, Ga.


SIMPLY FASHION: "Simms" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Simms v. Simply Fashion Stores
Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01717, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
(Indianapolis).  The Indiana District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-00737-WTL-DKL to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Marie Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron.marron@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John T. Brooks, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-6500
          Facsimile: (619) 234-3815
          E-mail: jbrooks@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Keith E. Eggleton, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 320-4893
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Tonia Ouellette Klausner, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10019-6022
          Telephone: (212) 497-7706
          E-mail: tklausner@wsgr.com


SOUTHEASTERN SHUTTLE: Sued for Failing to Pay Lawful Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Towns, et al, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. Southeastern Shuttle Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-01337 (N.D. Ga. May 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for the alleged depriving the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated of their lawful wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Southeastern Shuttle Services, Inc., is a State of Georgia
corporation located at 1285 Marks Church Road, Augusta, GA 30909.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Weiner, Esq.
      Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
      THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC
      3525 Piedmont Road, 7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 254-0842
      E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
              js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


STATE FARM: Fixes Rate for Auto Repair, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that State Farm, Allstate,
Farmers, GEICO, et al. fix rates for auto collision repair,
Crawford's Auto Center claims in a RICO class action in Federal
Court in Chicago.


STORM SOLUTIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Rivera v. Storm Solutions of CT, Inc., a Connecticut
corporation, and Burton Gill Tremaine, individually, Case No.
2:14-cv-14196-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 12, 2014) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fee and
costs from the Defendants.

Storm Solutions is a Connecticut corporation.  Burton Gill
Tremaine is a resident of Connecticut, who owned and operated
Storm Solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          The Yankee Clipper Law Center
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Actos Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a Las Vegas jury has found for pharmaceutical manufacturer
Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. in the latest trial over claims
its drug Actos causes bladder cancer.

The May 22 defense verdict came on the heels of another Takeda win
on May 15 in Chicago and a $6 billion loss in Lafayette, La., last
month.

Bertha Triana and Delores Cipriano brought the case in Las Vegas,
claiming that taking Actos, which is used to treat Type 2
diabetes, caused each of them to get bladder cancer.

"We agree with the verdict, which is in favor of Takeda," said
Kenneth Greisman, general counsel of Takeda.  "Takeda is confident
in the therapeutic benefits of Actos and its importance as a
treatment for Type 2 diabetes and we will continue to defend the
company vigorously in these cases."

Plaintiffs attorney Robert Eglet of Eglet Wall Christiansen in Las
Vegas called the verdict "disappointing."

"Most of all I'm disappointed for my client," he said in an
emailed statement to The National Law Journal.  "I feel we had a
very good case."

The trial was particularly acrimonious.  At one point, Clark
County, Nev., District Judge Kerry Earley sanctioned Takeda's
attorneys for disobeying court orders and disruptive behavior.
She ordered that the jury be told about her findings, since the
conduct of defense attorneys had forced plaintiffs' attorneys to
frequently object and request bench conferences.  That could lead
the jury to believe "that plaintiffs counsel is hiding evidence,
disrupting the proceedings, prolonging trial or wasting the jury's
time," she wrote in an April 30 order.

Takeda faces some 6,000 lawsuits over Actos.  In the first federal
bellwether trial, a jury on April 7 awarded $9 billion to a New
York couple, $6 billion of which was against Takeda.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty of the Western
District of Louisiana sanctioned Takeda for deleting key evidence,
but Cook County, Ill., Circuit Judge Deborah Dooling, in the
Chicago case, opted against sanctions.  In that case,
Diane Whitlatch sued after her husband, William Whitlatch, who
took Actos, died of bladder cancer in 2006.


TJX COMPANIES: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premium
-------------------------------------------------------------
Camille Ghanem, Arnold Williams, Oluwatosin Babalola, Michael
O'Grady, Jason Foster, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Homegoods, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Marshalls Of
Ma, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation; Marmaxx Operating
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-12104-DPW
(D. Mass., May 12, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals overtime compensation for hours they have worked over
40 in a workweek while training for the Assistant Store Manager
position.

The Defendants together own and operate HomeGoods, T.J. Maxx, and
Marshalls retail stores, which offer discounted apparel, home
fashions, and other merchandise to customers at more than 2,000
locations in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar Jones, Esq.
          Susan Stern, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP P A
          1515 S Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-7451
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com
                  sstern@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH
          442 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          Facsimile: (813) 254-8391
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com


TOYO TIRE: Faces Class Action for Conspiring to Fix Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyo Tire conspired to fix
prices and rig bids for automotive constant-velocity-joint boot
products, a class action antitrust complaint claims in Federal
Court in Detroit.


TRAVIS COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
Travis County Sheriff's and District Attorney's Offices illegally
record phone calls between inmates and their lawyers, which
prosecutors use against them, the Austin Lawyers Guild and four of
its members claim in a federal class action.

Joining the Austin Lawyers Guild as plaintiffs are criminal
defense attorneys Carl Gossett, David Grassbaugh, Mark Sampson and
Francis Williams and an inmate advocacy group, the Prison Justice
League.  They sued Securus Technologies, Travis County Sheriff
Greg Hamilton, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg
and Travis County Attorney David Escamilla.

Austin, the state capital, is the seat of Travis County.

The attorneys claim that Securus, a private contractor, provides
telephone and video conferencing services at the Travis County
Jail in downtown Austin and the Travis County Correctional Complex
in Del Valle.  They say the Sheriff's Department claims it does
not record attorney-client calls and that Securus' website states
video visits are "secure and completely private" for attorneys.

"But in reality, Securus Technology and the sheriff's department
do record confidential attorney-client communications," the
complaint states.  "They also disclose those recorded
conversations to prosecutors in the Travis County and District
Attorneys' Offices.  In both offices, prosecutors have procured
recordings of confidential attorney-client communication from the
Sheriff's Department and/or Securus Technologies and listened to
them.  Some prosecutors have disclosed copies of those records to
defense attorneys among other discovery materials; some have used
that knowledge to their tactical advantage without admitting they
obtained or listened to the recordings."

Plaintiffs' attorneys Brian McGiverin, with the Texas Civil Rights
Project, and George Lobb, both of Austin, started looking into the
attorneys' complaints a year ago, NBC affiliate KXAN reported.

"In terms of existing convictions that may have been secured with
prosecutors' unlawful use of these recordings, that does open a
big can of worms," McGiverin told the NBC station.

A spokesperson for the sheriff's declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

The plaintiffs seeks damages for violations of the Federal Wiretap
Act, the Texas Wiretap Act and the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth
Amendments of the Constitution.  They also seek destruction of the
jailhouse recordings and an injunction against any additional
recordings.


TRC INC: Faces "Trent" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Trent, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, 17398 Fairway LaGrange, Ohio 44050, v. TRC, Inc., c/o
Ross Thuener, Statutory Agent, 24062 Sprague Rd., Olmsted Falls,
Ohio 44138, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-00973 (N.D. Ohio May 5, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq., the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
O.R.C. Section 4111.01 et seq., and under Article II, Section 34a
of the Ohio Constitution.

TRC, Inc., is an Ohio corporation doing business in the Northern
District Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Neel, Esq.
      Ste. 1950, 55 Public Square
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-0011
      Facsimile: (216) 522-0022
      E-mail: dwneel@neellaw.com


TRU COLORS: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Pineda, et al, and similarly situated individuals, v. Tru
Colors Contracting, LLC, a Florida Corporation, et al, Case No.
0:14-cv-61064 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid back
wages, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Acts of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.

Tru Colors Contracting, LLC, is a Florida corporation doing
business in Broward County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Andrew Costales
      Gary A. Costales
      1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1230
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 375-9510
      Facsimile: (305) 375-9511
      E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Mislabeled Teas Suit Wins Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge has certified a class alleging Twinings North
America Inc. mislabels green, black and white teas by extolling
them as a source of antioxidants.

Though Twinings teas contain flavonoids, which are a type of
antioxidant that occurs naturally in certain fruits and
vegetables, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not
established a recommended daily intake for flavonoids.

Lead plaintiff Nancy Lanovaz claimed in a 2012 federal class
action Twinings has been contravening FDA regulations by making
content claims about the antioxidants.  Her third amended
complaint, filed in San Jose, Calif., alleged that the labels and
information on the Twinings website are "deceptive, misleading and
unlawful even if technically true."

Because California has adopted the FDA's labeling laws, Lanovaz
said the company has also violated the state's unfair-competition
and false-advertising laws, as well as the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte denied Twinings earlier this year
but did find that the Clifton, N.J.-based subsidiary of Associated
British Foods did not make e a health claim by characterizing "the
relationship of any substance to a disease or health-related
condition."

On April 24, 2014, Whyte approved class certification under the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for injunctive relief only,
denying certification for monetary relief.

"Lanovaz has not presented a viable theory for monetary relief,"
the 13-page opinion states.

"Plaintiffs do not present any damages model capable of estimating
the price premium attributable to Twinings' antioxidant labels,"
he added.  "Because the price premium attributable to the
antioxidant labels is the only legal permissible measure of
damages, plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements for
class certification."

Whyte also approved Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates, J. Price
Coleman of Coleman Law Firm -- jwc@jwcolaw.com -- and Brian
Herrington -- info@barrettlawgroup.com -- of Barrett Law Group
P.A. as class counsel, and Lanovaz as class representative.

Twinings made several motions for a protective order sealing
confidential business documents related, but not crucial, to the
case.  Some of the exhibits in question contain sensitive "list
price" information, wholesale pricing, marketing research and
"narrowly tailored confidential business information."

Whyte partly denied portions of three motions April 24, 2014, and
otherwise granted them in full.


VIROPHARMA INC: Court Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Villmer and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report that a
Pennsylvania federal court on May 16 refused to toss a class
action against ViroPharma Inc., saying investors had enough
evidence to support a claim that the company intentionally misled
the public to believe it secured three years of market exclusivity
for its signature gastrointestinal antibiotic.

Judge Darnell Jones II of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania said ViroPharma could not ditch the suit
because investors gave ample and specific evidence of scienter,
meaning ViroPharma's executives intended to defraud investors.

"The strong inference of scienter is also supported by allegations
of stock sales by [ViroPharma executives] Doyle and Rowland, given
their unusual scope and timing," Judge Jones wrote.  "The
complaint alleges that Defendants Doyle and Rowland sold their
personal shares of ViroPharma stock, netting an $8 million profit,
just weeks before the FDA issued their denial of exclusivity."

Shareholders accuse the company of misleading investors with
statements made in 2011 that its antibiotic brand, Vancocin,
qualified for three years of market exclusivity thanks to a new
condition of use established for the drug by the results of a
clinical study.

ViroPharma said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had approved
its supplemental new drug application, which updated labeling and
dosing levels for the antibiotic, and claimed the approval would
give the company rights to three years of market exclusivity,
according to the complaint.  The statement sent the company's
stock price up more than 17 percent, the complaint said.

The company had been fighting to keep the drug exclusively in its
hands after first acquiring a marketing license for it from Eli
Lilly and Co. in 2004, eight years after the drug's patent expired
in 1996.  In 2008, the FDA announced that new generic versions of
the drug could be approved on the basis of laboratory, as opposed
to clinical, trials.

ViroPharma filed a citizen's petition to appeal that decision, but
the FDA denied the request and told the company it was not
eligible for market exclusivity because the dosing information
ViroPharma had represented as new had actually been previously
approved by the administration.  In addition, the FDA announced it
had approved three new generic versions of the drug.

Vancocin, which the suit said accounts for more than half of
ViroPharma's revenue, is used primarily to treat Clostridium
difficile-associated diarrhea, an inflammation of the colon
resulting from gastrointestinal tract infections.  It is a brand
name of Vancomycin, an antibiotic first approved by the FDA in
intravenous form in 1958. An oral form of the drug was approved in
1985.

Pete Castro is represented by Carole A. Broderick of Berger &
Montague PC.

The lead plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan Gardner --
jgardner@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP.

ViroPharma Inc. is represented by J. Gordon Cooney Jr. --
jgcooney@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP.

The case is Pete Castro v. ViroPharma Inc. et al., case number
2:12-cv-02714, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.


WARNER MUSIC: Judge Allows Ex-Interns to Form Class in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juliana Kenny, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that companies
have been significantly more leery in the last few years about
employing unpaid interns as the numbers of lawsuits associated
with them have risen steadily since 2012.  But for some, it may be
too late, and they are now embroiled in wage and treatment legal
action that has turned heads.  Warner Music has been one of the
most spotlighted companies since 2013, with a lead plaintiff, but
others are now claiming that the working conditions of the
internship program violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kyle Grant is the primary suer, and he and other ex-interns have
now been granted the right to alert over 3,000 other people who
could potentially gather behind the cases to form a class in the
lawsuit.

U.S. district judge Paul Gardephe is quoted in the Hollywood
Reporter on the cases: "Plaintiffs have made out a facie case of a
common FLSA violation.  Plaintiffs allege that they performed the
same work-as non-exempt employees in their respective departments,
and that they received no compensation or academic credit for
their work.  Plaintiffs have also submitted documentary evidence
that supports their claims, including internship position postings
that uniformly state, 'Every Intern is assigned a special project
that will both assist them in increasing their understanding of
how each department operates, and aid the department in addressing
a business need.'  The evidence offered by Plaintiffs is
sufficient to meet the 'low' standard of proof for court-
authorized notice."

Interns have been claimed victories in similar lawsuits against
other companies, so Warner Music should be a little worried.  The
company has dismissed the potential for class action, saying that
not enough other people will want in on the lawsuit.  The
attorneys at Virginia & Ambinder and Leeds Brown LLP are heading
up the effort on behalf of the ex-interns who claim that they
performed full-time tasks that other paid employees could have
done, and were not compensation or given academic credit.

Other big-name companies that have been the focus of intern
lawsuits are Elite Model Management, Fox, Charlie Rose, and Cond‚
Nast.  Some of these organizations have been successful at
defending themselves such as Hearst, which claimed that the
plaintiffs' rights to compensation would engage the difference
between being labeled an employee or a trainee under FLSA
guidelines.  Whether Warner Music will be as lucky is yet to be
seen.


WORTHINGTON MILITARY: Removed Class Suit to Alaska District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Figueroa, et al. v. Worthington
Military Construction, Inc., Case No. 3AN-14-6337 CI, was removed
from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District at Anchorage, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (Anchorage).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00088-TMB to
the proceeding.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caitlin Shortell, Esq.
          SHORTELL GARDNER
          645 G Street, Suite 100-807
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 272-8181
          Facsimile: (888) 526-6608
          E-mail: caitlin@shortellgardner.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cynthia L. Ducey, Esq.
          DELANEY WILES, INC.
          1007 W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 400
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 279-3581
          Facsimile: (907) 277-1331
          E-mail: cld@delaneywiles.com


XI'AN FAMOUS: Class Did Not Receive Overtime Pay, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huadi Liao, U Fuk Young, Rui Ling, individually and on behalf of
all other employees similarly situated v. Xi'an Famous Foods,
Inc., Jason Wang, and David Shi, Case No. 1:14-cv-02992-JBW-JO
(E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled
to unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay, as required by law, and reimbursement for
expenses relating to tools of the trade.

Xi'an Famous Foods, Inc. is a New York corporation with a place of
business in Brooklyn, New York.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, officers, shareholders, or managers of Xi'an Famous Foods,
Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


* Farmers Insurance Files Class Actions v. Chicago Communities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mica Rosenberg, writing for Reuters, reports that a major
insurance company is accusing dozens of localities in Illinois of
failing to prepare for severe rains and flooding in lawsuits that
are the first in what could be a wave of litigation over who
should be liable for the possible costs of climate change.

Farmers Insurance filed nine class actions last month against
nearly 200 communities in the Chicago area.  It is arguing that
local governments should have known rising global temperatures
would lead to heavier rains and did not do enough to fortify their
sewers and stormwater drains.

The legal debate may center on whether an uptick in natural
disasters is foreseeable or an "act of God."  The cases raise the
question of how city governments should manage their budgets
before costly emergencies occur.

"We will see more and more cases," said Michael Gerrard, director
of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in
New York.  "No one is expected to plan for the 500-year storm, but
if horrible events are happening with increasing frequency, that
may shift the duties."

Mr. Gerrard and other environmental law experts say the suits are
the first of their kind.

Lawyers for the localities will argue government immunity protects
them from prosecution, said Daniel Jasica of the State's
Attorney's Office in Lake County, which is named in the Illinois
state court suit.

"If these types of suits are successful -- where is the money
going to come from to pay the lawsuits? The taxpayers," he said.
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago,
also named in the suits, declined to comment.

Several class actions accusing the Army Corps of Engineers of
failing to secure levees breached during Hurricane Katrina in 2005
were mostly dismissed last year on immunity grounds.

"It's a long shot for the insurance companies, but it's not
completely implausible, and if you have enough cases like this
going forward it might build some helpful precedent," said
Robert Verchick, who served on the Obama administration's Climate
Change Adaptation Task Force.

He said insurance companies are vocal about the rising costs of
global warming and want to push cities to invest in prevention as
a way to avoid future lawsuits.

                        Costly Adaptation

Chicago says it is already spending heavily on infrastructure to
adapt to changing weather and has a comprehensive Climate Action
Plan.  But the city's foresight may have made it a target, said
Mr. Verchick, since Farmers cites the document as evidence
officials were aware of the risks.

The Chicago law firm Sneckenberg Thompson & Brody, which
represents Farmers, directed questions to the insurance company.
Farmers spokesman Trent Frager would not specify how much the
company paid in insurance claims, and none of the suits specified
a damage amount.

Flooding struck Illinois in April 2013, and the federal government
paid more than 64,000 Illinois households and individuals more
than $218 million in aid and low-interest loans following the
storms, said the state's Emergency Management Agency.

Fear of lawsuits can be a barrier to local government action, said
Alice Kaswan from the University of San Francisco School of Law.
Insurers or citizens may sue them for allowing building in areas
prone to flooding or wildfires.  Or property owners could argue
their land was devalued if a locality bars construction in high-
risk areas as a precautionary measure.

Lawsuits trying to pin liability for climate change on greenhouse-
gas emitters have largely failed, since it is difficult to prove
an individual polluter is responsible for global phenomena such as
rising sea levels.

Ultimately, costs will need to be distributed more broadly if
cities and individuals want to avoid higher insurance premiums or
losing coverage altogether, Ms. Kaswan said.


                             *********

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  * * *