CAR_Public/140604.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 110

                             Headlines


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australia Unit Faces Suit by IPO Investors
AIG DIRECT INSURANCE: Faces "Herron" Suit for Violating TCPA
AVANIR PHARMA: Faces Suit Over 2014 Meeting Proxy Statement
BMW NORTH AMERICA: Judge Refuses to Strike Class Claims
BODACIOUS FOOD: Sued in Fla. Over Deceptive Business Practices

BRITE PAINTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages
CALIFORNIA: Judge Issues Show Cause Order in "Jackson" Suits
CAROL SU INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit Over July 2008 Stock Offering Stayed
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of 2012 Securities Suit on Appeal

COAST TO COAST: Sued for Not Paying Minimum Wages for All Hours
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Waldrup" Class Suit Denied
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Fully Briefed
FIRST CLASS PARKING: Sued for Failing to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
FORD MOTOR: Allowed to Reply to 2nd Amended "MacDonald" Suit

FORD MOTOR: Judge Affirms $1MM Jury Verdict in Mesothelioma Suit
GERON CORP: Stipulation Approved Continuing Case Mgmt. Conference
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Fowler" Product Liability Suit
GOODYEAR TIRE: Fails to Warn of Chemical Effects, Suit Says
GULF INTERSTATE: Ohio Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

HEALTH NET: June 6 Hearing to Resolve or Dismiss MFLCs' Suit
HIGHLAND PARK, MI: Dismissal of "Nickerson" Claims Recommended
HSBC USA: Court Narrows Checking Account Overdraft Lawsuit
HSBC USA: Fla. Court Approves Settlement in "Lopez" Lawsuit
HSBC USA: Accused of Price Manipulation During London Gold Fix

HSBC USA: Companies Remain Defendants in U.S. Madoff Litigation
INTL FCSTONE: Settlement in Suit Over FCStone Acquisition Okayed
INTL FCSTONE: N.Y. Court Names Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
JEFFREY P. ALEXANDER: Bid to Restrict Communication Partly Okayed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Listerine Bogus Claims

KEURIG GREEN: Dates Set in Appeal From LAMPERS Suit Dismissal
KEURIG GREEN: June 6 Oral Argument on "Fifield" Suit Dismissal
KEURIG GREEN: Receives Shareholder Complaint Over Incentive Plan
KEURIG GREEN: Hearing Held on Transfer of Antitrust Suits
KROLL FACTUAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in FCRA Suit

LAWCASH I LLC: Accused of Making High-Interest, Personal Loans
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal From Stock Suit Dismissal Ongoing
LOLA RESTAURANT: Failed to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
LUCKY'S WASH & DETAIL: Faces "Jimenez" Suit for Violating FLSA
MANCHESTER NURSERY: Faces "Rivera" Suit for FLSA Violations

MASTERCARD INC: Approval of Attridge Suit Accord Under Appeal
MASTERCARD INC: Interchange Fees Suit Settlement Faces Objections
MD ON-LINE SOLUTIONS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Says
MICHIGAN: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Miri" Class Suit
NIELSEN CO: Fails to Pay Field Reps and Specialists, Suit Claims

NISSAN NORTH: Faces "Zaccagnino" Suit Over Classification System
NORDIC NATURALS: "Hoffman" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
PEGATRON USA: Sued for Deceptively Marketing/Selling Motherboards
PFIZER INC: District Court Stays "Rouda" Suit
PITTSBURG PARKING: Suit Says Parking Inaccessible for Disabled

PROFESSIONAL TRANSPO: Denial of Bid to Amend Answer Recommended
QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Class Claims
RITE AID: Class Decertification Ruling in "Hall" Suit Reversed
SHIRE PLC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Stock Suit v. ViroPharma
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: No Class Certified in Ubaldi v. Sallie Mae

SWS GROUP: Discovery Requests Served in Suit Over Hilltop Merger
T. MARZETTI: Sued for Falsely Marketed Products as "All Natural"
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sold Cars That Use High Amounts of Oil, Suit Says
UBER: Judge Demands More Tweaks in Arbitration Agreement
VNA HOMECARE: Consolidated Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice

WELLS FARGO: Sued Over "Identity Theft Protection" Service

* 2,500+ Doctors in Georgia Lack Malpractice Insurance
* North Carolina Set to Pass Asbestos Bankruptcy Transparency Law


                            *********


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australia Unit Faces Suit by IPO Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
AECOM Australia faces a lawsuit that now includes approximately
770 IPO investors, according to Aecom Technology Corporation's May
7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include
approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM
Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.

Separately, KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs, filed a
lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012.

WestLB, one of the lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in
the Federal Court of Australia on May 18, 2012.  Centerbridge
Credit Partners (and a number of related entities) and Midtown
Acquisitions (and a number of related entities), both claiming to
be assignees of certain other lending banks, previously filed
their own proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and then
subsequently withdrew the lawsuits. All of the lawsuits claim
damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's role in
connection with a traffic forecast. None of the lawsuits specify
the amount of damages sought and the damages sought by WestLB are
duplicative of damages already included in the receivers' claim.


AIG DIRECT INSURANCE: Faces "Herron" Suit for Violating TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Herron, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-
00727 (M.D. Fla., May 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for their alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Section 227.

AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc., is one of the largest
insurance organizations in the world. It offers personalized life
insurance quotes form highly-rated life insurance company. It also
offers a variety of other insurance products, including accidental
death insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVANIR PHARMA: Faces Suit Over 2014 Meeting Proxy Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative stockholder class action was filed against Avanir
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in January 2014, alleging claims based upon
purported deficiencies in disclosures relating to its 2014 Annual
Meeting proxy statement, with respect to equity compensation plan
and practices, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Judge Refuses to Strike Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a putative class action against BMW over allegedly defective
convertible tops has been dealt a serious blow thanks to a New
Jersey federal judge's ruling.  U.S. District Judge William
Martini struck a number of the plaintiffs' claims in Gray v. BMW
of North America, including one filed under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and sided with the automaker in a
choice-of-law dispute, stopping the plaintiffs from establishing a
nationwide class.

The judge, however, did let some counts survive, and declined to
strike the class claims at this stage.

"Accepting the pleadings as true, the convertible top is a safety
issue," Judge Martini wrote.  "Although BMW's papers deny that the
convertible top defect is a safety issue, plaintiff has pleaded
the existence of evidence in which BMW admits this defect is a
safety hazard."

The suit was lodged in October 2013 on behalf of all those who
bought or leased a 2004 to 2010 model year E64 -- a two-door
convertible.

The plaintiffs, California residents Robert Gray and Markum George
who bought the vehicles, claim they encountered a multitude of
problems, according to the opinion.

BMW's North American subsidiary is headquartered in Woodcliff
Lake.

Mr. George claims his vehicle, bought in 2009, repeatedly flashed
a dashboard warning message that the convertible top was not
locked, leading to several repairs -- including replacement of a
convertible sensor and hydraulic lift -- that added up to more
than $3,300.

Mr. Gray claims he saw the same warning message in his vehicle,
bought in 2010, and had a repair performed that cost nearly $1,100
but didn't fix the problem.  He allegedly sold the vehicle back to
the dealer and purchased another convertible in 2011, experienced
the same issue, and chose not to repair when told it would cost
$3,000.  Mr. Gray claims the shop that repaired his first vehicle
told him the convertible top problem was common among that model.

In their suit, Messrs. George and Gray alleged that BMW was aware
of the defect as far back as 2004 -- through customer complaints,
test results, sales data as to replacement parts, warranty
reimbursement claims and other sources -- but failed to disclose
the defect.  They asserted claims under the CFA and California
statutes.  The complaint also included common-law counts of fraud,
unjust enrichment and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing.

BMW sought dismissal and argued that California law should apply
to the case, while the plaintiffs contended that New Jersey law
should apply.

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, applicability of
New Jersey law would allow them to represent a nationwide class,
rather than a series of subclasses suing under individual state
laws, said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Matthew Mendelsohn --
mmendelsohn@mskf.net -- of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in
Roseland.

On May 28, Judge Martini, sitting in Newark, granted most of BMW's
requests but allowed the suit to move forward.  The judge, finding
New Jersey's and California's consumer-protection statutes in
conflict, applied California law, and on that basis dismissed the
CFA count.  Numerous factors weigh in favor of applying California
law, he said, mainly that the vehicle sales and damages occurred
there.

BMW of North America is domiciled, and the alleged scheme to
defraud originated in, New Jersey, but "[t]hese ties . . . do not
outweigh the much more significant ties to California,"
Judge Martini said.  "In choosing California law, the court
follows a long line of case law on consumer fraud statutes and
warranty claims that hold the law of the consumers' home state
should govern."

The plaintiffs acknowledged that their vehicles were off their
general warranties when they owned them, but argued that
California's Song-Beverly Act, which expands implied warranty
protections, should apply because secondary warranties for rust
and emissions still were in effect.

But Judge Martini struck that count, calling that warranty
interpretation "bootstrapping," which would render delineations
between different types of warranties meaningless.  He noted that
the plaintiffs didn't allege that the roof issues made the
vehicles unusable.

Judge Martini also dismissed the unjust enrichment count, because
the vehicles were bought from used car dealers rather than BMW,
and the breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing count,
because no contract existed between the plaintiffs and BMW.  The
judge let stand a claim under California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, which may impose a duty on manufacturers of goods already off
warranty if the alleged defect poses a safety issue.

The plaintiffs cited owner's manual passages warning that driving
with an unlocked convertible roof poses a safety hazard,
Judge Martini pointed out.  He said the plaintiffs successfully
pleaded a material defect, as well as BMW's exclusive knowledge
and active concealment of it. They also claimed that BMW directed
dealers to make short-term repairs that would last until warranty
periods ran out, the judge noted.

Judge Martini also let stand a count lodged under California's
Unfair Competition Law, which hinges on successful pleading of a
Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim.

The common-law fraud claim also survived.

Judge Martini said it was "premature" to strike the plaintiffs'
class allegations until the class certification stage.  In all,
Judge Martini dismissed four of the plaintiffs' seven counts.

The California consumer-protection statutes, like the CFA, do
provide for fee-shifting and enhanced damages, and are strong
laws, Mendelsohn pointed out.  Mendelsohn said he has heard from
prospective class members in other states, but for now they'll
proceed with a California-only class.

Rosemary Bruno -- rosemary.bruno@bipc.com -- of Buchanan,
Ingersoll & Rooney in Newark, BMW's counsel, declined comment.


BODACIOUS FOOD: Sued in Fla. Over Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Dye, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Bodacious Food Company, a Georgia corporation, Case
No. 9:14-cv-80627 (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2014), seeks damages and
equitable relief, declaratory relief, restitution, and in the
alternative, damages, and relief for unjust enrichment against the
Defendant for false, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business
practices in violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, FLA STAT. Sections 501.201 et seq., negligent
misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, violation of
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301 et seq., and
unjust enrichment.

Bodacious Food Company is a Georgia corporation located at 339
Genneth Drive, Jasper, GA 30143.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
      THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1920 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 1
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone:(954) 634-4355
      Facsimile: (954) 634-4342
      E-mail: JEggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com


BRITE PAINTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorg Berrios and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
1:14-cv-21707 Brite Painting and Waterproofing Inc., et al, Case
No. 1:14-cv-21707 (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Brite Painting and Waterproofing, Inc., is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA: Judge Issues Show Cause Order in "Jackson" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 2013, a class action captioned Jackson v. State of
California, No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.) was filed. On
January 28, 2014, an order was issued finding that Jackson was
related to Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), another class action filed based upon the same facts.
On March 27, 2014, an order was issued finding that a similar
class action, Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00430-LJO-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), was also a related case.

Accoridngly, Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone ordered that:

1. The parties are to show cause in writing why the actions should
   not be consolidated for all pretrial purposes, including but
   not limited to: scheduling, discovery, and dispositive motions
   practice;

2. The parties may file an opposition to the opposing parties
   response on or before May 28, 2014; and

3. If the Court finds that a hearing on the matter is necessary,
   that hearing will be set at a later date.

The lawsuits are ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. COREY LAMAR SMITH, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants.
FREDERICK BEAGLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et
al., Defendants, CASE NOS. 1:13-CV-01055-LJO-SAB, 1:14-CV-00060-
SAB-LJO, 1:14-CV-00430-LJO-SAB, (E.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's May 7, 2014 order to show cause
is available at http://is.gd/ztBBGJfrom Leagle.com.

Samuel Derek Jackson, Jr., Petitioner, Pro Se.


CAROL SU INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Ester Morales Ramos, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B), v. Carol Su, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-
cv-01723 (N.D. Tex., May 9, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219.

Carol Su, Inc., is a company that regularly transacts business
within Dallas County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J H ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit Over July 2008 Stock Offering Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
A securities suit against Chesapeake Energy Corporation in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is stayed
pending resolution of an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September
11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the officer and director
defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation
and materiality on December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted
as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013. Final
judgment in favor of Chesapeake and the officer and director
defendants was entered on June 21, 2013, and the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal on July 19, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and oral
argument is scheduled for May 14, 2014. The company is currently
unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of
potential loss associated with this matter.

A derivative action relating to the July 2008 offering filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
September 6, 2011 is pending. Following the denial on September
28, 2012 of its motion to dismiss and pursuant to court order,
nominal defendant Chesapeake filed an answer in the case on
October 12, 2012. By stipulation between the parties, the case is
stayed pending resolution of the Tenth Circuit appeal.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of 2012 Securities Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit filed against Chesapeake Energy
Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is appealing the dismissal of the complaint to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, according to the company's
May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012 against the
Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Aubrey K.
McClendon. On July 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead plaintiff,
which filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2012 against the
Company, Mr. McClendon and certain other officers. The amended
complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the
Company's asset monetization strategy, including liabilities
associated with its volumetric production payment (VPP)
transactions, as well as Mr. McClendon's personal loans and the
Company's internal controls. On December 6, 2012, the Company and
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. On April
10, 2013, the Court granted the motion, and on April 16, 2013,
entered judgment against the plaintiff and dismissed the complaint
with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 14,
2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Briefing
on the appeal was completed on August 2, 2013, and on November 18,
2013 argument was heard.


COAST TO COAST: Sued for Not Paying Minimum Wages for All Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Freeman, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated current and former employees v. Coast to Coast Manpower,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and, Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC543709 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 25, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
employees minimum wages for all hours worked and failure to
authorize and permit paid rest periods, among other failures.

The proposed Plaintiff Class consists of all California-based
truck drivers, and other similarly situated California employees
of the Defendants.

Coast to Coast Manpower, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability
Company.  The Company and its subsidiaries or affiliated
companies, are engaged in the ownership, management, and operation
of providing local delivery services to commercial clients,
including Best Buy.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Waldrup" Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cristina A. Snyder denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned BARBARA WALDRUP v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; ET AL, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-08833-CAS(CWX), (C.D. Cal.).

Barbara Waldrup filed this putative class action on November 27,
2013, against defendants Countrywide Financial Corporation
("CFC"), Countrywide Home Loans ("CHL"), Countrywide Bank, N.A.
("Countrywide"), Bank of America Corporation ("BOA"), LandSafe,
Inc., and LandSafe Appraisal, Inc. Plaintiff asserts claims for
(1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq., (2) violation of the Racketeer
Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c), (3) conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(d), (4) fraud, and (5) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to
assert claims on behalf of the class defined as:

  All residents of the United States of America who, during the
  period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2008, obtained an
  appraisal from LandSafe in connection with a loan originated by
  Countrywide.

On January 24, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The Court denied the request but dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's second, third, and fourth claim. Judge Snyder allowed
the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to address the
deficiencies identified by the Court.

A copy of the District Court's April 14, 2014 ruling is available
at http://is.gd/ZJdV7Xfrom Leagle.com.

Mark Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Roland Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Attorneys Present for Plaintiff.

Douglas Thompson -- dougt@douglasthompson.com -- Attorneys Present
for Defendants.


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Fully Briefed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116 is fully briefed and is
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's May 7,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,
v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-
03116-LGS.  On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,
Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green
and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff,
Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants
(the "Defendants").  The consolidated amended complaint asserts
that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New
Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for
Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for
the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular
melanoma in the liver.  The putative class period alleged in the
amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including
September 13, 2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs.  On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed their motion
to dismiss. The parties have fully briefed the motion, which is
currently pending.


FIRST CLASS PARKING: Sued for Failing to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danilo Geronimo Mejia Luque and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B), v. First Class Parking Services, Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-21706 (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2014), arises under
the Fair Labor Standard Act 29, U.S.C. Sections 201-206 for
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

First Class Parking Services, Corp., is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Allowed to Reply to 2nd Amended "MacDonald" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed a stipulation in the lawsuit
captioned JEAN MacDONALD, VERONICA H. AGUIRRE, and BRIAN C.
BARBEE, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02988-JSC, (N.D. Cal.).

Under the stipulation, the Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed,
pursuant to L.R. 6.1(a), that Ford Motor Company had until May 6,
2014 to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

A copy of the District Court's April 24, 2014 order approving
stipulation is available at http://is.gd/2OSfUeat Leagle.com.

Jordan L. Lurie -- Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com -- Tarek H.
Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com -- Cody R. Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC, Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jean MacDonald, Veronica H.
Aguirre, and Brian C. Barbee.

Amir Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.,
San Francisco, California, John M. Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com --
Krista L. Lenart -- klenart@dykema.com --(admitted pro hac vice)
David M. George -- dgeorge@dykema.com -- (admitted pro hac vice)
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, Attorneys for Defendant FORD
MOTOR COMPANY.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Affirms $1MM Jury Verdict in Mesothelioma Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that following appeals from both parties, a panel of judges in the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania has affirmed a jury's
$1 million verdict for a former auto mechanic after detailing
expert inconsistencies on behalf of Ford Motor Company.

Plaintiffs Richard and Joyce Rost as well as defendant Ford Motor
Company appealed the verdict entered Dec. 28, 2011, in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

Judge Jack Panella delivered the May 19 opinion in the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania.  Judges Judith Olson and James Fitzgerald
concurred.

Ford appealed the trial court's denial of its post-trial motion
for judgment.  The Rosts appealed the trial court's jury
instructions, arguing the trial court's instructions confused the
jury and prevented them from awarding full compensation against
all defendants.

The plaintiffs filed their case in October 2009 against various
defendants alleging Richard Rost was exposed to asbestos, causing
him to develop mesothelioma.  Only Ford remained at the time of
trial.  General Electric, Westinghouse and Ingersoll Rand settled
their cases with Mr. Rost.  Despite Ford's objection, Mr. Rost's
trial was consolidated with two other cases involving plaintiffs
suffering from mesothelioma.

According to the opinion, Mr. Rost worked at a Ford dealership for
several months in 1950 after graduating from high school.  Fellow
employees at the dealership were mechanics and were responsible
for sanding breaks and fixing clutches as part of their job.  Mr.
Rost testified that about 85 to 90 percent of the vehicles
serviced by the dealership were Ford vehicles, adding that Ford
brakes and clutches from 1945 to 1950 were approximately 40 to 60
percent asbestos by weight.  He also claimed he was exposed to
asbestos when the mechanics removed brake drums as part of brake
work and would blow out the asbestos dust with compressed air.
Mr. Rost testified that the dust would carry throughout the garage
because the exhaust system was "very limited."

Mr. Rost was responsible for cleaning the garage, including
removing brake linings from brake shoes to prepare the shoes for
re-use.  He claimed the task generated visible dust from the brake
drums, causing Mr. Rost to inhale the dust.  He was also
responsible for cleaning the garage floors at the end of each day.
As part of this task, he would scoop up the dust and debris,
disposing of it in large containers and causing it to "billow"
back into the air, he testified.  He estimated that he disposed of
three shovelfuls of the dust each day.

In addition to Mr. Rost's work at the dealership, evidence was
also presented at trial revealing asbestos exposure while he
worked at Metropolitan Edison in power generation.  While there,
Mr. Rost worked with pumps and turbines.

Mr. Rost worked as a pump operator for "four or five years,"
during which time he was present while others worked on the pumps,
including asbestos insulation removal.

Following the trial, the jury found Ford, General Electric,
Westinghouse and Ingersoll Rand liable for Mr. Rost's injuries,
awarding Richard Rost $844,800 in damages and Joyce Rost $150,000
for loss of consortium.

Both parties appealed.  The appeals court consolidated the
appeals, designating Ford as the primary appellant.

Ford argues it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or a
new trial, based on the Betz decision.

Judge Panella wrote that the appeals court must decide whether
Betz prohibits all expert opinion relying on the "every exposure"
theory.

However, the appeals court concluded that the Gregg was more
appropriate, which held that it was "appropriate for courts, at
the summary judgment stage, to make a reasoned assessment
concerning whether, in light of the evidence concerning frequency,
regularity and proximity of a plaintiff/decedent's asserted
exposure, a jury would be entitled to make the necessary inference
of a sufficient casual connection between the defendant's product
and the asserted injury."

However, because Ford argues that the trial court erred in denying
its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, Judge
Panella wrote that neither Betz nor Gregg is directly on point.
Ultimately, though, Gregg is the better fit for the case, he
added.

Ford argued the plaintiffs were required to provide expert opinion
demonstrating that asbestos exposure from Ford's products was
sufficient to qualify as a substantial factor in Mr. Rost's
mesothelioma.  But both Gregg and Betz refute such arguments, the
court ruled.

"Clearly, neither of these opinions required the dismissal of the
plaintiff's cause of action merely due to the problems with the
plaintiff's expert's opinion on causation," Judge Panella wrote.

He added that Ford also misrepresented the conclusion reached by
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Betz decision, which
concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that that the plaintiff's expert "had not established
the legitimacy of his legal conclusion that any exposure was a
substantial cause of the plaintiff's disease."

"A conclusion that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by
coming to a given legal determination is not equivalent to a
conclusion that a trial court must make that same legal
determination," Judge Panella stated.

After reviewing the expert opinions as well as Mr. Rost's
testimony, Judge Panella concluded that the record was more than
sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

Mr. Rost presented evidence from Arthur Frank, M.D., who found
that brake mechanics could develop asbestos-related diseases and
concluded that asbestos risk increases with each exposure. He
testified that the only safe level of exposure to asbestos is
"zero," the opinion states.

Dr. Frank also testified that about 17 fibers per cubic centimeter
of air are generated when a mechanic uses compressed air to clean
out dust from a brake drum.  He added that fiber counts greater
than background were observed as far as 60 feet away from the
brake drum work.

Dr. Frank also testified that if a garage worker wore his work
clothes home every day, the exposure caused by the brake "blow
outs" could have continued for decades.  In Mr. Rost's case, he
claimed he did wear his "pretty filthy" work clothes home from the
garage.

Mr. Rost also presented evidence from Dr. Arnold Brody, Ph.D., who
testified on the science behind how mesothelioma develops.

Judge Panella wrote that Mr. Rost provided enough evidence showing
frequency, regularity and proximity.  He added that it's safe to
assume based on Frank's and Mr. Rost's evidence that he was
directly exposed to roughly a million asbestos fibers while
working at the garage.

However, in contrast to Mr. Rost's expert testimonies,
Judge Panella stated that Ford's experts had not published any
research on asbestos during their long careers.

Ford expert Michael Graham, M.D., admitted that he performed no
basic research on the pathology of asbestos and based his opinions
on research by others.

Dr. Graham testified that several published studies have concluded
that chrysotile asbestos is the predominant fiber present in cases
of mesothelioma, but admitted that such fibers can cause
asbestosis and lung cancer.  However, "he was unshaken in his
belief that chrysotile asbestos from brakes could not cause
mesothelioma."

Ford also presented evidence from Dr. Herman Gibb, Ph.D., who
argued that exposure to asbestos brakes while working as an auto
mechanic did not increase the risk of getting mesothelioma and
contributed Mr. Rost's disease to his work at Metropolitan-Edison.
He said he understood that his opinion was contrary to other
experts' opinions directly involved in asbestos research,
Judge Panella explained.

Judge Panella concluded that Mr. Rost's experts provided
sufficient and consistent evidence supported by published research
from several scientists.  In contrast, Ford's experts, he
continued, were occasionally inconsistent and centered on beliefs
that had not been subjected to peer-review by fellow scientists.

"Accordingly, while it is true that the 'every exposure' theory
does not, by itself, meet the standard for establishing
substantial causation in a legal sense, this record is more than
sufficient to establish its general scientific legitimacy,"
Judge Panella wrote.

"As we have already determined that the rest of the certified
record is sufficient to establish a triable issue on whether
Rost's exposure at the garage was a substantial cause of his
mesothelioma, this defect in the 'every exposure' theory is not
sufficient to warrant reversal in this case."

Ford also argued the trial court erred in ruling that the
plaintiffs were not required to prove that the asbestos brakes
were defective under the products liability law.

Judge Panella wrote that the appeals court will not reverse the
order denying a new trial because the outcome of the case was not
controlled by an error of law.

"A litigant is entitled only to a fair trial and not a perfect
trial," the opinion stated.

Ford further argued that the trial court erred in consolidating
that Rost case with other asbestos cases, but it failed to point
to another case supporting its argument, Judge Panella ruled

"As such, the court exercised its 'general supervisory and
administrative authority over all the courts . . .' to direct the
implementation of procedural measures, in particular mandatory
preliminary non-jury trials, to address the problem," Judge
Panella stated.

As for the plaintiffs' issues on appeal, they each concern the
status of settled defendants Ingersoll-Rand, General Electric and
Westinghouse, which were included in the verdict sheet despite
their previous settlements.

The Rosts first argue that the jury instructions and jury sheet
relating to the settled defendants were confusing, resulting in
them only awarding damages they felt were caused by Ford.  The
jury sheet only included one question relating to the settled
defendants, which asked the jury to determine whether Mr. Rost's
exposure from each of the settling defendants' products was a
substantial cause of his mesothelioma.

The appeals court agreed that the language was inappropriate and
alone could have confused the jury.  However, when viewed with the
entire jury sheet and instructions, the appeals court concluded
that the error was not significant enough to "vitiate the adequacy
and clarity of the jury charge" because they were not asked to
apportion blame amongst the defendants.

"Indeed, the Rosts' theory of the case, and propounded expert
opinion, was that there was no viable way to distinguish between
exposures," Judge Panella wrote.  "Accordingly, we conclude that
the inclusion of the qualifying language did not control the
ultimate verdict."

The Rosts also argue that there was insufficient evidence at trial
to include the settling defendants on the verdict sheet at all,
entitling them to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Judge Panella disagreed, finding that there was sufficient
evidence supporting the jury's findings that the defendants were a
substantial cause of Mr. Rost's mesothelioma.

According to testimony provided at trial, Mr. Rost was exposed to
asbestos at Metropolitan-Edison through General Electric turbines
insulated with asbestos, Westinghouse pumps insulated with
asbestos and Ingersoll-Rand pumps insulated with asbestos.  Mr.
Rost stated that asbestos was "coming down like snow" at
Metropolitan-Edison.

"In summary, we conclude that none of the issues raised by either
party merit relief on appeal.  As such, we affirm the judgment
entered by the trial court," Judge Panella concludes.


GERON CORP: Stipulation Approved Continuing Case Mgmt. Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer signed a stipulation and order on
April 15, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/KpvzjMfrom Leagle.com, to continue the initial case
management conference in the lawsuit captioned ROHAN KISHTAGARI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. GERON CORPORATION, JOHN A. SCARLETT, and OLIVIA K.
BLOOM, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01224-CRB, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Rohan Kishtagari and defendants Geron Corporation, John
A. Scarlett, and Olivia K. Bloom, have agreed and stipulated that
good cause exists to request an order from the Court extending
Defendants' time to respond to the complaint and rescheduling the
Initial Case Management Conference currently set for July 11,
2014, pursuant to the Court's March 14, 2014 Order Setting Initial
Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, and to adjust
accordingly the related deadlines.

The Sitpulation provides, among other things, that:

1. Defendants need not answer, move or otherwise respond to the
   Complaint in this action or any related, subsequently filed
   actions transferred to the Court until a date to be set
   following the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15
   U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B) and the filing by the lead
   plaintiff of a consolidated amended complaint.

2. Within 20 days following the appointment of lead plaintiff and
   lead counsel, the parties will meet and confer and submit a
   schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and
   the time for Defendants' responses thereto.

3. The Initial Case Management Conference will be held 30 days
   after an order directing Defendants to file an answer (if any),
   or as soon as possible thereafter consistent with the Court's
   schedule.

LIONEL Z. GLANCY -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- MICHAEL GOLDBERG --
mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- ROBERT V. PRONGAY, ELAINE CHANG --
echang@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Rohan Kishtagari.

LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH, Howard G. Smith --
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com -- Bensalem, PA, Attorneys for
Plaintiff Rohan Kishtagari.

COOLEY LLP, Ryan E. Blair -- rblair@cooley.com -- San Diego, CA.

COOLEY LLP, John C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Palo Alto, CA,
Attorneys for Defendants Geron Corporation, John A. Scarlett and
Olivia K. Bloom


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Fowler" Product Liability Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fowler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Goodman Manufacturing Company LP, Goodman Global Inc.
and Goodman Company LP, Case No. 2:14-cv-00968-RDP (N.D. Ala.,
May 22, 2014) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Guin, Esq.
          Tammy McClendon Stokes, Esq.
          GUIN STOKES & EVANS LLC
          The Financial Center
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 226-2282
          Facsimile: (205) 226-2357
          E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com
                  tammys@gseattorneys.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: Fails to Warn of Chemical Effects, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henri Solari et al., individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Case No.
5:14-cv-01000 (N.D. Ohio, May 8, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to warn and inform its employees of the
detrimental effects the chemical products and manufacturing
processes could have on their health.

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, is an Ohio corporation located
at 1144 East Market Street, Akron, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN & ASSOCIATES
      1100 Tower at Erieview
      1301 East Ninth Street
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 928-0600
      Facsimile: (216) 928-0016
      E-mail: jl@levinandassociates.com


GULF INTERSTATE: Ohio Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hughes & Desmond McDonald, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated, v. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-00432 (S.D. Ohio, May 9, 2014), seeks to recover the
unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq., and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sections
4111.01, 4111.03 and 4111.10.

Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., is an enterprise engaged in
commerce located in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E DeRose , II, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


HEALTH NET: June 6 Hearing to Resolve or Dismiss MFLCs' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on alternative motions to either compel arbitration or
dismiss claims in a suit alleging violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by Health Net, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California is set for June 6, 2014,
according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

The company is a defendant in three related litigation matters
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "Northern District of California")
relating to the independent contractor classification of Military
Family Life Consultants ("MFLCs") who contracted with the
company's subsidiary, MHN Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to
provide short-term, non-medical counseling at U.S. military
installations throughout the country.

On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County
against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN
Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have
performed services as independent contractors in the state of
Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim
that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under
Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that
they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt
employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. The company moved to
compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on
September 30, 2011. The company appealed the decision. The
Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on
August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the company removed this
case to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington
action, as well as twelve other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed
collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors
nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege
misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek
penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has
since transferred the case to the Northern District of California
to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2,
2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also
a subsidiary).

This third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the
FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state
laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico,
Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October
24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations
for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
On November 1, 2012, the company moved to compel arbitration in
the Northern District of California, and the court denied the
motion on April 3, 2013. The company noticed the company's appeal
of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district
court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective
action certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA
collective action members. The court stayed all other proceedings
pending an outcome in the Ninth Circuit appeal, which has not yet
been scheduled for hearing.

On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred to
the Northern District of California to relate it to the two FLSA
suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, the company moved to stay
the suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. The company also filed
two alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case
to arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California
Labor Code section 226.8 claims. The hearing on these motions is
currently set for June 6, 2014.


HIGHLAND PARK, MI: Dismissal of "Nickerson" Claims Recommended
--------------------------------------------------------------
On January 21, 2014, plaintiff Kizzy Nickerson, proceeding pro se,
filed a complaint in the Court apparently alleging vague claims of
police brutality against Defendants City of Highland Park Police
Department, "Officer Osken" and "Officer Robberson." She applied
for in forma pauperis status and Marshal service of her complaint,
both of which were granted. Summonses were issued and service
apparently was effectuated by the Marshal on the City and Officer
Robberson. The Marshal Service was unable to effectuate service on
"Officer Osken" due to the claim by the Highland Police Department
that no such officer existed.

On February 5, 2014, Ms. Nickerson claims to have effectuated her
own service on all three named defendants, which would have made
their answers due February 26, 2014. In the interim she also filed
what she styled a "complaint" and filed a request for entry of
default judgment against the City, which was denied. On March 5,
2014, the City and Robberson appeared and filed a motion for a
more definite statement. On March 25, 2014, Ms. Nickerson filed a
document entitled "More Definit [sic] Statement Oral Argument", a
document the Court struck as incomprehensible, along with a number
of other documents that were similarly unintelligible.

The Court then granted the City's and Robberson's motion for more
definite statement and gave Nickerson 14 days to file the same. In
its Order, the Court warned Ms. Nickerson that her failure to file
a document that conformed to the liberal pleading requirements of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would result in her complaint
being dismissed. On March 31, April 8, April 15, and April 17,
2014, Ms. Nickerson filed documents which she apparently intended
to be "more definite statements." After reviewing these documents,
however, the Court finds that Nickerson has still failed to plead
a proper complaint against the parties identified in her original
complaint, who she claims to have served with process, thus
failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand recommends that
Ms. Nickerson's complaint be dismissed sua sponte with prejudice
as to defendants Officer Osken, Officer Robberson, and the City of
Highland Park Police Department, but dismissed without prejudice
as to Officers Ochs and Schultz.

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's April 29, 2014 report and
recommendation is available at http://is.gd/TG7lNPfrom
Leagle.com.

The case is KIZZY NICKERSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK
POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER OSKEN, OFFICER ROBBERSON, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-10278, (E.D. Mich.).

Kizzy Nickerson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

City of Highland Park Police Department, Defendant, represented by
Nikkiya Branch -- nbranch@perkinslawgroup.net -- Perkins Law
Group, PLLC.

Robberson, Defendant, represented by Nikkiya Branch, Perkins Law
Group, PLLC.


HSBC USA: Court Narrows Checking Account Overdraft Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part HSBC Bank USA's motion to
dismiss the HSBC Overdraft MDL on March 5, 2014, according to HSBC
USA Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The dismissal leaves only plaintiffs' claims for violation of
California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Sections
17500, et seq., violation of California's unfair competition law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, and breach of California's
and New York's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Interim class counsel and counsel for the Levin Plaintiffs
separately filed motions for reconsideration, which HSBC has
opposed.


HSBC USA: Fla. Court Approves Settlement in "Lopez" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted preliminary approval of the settlement reached in Lopez v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., according to the company's May 7,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining an insurance
policy (hazard or flood insurance) on a mortgaged property when
the borrower fails to maintain their own policy. The cost of the
lender-placed insurance is then passed on to the borrower.
Industry practices with respect to lender-placed insurance are
receiving heightened regulatory scrutiny from both federal and
state agencies.

The various U.S. HSBC defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding in the Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D.
Fla. 13-CV-21104) action to settle hazard lender-placed insurance
claims on behalf of a nationwide class comprised of borrowers
"who, from January 1, 2005 to the present, were charged by HSBC
defendants as assureds or additional assureds under a hazard
lender placed insurance policy for residential property." The
settlement pays claims of class members, on a claims made basis,
based on a formula, as well as class plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and costs of administration, with an overall cap of $32 million
for all payments. This settlement does not include claims related
to lender-placed flood insurance, such as those asserted in the
Montanez, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (E.D.
Pa. No. 11-CV-4074) and Weller, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services,
Inc., et al. (D. Col. No. 13-CV-00185) actions. The Southern
District of Florida granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on March 24, 2014. The settlement is subject to final approval by
the court.


HSBC USA: Accused of Price Manipulation During London Gold Fix
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. entities are facing allegations they conspired to
manipulate the price of gold and gold derivatives during the
afternoon London Gold Fix, according to the company's May 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Since March 2014, numerous putative class actions have been filed
in the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of
California naming as defendants HSBC USA, HSI, HSBC and HSBC Bank
plc, in addition to other members of the London Gold Fix. The
complaints allege that from around January 1, 2004 to the present,
defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold
derivatives during the afternoon London Gold Fix in order to reap
profits on proprietary trades. These actions are at very early
stages.


HSBC USA: Companies Remain Defendants in U.S. Madoff Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. companies continue to face lawsuits in the U.S. in
relation to the Ponzi scheme started by Bernard L. Madoff,
according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") was arrested for
running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the
liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ("Madoff Securities"), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser. Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided
custodial, administration and similar services to a number of
funds incorporated outside the United States whose assets were
invested with Madoff Securities. Plaintiffs (including funds,
funds investors and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced
Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a
multitude of jurisdictions. Various HSBC companies have been named
as defendants in suits in the United States, Ireland, Luxembourg
and other jurisdictions. Certain suits (which include U.S.
putative class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew or
should have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties to
the funds and fund investors.


INTL FCSTONE: Settlement in Suit Over FCStone Acquisition Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. won final approval for a settlement it reached
in a shareholder suit over the acquisition of FCStone, according
to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In August 2008, shareholders filed a derivative action against
FCStone and certain directors of FCStone in the Circuit Court of
Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Shareholders
subsequently filed an amended complaint in May 2009 to add claims
based upon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a
customer energy trading account. In July 2009, the same plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to amend the existing case to add a
purported class action claim on behalf of the holders of FCStone
common stock.

In July 2009, plaintiffs filed a purported shareholder class
action complaint against FCStone and its directors, as well as the
Company in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The
complaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in
connection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the
Company. This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated
complaint which does not assert any claims against the Company.
This complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone's and
the Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone's current and
former directors and officers and directly against the same
individuals. The Company, FCStone, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on multiple grounds. The parties to the
litigation have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter, the terms of which were finally approved on March 19,
2014, resulting in the Company's incurring a legal cost of
$265,000 after consideration of expected insurance coverage.
In November 2011, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") Division of Enforcement Staff ("Staff") requested the
Company to voluntarily produce specified documents to the Staff in
connection with its then informal investigation of the losses that
occurred in 2008 and 2009 in the customer energy trading account
of FCStone, LLC. In September 2012, the Staff provided the Company
with a Wells notice, indicating the Staff's intention to recommend
that the CFTC bring certain charges against FCStone, LLC. The
Company filed its Wells submission with the Staff in October 2012.
On May 29, 2013, the Company reached a settlement with the CFTC in
this matter. The CFTC's findings, neither admitted nor denied by
the Company, were that FCStone, LLC violated CFTC Regulation 166.3
in that it failed to diligently supervise its officers' and
employees' activities relating to risks associated with its
customers' accounts, and in particular one account controlled by
two of FCStone's customers who traded in natural gas futures,
swaps and option contracts.

The settlement, with appropriate waivers and consents, required
FCStone, LLC to appoint an independent third party reviewer to
review and evaluate FCStone LLC's existing policies and procedures
relating to certain risks, to ensure that the company made
sufficient modifications to its risk controls since 2008. An
independent third party reviewer was appointed, and the review has
been successfully completed.


INTL FCSTONE: N.Y. Court Names Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York appointed a lead plaintiff in a securities suit against INTL
FCStone Inc., according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On January 13, 2014, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and
claims that the Company has issued false and misleading
information concerning the Company's business and prospects. The
action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's shares between February 17, 2010 and
December 16, 2013. During March 2014, three motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff were filed; two were subsequently
withdrawn, leaving a single unopposed bid for lead plaintiff
appointment, an appointment that was approved by the court on
April 29, 2014.


JEFFREY P. ALEXANDER: Bid to Restrict Communication Partly Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte issued an order in the
lawsuit captioned MARGOT CAMP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFREY P.
ALEXANDER et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-03386(EDL), (N.D. Cal.).
The order granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' ex parte
request to restrict defendants and their counsel from
communicating with putative class members.

The parties in this putative wage-and-hour class action against a
pediatric dental practice have several issues before the Court.
Plaintiffs request that Defendants be enjoined from further
contacting putative class members, after Defendants provided their
employees with a letter explaining their position on the lawsuit
and providing an opt-out declaration for employees to sign.
Plaintiffs argue that this letter was coercive and that the signed
opt-out declarations are invalid. Defendants contend that the
letter is merely a statement of opinion and that their employees
have the right to opt out from the litigation and withhold their
personal information from Plaintiffs' counsel. The parties also
have several discovery disputes that depend in part on the Court's
ruling on the appropriateness of the letter and the waivability of
certain claims in the case.

According to Judge Laporte's April 15, 2014 order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/TAPC6Afrom Leagle.com, "the Court
has invalidated the signed opt-out declarations and all putative
class members will receive the curative notice that describes the
situation in more neutral terms. These remedial measures should be
sufficient to eliminate future coercive communications regarding
this case. Similarly, the Court finds that it is not necessary to
order the disclosure of all communications between Defendants and
putative class members at this time. The Court cautions Defendants
and their counsel that it will take seriously any further claims
of coercive, inflammatory, or one-sided communications in this
case, and that any retaliation against workers for participating
in this case would constitute a violation of the Court's order and
could lead to the imposition of sanctions."

Defendants have agreed to produce all requested documents that
have not already been produced related to the named Plaintiffs.
The Court, hence, ordered Plaintiffs' counsel to provide the list
of missing documents. Defendants need not provide amended
responses to eight sets of discovery, but rather a single document
supplementing the prior responses, Judge Laporte said.

Margot Camp, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall --
kevin@kwoodalllaw.com -- Woodall Law Offices.

Arcival Buhat, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall,
Woodall Law Offices.

Yadira Rodriquez, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall,
Woodall Law Offices.

Christian Dilay, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall,
Woodall Law Offices.

Jeffrey P. Alexander, Defendant, represented by Bernadette Bantly
-- bbantly@professionals-law.com -- Bradley Curley Asiano Barrabee
Abel & Kowalski P.C., Peter Frederick Finn -- pfinn@professionals-
law.com -- Bradley Curley Asiano Barrabee Abel & Kowalski PC,
Steven Donald Barrabee -- sbarrabee@professionals-law.com --
Bradley Curley Asiano Barrabee Abel Kowalski P.C., Bernadette
Bantly -- bbantly@professionals-law.com --  Bradley Curley Asiano
Barrabee Abel & Kowalski P.C., Peter Frederick Finn, Bradley
Curley Asiano Barrabee Abel & Kowalski PC & Steven Donald
Barrabee, Bradley Curley Asiano Barrabee Abel Kowalski P.C..

Mary Jane Salazar, Defendant, represented by Bernadette Bantly,
Bradley Curley Asiano Barrabee Abel & Kowalski P.C., Peter
Frederick Finn, Bradley Curley Asiano Barrabee Abel & Kowalski PC
& Steven Donald Barrabee, Bradley Curley Asiano Barrabee Abel
Kowalski P.C..

Labor Commissioner, Interested Party, represented by Elliot Steven
Beckelman, Department of Industrial Relations.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Listerine Bogus Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanna Bowling, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson, McNeil-PPC, Inc., and
Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Products, Case No. 14-cv-3727
(S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged false
and misleading labeling of Listerine Total Care Fresh Mint
Anticavity Mouthwash, Listerine Total Care Zero Fresh Mint
Anticavity Mouthwash, Listerine Total Care Cinnamint Anticavity
Mouthwash, and Listerine Total Care Plus Whitening.

Ms. Bowling contends that each of the products uniformly claims
that it "Restores Enamel," which the label expressly identifies as
a "benefit" provided by the product.  However, she points out, an
overwhelming consensus of medical and dental experts concludes
that the loss of tooth enamel is permanent.  Thus, she insists,
Listerine Total Care's label is false and misleading.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.  Johnson & Johnson is an international
medical device, pharmaceutical, and consumer goods manufacturer
founded in 1886.  McNeil-PPC, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation
based in Skillman, New Jersey.  McNeil-PPC, Inc. is a subsidiary
of Johnson & Johnson.  Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Products is a
division of McNeil-PPC, Inc. and is also headquartered in
Skillman, New Jersey.

The Defendants market and sell Listerine Total Care widely
throughout New York and other states.  The Defendants have
manufactured, marketed, and sold Listerine Total Care using the
alleged deceptive and misleading claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019 I
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com


KEURIG GREEN: Dates Set in Appeal From LAMPERS Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has set
a schedule contemplating that briefing on the appeal by plaintiffs
against the dismissal of the securities suit Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289 will be
completed on June 23, 2014, according to Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the 13 weeks ended March 29, 2014.

Two putative securities fraud class actions are presently pending
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
along with two putative stockholder derivative actions.  The first
pending putative securities fraud class action was filed on
November 29, 2011, and the second putative securities fraud class
action was filed on May 7, 2012.  The first putative stockholder
derivative action is a consolidated action pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Vermont that consists of
five separate putative stockholder derivative complaints, the
first two were filed after the Company's disclosure of the SEC
inquiry on September 28, 2010, while the others were filed on
February 10, 2012, March 2, 2012, and July 23, 2012, respectively.
The second putative stockholder derivative action is pending in
the Superior Court of the State of Vermont for Washington County
and was commenced following the Company's disclosure of the SEC
inquiry on September 28, 2010.

The first putative securities fraud class action, captioned
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ.
No. 2:11-cv-00289, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K.
Sessions, III.  Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations
of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
disclosures relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting
practices.  The amended complaint sought class certification,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other
relief as the court should deem just and proper.  Plaintiffs
sought to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011.  The initial
complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011 included counts
for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's
underwriters in connection with a May 2011 secondary common stock
offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
against the Company and the officer defendants, and for violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer
defendants.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until
January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of
the putative class.  Competing applications were filed and the
Court appointed Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System, Sjunde AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort
Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, Employees'
Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as lead
plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012.  Pursuant to a schedule
approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on
October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a corrected amended
complaint on November 5, 2012.  Plaintiffs' amended complaint did
not allege any claims under the Securities Act against the
Company, its officers and directors, or the Company's underwriters
in connection with the May 2011 secondary common stock offering.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2013
and on December 20, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the
amended complaint with prejudice.  On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a notice of intent to appeal the court's December 20, 2013
order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  Pursuant to a schedule entered by the appeals court,
briefing on the appeal will be completed on June 23, 2014.  The
underwriters previously named as defendants notified the Company
of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant
to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in regard to the
claims asserted in this action.


KEURIG GREEN: June 6 Oral Argument on "Fifield" Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the appeal against the dismissal of the
securities suit Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.,
Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00091 is set June 6, 2014, according to Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the thirteen weeks ended
March 29, 2014.

The second putative securities fraud class action, captioned
Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-
00091, was also filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its forward guidance.  The amended complaint included
counts for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for alleged violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer
defendants.  The amended complaint sought class certification,
compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should
deem just and proper.  Plaintiffs sought to represent all
purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2012
and May 2, 2012.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had
until July 6, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of
the putative class.  On July 31, 2012, the court appointed Kambiz
Golesorkhi as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of Kahn
Swick & Foti LLC as lead counsel.  On August 14, 2012, the court
granted the parties' stipulated motion for filing of an amended
complaint and to set a briefing schedule for defendants' motions
to dismiss.  Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court,
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 23, 2012,
adding William C. Daley as an additional lead plaintiff.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 17,
2013 and the briefing of their motions was completed on May 17,
2013.  On September 26, 2013, the court issued an order granting
defendants' motions and dismissing the amended complaint without
prejudice and allowing plaintiffs a 30-day period within which to
amend their complaint.  On October 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
notice of intent to appeal the court's September 26, 2013 order to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
November 1, 2013, following the expiration of the 30-day period to
amend the complaint, defendants filed a motion for final judgment
in District Court.  Briefing on the appeal was completed on
January 28, 2014, and the appeals court has scheduled an oral
argument on the appeal for June 6, 2014.


KEURIG GREEN: Receives Shareholder Complaint Over Incentive Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action law firm sent a shareholder complaint letter to
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. over its 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan,
but the law firm has not taken any action against the Company or
the Board, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The letter claimed that the circumstances surrounding the Board's
approval of Proposal No. 4 were not adequately disclosed in the
Proxy Statement.  Proposal No. 4 sought shareholder approval of
On January 27, 2014, the Company received a letter from a
plaintiffs' class action law firm, on behalf of a purported
shareholder of the Company's common stock, concerning the Schedule
14A the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 21, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement").  The letter claimed
that the circumstances surrounding the Board's approval of
Proposal No. 4 were not adequately disclosed in the Proxy
Statement.  Proposal No. 4 sought shareholder approval of the 2014
Omnibus Incentive Plan, which, as disclosed in the Proxy
Statement, if approved would replace the Company's 2006 Plan and
the Company's Senior Executive Officer Short Term Incentive Plan.
The Company believes that the allegations by the law firm were
frivolous and lacked merit because, as addressed in the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on February 5, 2014, among other reasons, they
ignored the extensive disclosure provided in the Proxy Statement.
The law firm has not taken any action against the Company or the
Board.  A majority of the shares voting at the Company's March 6,
2014 annual meeting voted in favor of Proposal No. 4.


KEURIG GREEN: Hearing Held on Transfer of Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was scheduled to
hear on May 29, 2014 arguments on the motion to transfer various
actions alleging antitrust laws violations by Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the sale of single serve
coffee brewers and single serve coffee portion packs, according to
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the thirteen weeks
ended March 29, 2014.

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods,
LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et
al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-
00905-VSB).  The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the
Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee
brewers and single serve coffee portion packs, including through
its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection
with the launch of its next generation coffee brewer.  The
TreeHouse complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD).  The claims
asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse
complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, 20 putative class
actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief have
been filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers
of the Company's products.  To date, these claims are pending in
four federal district courts.

A motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "Panel") to transfer these various actions,
including the Tree House and JBR actions, to a single judicial
district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
The Panel is scheduled to hear argument on this transfer motion on
May 29, 2014.

On March 10, 2014, the Company filed a pre-motion letter
indicating the bases on which it planned to move to dismiss the
TreeHouse action.  After additional cases were filed in different
courts, the Company notified the Court of its desire to stay the
litigation pending the Panel's decision on the transfer motion.  A
conference was held in the Southern District of New York on May 1,
2014.  Judge Vernon S. Broderick agreed to stay the Company's
response deadline until after the Panel's decision on the transfer
motion.

On April 2, 2014, the Company moved to stay the JBR action pending
the Panel's decision.  On April 16, 2014, the plaintiff in the JBR
action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin the Company from enforcing alleged exclusivity provisions
of its distribution agreements with customers, making certain
alleged statements about JBR, Inc. and its products, and
introducing its next generation brewer to the extent that it
includes alleged "lock-out" technology.  On May 2, 2014, Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller granted the Company's motion to stay all
proceedings in the JBR action until after the Panel's decision on
the transfer motion.


KROLL FACTUAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martinez denied a motion for class
certification in the case captioned JOSEPH J. GOMEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KROLL
FACTUAL DATA, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-0445-WJM-
KMT, (D. Col.).

Mr. Gomez brings this consumer class action on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated against Defendant Kroll Factual,
a consumer reporting agency, for negligent and willful violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681.

"Plaintiff . . . has failed to show that common issues of law and
fact predominate over individual issues," ruled Jduge Martinez in
his April 14, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/WyIva8from Leagle.com.

Joseph J. Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Searles --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C., James A.
Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman,
P.C., John J. Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis
& Mailman, P.C., Craig Carley Marchiando -- ccm@caddellchapman.com
-- Caddell & Chapman & Michael Allen Caddell --
mac@caddellchapman.com -- Caddell & Chapman.

Kroll Factual Data, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Patrick
Shanahan -- dshanahan@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP, Sarah
Lynn Lochner -- slochner@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP, Ty
Cheung Gee -- tgee@hmflaw.com -- Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. &
Harold Alan Haddon -- hhaddon@hmflaw.com -- Haddon, Morgan &
Foreman, P.C.


LAWCASH I LLC: Accused of Making High-Interest, Personal Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Maldonado, Clifford Roberts, and others similarly situated
v. LawCash, I LLC, LawCash II, LLC, LawCash III, LLC, Plaintiff
Funding Holding, Inc., Plaintiff Funding I, LLC, and Plaintiff
Funding Servicing Corporation, Case No. 651321/2014 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty., May 13, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have
engaged in an illegal and deceptive scheme to originate high-
interest, personal loans to consumers in New York.

The Defendants originate loans that carry annual percentage rates
of interest in excess of 39% per annum, the Plaintiffs contend.
The Plaintiffs argue that the rates far exceed New York's civil
and criminal usury rates of 16% and 25%.

The Defendants, doing business as LawCash, have transacted
business in the state of New York by soliciting loans in New York
and offering, arranging for, and originating loans to New York
consumers and otherwise attempting to collect money from New York
consumers, and establishing continuing commercial relationships
with New York consumers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew F. Plasse, Esq.
          Office and P.O. Address
          352 7th Avenue, Suite 1222
          New York, NY 1000 1
          Telephone: (212) 695-5811


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal From Stock Suit Dismissal Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a
securities suit against Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are
ongoing, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On June 8, 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Genaera Corporation and its officers,
directors, major shareholders and trustee ("Genaera Defendants")
for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to Genaera
shareholders.  The lawsuit also names the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer John Higgins as additional defendants for
allegedly aiding and abetting the Genaera Defendants' various
breaches of fiduciary duties based on its purchase of a licensing
interest in a development-stage pharmaceutical drug program from
the Genaera Liquidating Trust in May 2010 and its subsequent sale
of half of its interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value
Fund, Inc.

Following an amendment to the complaint and a round of motions to
dismiss, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
on August 12, 2013.  On September 10, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  On March 20, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal brief.  According to the Third Circuit's briefing schedule,
the Company's answering brief is due May 22, 2014, and the
plaintiff's reply brief, if any, is due 14 days after that.


LOLA RESTAURANT: Failed to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eber Donald River Garcia, et al., and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B), v. Lola Restaurant Grill Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-21705 (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2014), arises from
the defendants' failure under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29
U.S.C. Sections 201-216 to pay overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Lola Restaurant Grill Inc., is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUCKY'S WASH & DETAIL: Faces "Jimenez" Suit for Violating FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ever Jimenez, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v. Lucky's Wash &
Detail, Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-03386 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2014),
arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201
et seq., and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et
seq., for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay.

Lucky's Wash & Detail, Ltd., is an Illinois corporation doing
business as Lucky's Hand Car Wash and Detailing, it is located at
8440 Niles Center Road, Skokie, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com


MANCHESTER NURSERY: Faces "Rivera" Suit for FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gusto Rivera, et al., and individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated, v. Manchester Nursery, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03420 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820
ILCS Section 105/1 et seq., and Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, 820 ILCS Section 115/1 et seq.

Manchester Nursery, Inc., is an enterprise, engaged in commerce or
in the production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


MASTERCARD INC: Approval of Attridge Suit Accord Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval granted to a settlement of California consumer
actions over alleged violation of the state's unfair competition
law and the Cartwright Act is under appeal by objectors, according
to Mastercard Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In April 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on
behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair
competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the
"Attridge action"). The claims in this action seek to leverage a
1998 action by the U.S. Department of Justice against MasterCard
International, Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp. In
that action, a federal district court concluded that both
MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy and a Visa bylaw
provision that prohibited financial institutions participating in
the respective associations from issuing competing proprietary
payment cards (such as American Express or Discover) constituted
unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws.

The state court in the Attridge action granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims but
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Section
17200 unfair competition claims. In September 2009, MasterCard
executed a settlement agreement that is subject to court approval
in the separate California consumer litigations ("U.S. Merchant
and Consumer Litigations"). The agreement includes a release that
the parties believe encompasses the claims asserted in the
Attridge action. In August 2010, the Court in the California
consumer actions granted final approval to the settlement. The
plaintiff from the Attridge action and three other objectors filed
appeals of the settlement approval. In January 2012, the Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's settlement approval and remanded
the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. In August
2012, the parties in the California consumer actions filed a
motion seeking approval of a revised settlement agreement. The
trial court granted final approval of the settlement in April
2013, to which the objectors have appealed.


MASTERCARD INC: Interchange Fees Suit Settlement Faces Objections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff from the Attridge action and three other objectors
have filed appeals of the California state court's final approval
of a revised settlement in a suit over Mastercard Inc.'s
interchange fees, according to Mastercard's May 1, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Commencing in October 1996, several class action suits were
brought by a number of U.S. merchants against MasterCard
International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. challenging certain aspects of
the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. The
plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a
similar Visa rule), which required merchants who accept MasterCard
cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard
card, constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In June 2003, MasterCard
International signed a settlement agreement to settle the claims
brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court approved
in December 2003. Pursuant to the settlement, MasterCard agreed,
among other things, to create two separate "Honor All Cards" rules
in the United States -- one for debit cards and one for credit
cards.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought
in 19 states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair
competition, consumer protection and common law claims against
MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes
of consumers. The claims in these actions largely mirror the
allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that
merchants, faced with excessive interchange fees, have passed
these overhead charges to consumers in the form of higher prices
on goods and services sold. MasterCard has successfully resolved
the cases in all of the jurisdictions except California, where
there continues to be outstanding cases.  In September 2009, the
parties to the California state court actions executed a
settlement agreement subject to approval by the California state
court. In August 2010, the court granted final approval of the
settlement, subsequent to which MasterCard made a payment of $6
million required by the settlement agreement. The plaintiff from
the Attridge action and three other objectors have filed appeals
of the trial court's final approval in April 2013 of a revised
settlement.


MD ON-LINE SOLUTIONS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Health Chiropractic, Inc., an Ohio corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. MD On-Line Solutions, Inc., et al. Case No.
5:14-cv-00995 (N.D. Ohio, May 8, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimile in violation
of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 USC section 227.

MD On-line Solutions, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      Ste. 760, 3701 Algonquin Road
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com

           - and -

      Matthew Elton Stubbs, Esq.
      George D. Jonson, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
      2100 Society Bank Center
      36 East Seventh Street
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 241-4722
      Facsimile: 241-8775
      E-mail: mstubbs@mrjlaw.com
              gjonson@mrjlaw.com


MICHIGAN: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Miri" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds issued an order granting a motion
for summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned Adhid Miri, an
individual, The Exchange Inc., A Michigan corporation d/b/a
'Copper Canyon" on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons and entities, Plaintiffs, v. Kevin Clinton, in
his capacity as Treasurer for the State of Michigan, Rick
Rodriguez, an individual, Barbara Weathersbee, an individual,
Michigan State Trooper John Doe #1, and Michigan State Trooper
John Doe #2, Defendants, CASE NO. 11-15248, (E.D. Mich.)

Defendant Kevin Clinton, as the Treasurer of the State of
Michigan, filed the motion for summary judgment.  Treasurer
Clinton is seeking summary judgment on the issue of Plaintiff's
request for an injunction, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing
and that, even if they have standing, the request for injunctive
relief has become moot.

Judge Edmunds granted Treasurer Clinton's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.

A copy of the District Court's April 16, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/jHUg9ffrom Leagle.com.


NIELSEN CO: Fails to Pay Field Reps and Specialists, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rulli, Jose Buenrostro, Edwin Bump, and Enrique Cruz on
behalf of themselves and -- all others similarly situated v.
Nielsen Company (U.S.) LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-01835 (N.D. Cal.,
April 22, 2014) arises from the Company's alleged failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and
former field representatives and field quality specialists for all
hours worked, including compensable drive time.

Nielsen Company (U.S.) LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in New York.  Nielsen is an international media marketing and
research company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: jkan@gbdhlegal.com
                  dborgen@gbdhlegal.com


NISSAN NORTH: Faces "Zaccagnino" Suit Over Classification System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Zaccagnino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03690-LLS
(S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of those who
currently own or lease a model year 2013 or 2014 Nissan Altima,
Leaf, Pathfinder or Sentra; a model year 2013 Nissan NV200 cargo
van that is also known as the Nissan taxi; a 2013 Infiniti JX35;
or a 2014 Infiniti Q50 and QX60 cars.

Nissan now admits that the Defective Vehicles' occupant
classification system suffers from a dangerous defect because the
OCS software may incorrectly classify the passenger seat as empty,
thereby, deactivating the airbag and increasing the risk of an
injury in a crash, according to documents filed by Nissan with the
U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Nissan North America, Inc. is a California corporation
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.  Nissan was responsible for
designing, formulating, testing, manufacturing, inspecting,
distributing, marketing, supplying and selling the alleged
Defective Vehicles to the Plaintiff and the Class.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Stacey Kelly Breen, Esq.
          Patrick Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4693
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
                  Breen@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com


NORDIC NATURALS: "Hoffman" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD M. HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 12-CV-05870 (SDW) (MCA), (D. N.J.), is before the Court
upon the motion by Defendant Nordic Naturals, Inc. for judgment on
the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and to strike the class
allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

In an opinion dated April 17, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/xDljQbfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Susan D.
Wigenton granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.

The Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the Complaint.

HAROLD M. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff, represented by HAROLD M HOFFMAN.

NORDIC NATURALS, INC., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL R.
MCDONALD -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC & JENNIFER
MARINO THIBODAUX -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC.


PEGATRON USA: Sued for Deceptively Marketing/Selling Motherboards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pegatron USA, Inc., a California corporation, ASRock
America, Inc., a California corporation, and Fatality, Inc., d/b/a
Fatal1ty, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01822-CRB
(N.D. Cal., April 21, 2014) accuses the Defendants of misleading
consumers into purchasing ASRock Fatal1ty motherboards by
fabricating facts about the motherboards' technical specifications
that are designed to appeal to gamers, e.g., by representing that
the hardware will increase network speeds and improve graphics
quality (two highly sought after features for gamers).

Mr. Smith contends that the unfortunate reality is that the
Defendants' claims are demonstrably false.

Pegatron USA, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in
Fremont, California.  Pegatron USA is a subsidiary of non-party
Pegatron Corporation carrying on its operations and business in
the United States.  ASRock America, Inc., is a California
corporation headquartered in Chino, California.  ASRock America,
Inc. is a subsidiary of non-party Pegatron Corporation.  ASRock
America is a subsidiary of non-parties ASRock Incorporated and
Pegatron Corporation, both Taiwanese corporations, which operate
in the United States.  ASRock is a leading manufacturer of
motherboards.

Fatality, Inc., doing business as Fatal1ty, Inc., is a Missouri
corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  In 2010, ASRock
partnered with Fatality -- a company that creates specialized
hardware for computer gaming enthusiasts -- to develop the "ASRock
Fatal1ty" line of motherboards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Eisen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4100
          Facsimile: (213) 947-4251
          E-mail: meisen@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
          Amir Missaghi, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  amissaghi@edelson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tod Lawrence Gamlen, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          660 Hansen Way
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 856-2400
          Facsimile: (650) 856-9299
          E-mail: tod.gamlen@bakermckenzie.com

               - and -

          Christina Wong, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 576-3022
          Facsimile: (415) 576-3099
          E-mail: christina.wong@bakermckenzie.com

               - and -

          Mark D. Taylor, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue
          2300 Trammell Crow Center
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 978-3099
          E-mail: mark.taylor@bakermckenzie.com


PFIZER INC: District Court Stays "Rouda" Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the products liability action captioned MARILYN S. ROUDA,
Plaintiff, v. PFIZER INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-
01195-JST, (N.D. Cal.), Defendant Pfizer Inc. moved to stay the
case pending a decision by the JPML as to the transfer of this
action to MDL No. 2502. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to stay and
moved to remand the action to the San Francisco Superior Court.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled that the Defendants' motion to
stay this action pending a final determination by the JPML as to
the transferability of this action to MDL No. 2502 is granted.
Plaintiffs' motion to remand is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiffs were directed to file a motion to lift the stay in the
event that the JPML issues a final order denying the requested
transfer.

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

Marilyn S. Rouda, Plaintiff, represented by Casey Aron Kaufman --
cak@brandilaw.com -- The Brandi Law Firm & Thomas J. Brandi --
tjb@brandilaw.com -- The Brandi Law Firm.

Pfizer Inc., Defendant, represented by Karin A. Kramer --
karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Emma Elizabeth
Garrison -- garrison@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP.


PITTSBURG PARKING: Suit Says Parking Inaccessible for Disabled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra J. Stemmler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Pittsburg Parking Authority, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00599 (W.D. Pa., May 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to take the most basic steps to ensure that its
parking meters are accessible to individuals with disabilities in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Pittsburg Parking Authority is the single city entity with
responsibility to manage parking meters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


PROFESSIONAL TRANSPO: Denial of Bid to Amend Answer Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In ROBBIE PICKETT EVANS and GEORGE R. BOOTH Plaintiffs, v.
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC. Defendant, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-202,
(E.D. Tenn.), Professional Transportation moved to file an amended
answer, for leave to file a dispositive motion, and to stay the
case pending a ruling on the dispositive motion.

Professional Transportation moved to amend its answer to assert
that the plaintiffs, Robbie Booth and George Evans, waived their
retaliatory discharge claims brought in the Court under the FLSA
when they entered into a settlement agreement of their Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) wage and hour class action brought against
Professional Transportation in the United States District Court of
the Southern District of Indiana (the Indiana Action). The
settlement agreement included a comprehensive waiver of the class
plaintiffs' known and unknown FLSA claims. Further, Messrs. Booth
and Evans signed a FLSA claim form and release which included a
broad waiver of claims.

The question before the Court is whether these waiver provisions
can serve to bar the retaliatory discharge claims in this action
(the Tennessee Action) which was pending at the time the Indiana
Action was settled when plaintiffs' counsel in the Tennessee
action were not consulted about settlement of their clients'
retaliatory discharge claims.

Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter concluded it cannot
because to do so would violate Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct 4.2 and therefore recommended that Professional
Transportation's motion to amend its answer be denied.

A copy of the report and recommendation dated April 23, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/LGq9YRfrom Leagle.com.

Robbie Pickett Evans, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Douglas S Hamill, Esq.
   Donna J Mikel, Esq.
   Burnette, Dobson & Pinchak
   711 Cherry Street
   Chattanooga, TN 37402
   Telephone: 423-266-2121
   Facsimile: 423-266-3324

George R. Booth, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas S Hamill,
Burnette, Dobson & Pinchak & Donna J Mikel, Burnette, Dobson &
Pinchak.

Professional Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Justin L Furrow -- jfurrow@cbslawfirm.com -- Chambliss, Bahner &
Stophel, PC & Rosemarie L Hill -- rhill@chamblisslaw.com --
Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel, PC.


QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Legg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Quicken Loans, Inc., a Michigan
corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61116 (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for alleged unsolicited calls made
to the cell phones of the Plaintiff and others using autodialer
and an artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

Quicken Loans, Inc., is a Michigan corporation located at 1050
Woodward Ave., Detroit, Michigan 48226.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS
      664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.
      Hallandale, FL 33009
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: pccrotty@gmail.com

           - and -

      Scott David Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.
      Hallandale, FL 33009
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


RITE AID: Class Decertification Ruling in "Hall" Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Hall filed an action, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated persons, alleging defendant Rite Aid Corporation did not
provide seats to employees while the employees were operating cash
registers at Rite Aid check-out counters in violation of section
14 of Wage Order 7-2001 (section 14) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
Section 11070(14)), promulgated by California's Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC).

The trial court initially granted Ms. Hall's motion for class
certification. However, Rite Aid subsequently moved for
decertification, citing additional evidence as well as decisions
by other courts. The trial court granted Rite Aid's motion for
decertification, and denied Ms. Hall's cross-motion to permit the
action to proceed as a representative nonclass action under Labor
Code section 2698 et seq. Ms. Hall appeals, contending (1) Rite
Aid's decertification motion should have been denied because it
was unsupported by an adequate showing of "changed circumstances";
(2) the trial court applied the wrong analytical approach and
standards when it reevaluated the propriety of permitting Ms.
Hall's action to proceed as a class action; (3) the trial court's
order decertifying the class was based on an erroneous
interpretation of section 14; and (4) the court erred when it
denied Ms. Hall's cross-motion to permit the action to proceed as
a representative nonclass action under the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), codified in Labor
Code section 2698 et seq.

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
concludes that, under the analytic framework promulgated by
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004
(Brinker), the trial court erred when it decertified the class
action because its decertification order was based on an
assessment of the merits of Ms. Hall's theory rather than on
whether the theory was amenable to class treatment.

Accordingly, the trial court's order granting Rite Aid's Motion
for Class Decertification entered October 29, 2012, is reversed,
and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
the Appeals Court's opinion.  Ms. Hall will recover costs on
appeal.

The case is KRISTIN HALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RITE AID
CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, NO. D062909.

A copy of the Appeals Court's April 16, 2014 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/qjSn5ffrom Leagle.com.

Dostart Clapp & Coveney, James F. Clapp -- jclapp@sdlaw.com --
James T. Hannink -- Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com -- Altshuler Berzon and
Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

AARP Foundation Litigation and Barbara A. Jones for AARP as Amicus
Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Paul Hastings, Jeffrey D. Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com --
Rishi N. Sharma -- rishisharma@paulhastings.com -- Regan A. W.
Herald -- reganherald@paulhastings.com -- Elizabeth J. MacGregor
and Peter A. Cooper for Defendant and Respondent.


SHIRE PLC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Stock Suit v. ViroPharma
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania is yet to rule on a motion by ViroPharma Incorporated
to dismiss a securities suit filed against it, according to Shire
plc's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the thirteen weeks ended March 29, 2014.

On January 24, 2014 Shire acquired ViroPharma, which has been
party to litigation in the ordinary course of its business.
ViroPharma's principal pending legal and other proceedings include
a class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 17, 2012,
naming as defendants ViroPharma Incorporated and Vincent J.
Milano, who resigned as ViroPharma Incorporated's President and
Chief Executive Officer upon completion of the ViroPharma
acquisition by Shire. The complaint alleges, among other things,
securities laws violations by the defendants in connection with
certain statements made by the defendants related to VANCOCIN. On
October 19, 2012, the complaint was amended to include individuals
who were then officers of ViroPharma Incorporated as named
defendants and allege additional information as the basis for the
claim. ViroPharma moved to dismiss the complaint and an oral
argument was held on June 10, 2013, but no decision has been
issued.


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: No Class Certified in Ubaldi v. Sallie Mae
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied the plaintiff's request to certify a class in Ubaldi, et
al. v SLM Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-
01320 EDL; however, the Court permitted the plaintiff to amend its
filing to redefine the class, according to Southwest Bancorp,
Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the 13 weeks ended March 29, 2014.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae.   The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae.  Plaintiff claims that
Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order
to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie
Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury
law and the California Business and Professions Code.  Sallie Mae
has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it
intends to vigorously defend the action.  On March 26, 2014, the
Court denied the plaintiff's request to certify the class;
however, the Court is permitting the plaintiff to amend its filing
to redefine the class.

Bank SNB is not named in the action.  In the first quarter of
2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that
have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the
"Notice").  Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may
have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the
ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank
SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank
SNB.  Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim
for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae,
if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims.


SWS GROUP: Discovery Requests Served in Suit Over Hilltop Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in actions by purported stockholders of SWS Group,
Inc. who are challenging a proposed merger with Hilltop Holdings,
Inc. have served initial discovery requests directed at all
defendants, according to SWS Group's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the thirteen
weeks ended March 29, 2014.

Two putative class actions on behalf of purported stockholders of
the Company challenging the proposed merger of the company and
Hilltop are pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  Both lawsuits name as defendants the company, the
members of the BOD, Hilltop, and Peruna LLC.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the BOD
breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to take
steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage in a fair sale
process before approving the merger, and that the other defendants
aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaints
allege, among other things, that the BOD labored under conflicts
of interest, and that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement
unduly restrict the company's ability to negotiate with other
potential bidders.  The complaints seek relief that includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the merger, rescission to the extent the merger terms have already
been implemented, damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.
The plaintiffs in both actions have served initial discovery
requests directed at all defendants.


T. MARZETTI: Sued for Falsely Marketed Products as "All Natural"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Erye Dunnington, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. T. Marzetti Company, an Ohio corp.,
Case No. 9:14-cv-80626 (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2014), seeks damages
and equitable relief, declaratory relief, restitution, and in the
alternative to damages, relief for unjust enrichment against the
Defendant for false, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business
practices of Chatham Village Croutons food products in violation
of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, FLA STAT.
Sections 501.201 et seq., negligent misrepresentation, breach of
express warranty, violation of Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 2301 et seq., and unjust enrichment.

T. Marzetti Company is an Ohio corporation located at 1105 Shrock
Road, Suite 300, Columbus, OH 43229.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
      1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (832) 715-2788
      Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
      E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

           - and -

      Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
      THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1920 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 1
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 634-4355
      Facsimile: (954) 634-4342
      E-mail: JEggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sold Cars That Use High Amounts of Oil, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Babak Taherian, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., and Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01884-WHO
(N.D. Cal., April 23, 2014) is brought on behalf of all similarly
situated persons in the United States, who purchased or leased
certain defective Toyota and Scion vehicles that were designed,
manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by the
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, manufactured,
distributed, marketed, sold, and leased vehicles equipped with
2AZ-FE engines to the Plaintiff and the other Class Members.  The
Plaintiff alleges that since 2007, if not before, the Defendants
knew that the Class Vehicles contain one or more design or
manufacturing defects, including defects contained in the Class
Vehicles' engine that cause them to be unable to properly utilize
engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume
abnormally high amounts of oil.

Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation and the parent
corporation of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.  TMC, through its
various entities, designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and
sells Toyota, Lexus, and Scion automobiles in California and
multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is a California corporation
headquartered in Torrance, California.  Toyota U.S.A. imports,
distributes, sells, leases, services and repairs through its
dealers, marketing and warranting automobiles in California and
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          Larry Chae, Esq.
          Karen Nakon, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-1040
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          Telephone: pshahian@slpattorney.com
                     lchae@slpattorney.com
                     knakon@slpattorney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq.
          Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4120
          Telephone: (310) 282-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 282-2200
          E-mail: mmallow@loeb.com
                  dcho@loeb.com


UBER: Judge Demands More Tweaks in Arbitration Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that after
months of foot-dragging, Uber is getting closer to complying with
a federal judge's demand to amend its arbitration agreement.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has twice ordered Uber
Technologies Inc. to inform new drivers of a pending class action
before asking them to sign an arbitration agreement and to change
language he deemed potentially misleading and coercive.

On May 29, Judge Chen issued an order concluding that Uber's
revised clause was almost there -- but not quite.  Uber must allow
drivers to opt out by email, put the opt-out procedure in boldface
text, and provide contact information for plaintiffs attorneys in
the notice, he wrote.

Uber, which is facing at least two suits accusing the rideshare
company of withholding tips customers believed drivers were
receiving, had argued that accepting opt-out notices
electronically would require the company to "reprogram its systems
and create new functionality."

But Judge Chen wasn't buying it.  "[L]ittle technology is required
simply to provide an email address to which drivers can send an
opt out notice," he wrote, adding that using email would improve
tracking and reduce disputes.

Judge Chen also wrote he was concerned about allegations that Uber
has continued to send its banned arbitration agreement to new
drivers.  Uber's lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius attributed the
mistake to a technical glitch.

Plaintiffs attorneys with Boston-based Lichten & Liss-Riordan had
suggested Judge Chen consider the drivers who received the
communications to have opted out as a sanction for the company's
"continued failure to abide by the court's orders."

Uber vehemently contested that suggestion and Judge Chen denied
relief "unless plaintiffs present something more than an
expression of suspicion."


VNA HOMECARE: Consolidated Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss with prejudice the
consolidated class action and collective action captioned APRIL
BECK, individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VNA HOMECARE, INC., d/b/a VNA TIP
HOMECARE, Defendant. GAYLE HATFIELD, individually, and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VNA HOMECARE,
INC., d/b/a VNA TIP HOMECARE, Defendant. MICHELE MARLOW AND TONYA
SMITH, individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VNA HOMECARE, INC., d/b/a VNA TIP
HOMECARE, Defendant. MICHELLE WHITE, individually, and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VNA HOMECARE,
INC., d/b/a VNA TIP HOMECARE, Defendant, CASE NOS. 12-CV-00330-
DRH-PMF, 12-CV-00331-DRH-PMF, NO. 12-CV-00332-DRH-PMF, CASE NO.
11-CV-00971-DRH-PMF, (S.D. Ill.).

Chief District Judge David R. Herndon grants the motion, and
dismisses with prejudice this litigation and without costs as to
all claims that Class plaintiffs raised against defendant. The
Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting
the same.

A copy of the District Court's April 14, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/ZA3H6Eat Leagle.com.

April Beck, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder --
onder@onderlaw.com -- Onder, Shelton et al., Mark R. Niemeyer --
niemeyer@onderlaw.com -- Onder, Shelton et al, Michael S. Kruse --
kruse@onderlaw.com -- Onder, Shelton et al, Aaron Benjamin Maduff
-- abmaduff@madufflaw.com -- Maduff & Maduff, LLC, Michael L.
Maduff -- mlmaduff@madufflaw.com -- Maduff & Maduff, LLC & Walker
R. Lawrence -- wrlawrence@madufflaw.com -- Maduff & Maduff, LLC,
and:

   Paul Terrence Buehler, Esq.
   Touhy, Touhy, Buehler & Williams, LLP
   55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
   Chicago, Illinois 60601
   Telephone: (312) 372-2209

         - and -

   Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
   Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
   DiTommaso - Lubin PC
   17W220 22nd St #200
   Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
   United States
   Telephone: 630-333-0000

VNA Homecare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan D. LeMoine --
LeMoine@mcmahonberger.com -- McMahon, Berger et al. - St. Louis &
Brian M. O'Neal -- oneal@mcmahonberger.com -- McMahon, Berger et
al. - St. Louis.


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over "Identity Theft Protection" Service
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Amirhamzeh, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al, Case No.
3:14-cv-02123 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2014), arises from the alleged
fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful course of conduct in imposing,
marketing, selling, and/or administering a service known as
"Identity Theft Protection" and "Enhanced Identity Theft
Protection". The Defendants impose, market, sell, and/or
administer Identity Theft Protection on consumers without their
knowledge or consent, and then charge it on their Wells Fargo
credit cards, debit cards, and/or bank accounts, a monthly fee for
Identity Theft Protection without the consumers' permission.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a national banking association located
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farrah Agharokh Mirabel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF FARRAH MIRABEL
      4590 McArthur Blvd, Suite 280
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 752-0707
      Facsimile: (949) 417-1796
      E-mail: fmesq@fmirabel.com


* 2,500+ Doctors in Georgia Lack Malpractice Insurance
------------------------------------------------------
More than 2,500 doctors in Georgia do not have malpractice
insurance, and their ranks include dozens who have been
disciplined by the state medical board for sexual misconduct,
illegal drug use, patient deaths and other serious transgressions,
an Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigation has found.

Experts in the fields of law and medicine called the number of
uninsured doctors -- just under 8 percent of those licensed in the
state -- surprising and disturbing.

"I know of no good way to understand that," said Dr. Gerald
Hickson, an authority on physician behavior who teaches at the
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.  "I feel very strongly
that it's one of our professional duties to be prepared to do the
right thing in the face of an adverse event."

Practicing without insurance, known as "going bare," makes doctors
personally responsible for compensating patients if something goes
wrong.  That can put the doctors' assets at risk -- but it also
can make them "judgment proof."  In costly cases where patients
have died or must deal with life-long disabilities, that leaves
patients or their families with little or nothing.

The AJC analyzed data compiled by the state medical board under a
2011 law requiring physicians to disclose to the board whether
they have malpractice insurance.  The analysis found that 2,536 of
the more than 29,500 licensees who responded said they didn't have
insurance.  The board could not provide responses from more than
3,000 other active licensees, in part because not all the data has
been collected.

The data shows there are doctors in virtually every specialty
without insurance.  Moreover, 113 of the 2,536 have been
sanctioned by the board for violating its regulations, including
nine currently on probation.  Some of the infractions are
technical, but others indicate serious deviations from standard
medical care.

Among the doctors without insurance are one with a $900,000
malpractice settlement, another sanctioned for performing a series
of unnecessary surgeries and one barred from treating cancer
patients after several were injured or died.

Numerous studies have found that preventable medical errors are a
pervasive problem, each year killing or injuring hundreds of
thousands of patients.


* North Carolina Set to Pass Asbestos Bankruptcy Transparency Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that North Carolina's state Senate is currently sitting on a bill
that, if passed, would make the state the fourth in the nation to
enact an asbestos bankruptcy trust transparency law, joining
Wisconsin, Ohio and Oklahoma.

The North Carolina Commerce Protection Act of 2014, also called
Senate Bill 648, was introduced by senators Brent Jackson, Wesley
Meredith and Jim Davis in April 2013 and currently sits in the
state's Senate Judiciary.

According to a summary of the bill dated May 20, the bill aims at
making changes to the statutes governing commerce within the
state, including provisions that would create transparency in
asbestos bankruptcy trusts and the amendment of laws relating to
products liability actions.

Section four of the bill intends to enforce transparency in
asbestos trusts by requiring disclosures of all claims seeking a
settlement against a debtor's bankruptcy trust.

A bankruptcy trust is formed after a company emerges from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy but maintains outstanding liability in
personal injury and wrongful death injuries allegedly resulting
from asbestos exposure.  Those companies have the option of
establishing a trust to fund present and future asbestos claims.

The bill is intended to minimize potentially damaging
confidentiality and promote transparency.  The bill would require
plaintiffs to file a sworn statement with the court within 30 days
after filing of a claim -- or after the bill becomes effective for
claims already filed -- identifying all other claims and potential
claims against asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

The court would then be required to wait at least 180 days after
the mandatory disclosure before scheduling a trial.  When a trial
date is set, a defendant would be permitted to move for an order
requiring the plaintiff to file claims against asbestos trusts
that haven't already been identified in disclosure documents but
the defendant reasonably believes the plaintiff has a sufficient
case.  This action must occur 75 days or more before the trial
date is set to begin.

The plaintiffs would then have 10 days to either file the
suggested claim or respond to the motion by explaining why there
is insufficient evidence to support filing a claim with the
specified asbestos trusts.  If the court finds in favor of the
defendant, however, the plaintiff would be ordered to file the
claim.  Also, if the trial begins before a trust claim is
resolved, the bill explains that the court should assume that the
plaintiff is entitled to and will receive the compensation the
claimant requested in the trust document.

If a verdict is still rendered against the defendant, the bill
entitles the defendant to a setoff in the amount of any prior
recovery by the plaintiff from a trust in addition to the amount
of the compensation specified in the trust documents for any
unresolved claims against trusts.  Currently, most claims filed
with asbestos bankruptcy trusts are confidential and may allow
claimants to delay filing claims until after a claimant has
recovered awards and settlements from solvent defendants through
lawsuits.

"As a result of asbestos manufacturers filing for bankruptcy and
creating bankruptcy trusts, there are fewer available defendants
for an injured party to pursue, and because of confidentiality
provisions and delayed claims, it is difficult for solvent
defendants to prove inconsistencies in the claims of an injured
party," the summary states.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges' recent ruling in the Garlock
Sealing Technologies case said he felt asbestos attorneys made
misrepresentations when simultaneously handling possible claims
against trusts and lawsuits against Garlock.  In his Jan. 10
opinion in the United State Bankruptcy Court Western District of
North Carolina, Hodges estimated Garlock's liability at $125
million, meaning the gasket manufacturer would be required to pay
roughly $1 billion less than what representatives of potential
claimants requested be paid into the asbestos bankruptcy trust.

When reaching his decision, Judge Hodges said plaintiffs attorneys
had previously withheld exposure evidence in order to maximize
recovery against Garlock in civil court, thus inflating the costs
of judgments against and settlements with Garlock.

"In ordering the trust be funded with the lesser amount, the judge
noted that plaintiffs in prior lawsuits had failed numerous times
to disclose claims of plaintiffs against other defendants and
bankruptcy trusts, which had resulted in the plaintiff recovering
more than the value of the injury and the debtor paying more than
its share of the recovery," the summary states.

Senate Bill 648 also addresses proposed amendments to the laws
governing products liability actions, which could impact asbestos-
related lawsuits alleging product liability and design defects.
Sections six and seven of the bill would provide immunity from
liability as long as products comply with governmental
requirements.

Products would be granted immunity if they are designed or
manufactured in compliance with governmental approval and
requirements relevant to the risk allegedly causing harm.  They
must also leave the care of the manufacturer or seller in
compliance with requirements without being altered.  However,
immunity is revoked if products are sold after a government agency
withdraws, or recalls, the product from the market or alters the
requirements for the product to avoid injury.  Manufacturers or
those selling an allegedly harmful product that intentionally
withhold or misrepresent information about their products in order
to gain government approval are also barred from immunity.

According to the summary, current law does not provide absolute
defense to a product liability action.


                             *********

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  * * *