CAR_Public/140612.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 116

                             Headlines


169 WHITE PLAINS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
4620 UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
ACCERA INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Axona Product
AD BOOM: Faces Class Action Over Charging Consumers "Free Trial"
AHRC HEALTH: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

ALAMO LAKELINE: Has Refused to Pay Minimum Wage, Suit Claims
ALORICA INC: Faces "Beckerley" Suit for Underpaying CSRs Workers
AMEDISYS INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit Appealed
AMEDISYS INC: Fairness Hearing for ERISA Suit Accord Set for July
AMEDISYS INC: Opt In Notice Mailed to Putative Labor Suit Class

APPLE INC: Faces "Backhaut" Suit iMessage Service
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over False Accreditation Claims
ARIA CONTRACTING: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Pursuant to FLSA
AT&T CORP: Faces Shareholder Action Over Proposed DirecTV Merger
BLUE CROSS: Reaches Settlement on 3 Autism Class Actions

BMW NORTH AMERICA: Judge Tosses Four Claims in Class Action
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Accord in Defibrillator Suit v. Guidant Okayed
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: MDL Over Transvaginal Surgical Mesh Continues
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Marchese" Antitrust Lawsuit in Discovery
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Consumer Suit Expert Discovery Done by Sept.

CALIFORNIA: Students File Class Action Over Lost Learning Time
CALIFORNIA: Issues Statement on Students' Class Action
CANNON INDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CBEYOND INC: Being Sold to Birch for Too Little, Suit Claims
CHARLESTON MEDICAL: Dissenting Judge Says Suit "Frivolous"

CHARM COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty
CITIGROUP INC: Judge Okays $8.5MM Accord on Securities Fraud Case
COMCAST CORP: Sued in NJ Court for Illegal Disconnection Charges
CONN'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Bad Lending Practices
CONVISINT CORPORATION: Sued Over Violation of Securities Act

CTS-COMPLETE TECHNICAL: Moore Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DELL INC: Faces Class Action Over False and Misleading Statements
DIRECTV: Being Sold for Too Little to AT&T, Suit Claims
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Athletes' Likeness Suit for $20 Million
ESCAMBIA COUNTY: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Defrauding Propane Gas Customers
FREEDOM OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Pursuant to FLSA
FURIEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
GENERAL INFORMATION: Sued Over Inaccurate Background Reports
GENERAL MOTORS: Axes Four In-House Lawyers Amid Recall Probe

GEORGE CARDENAS: Faces "Ocampo" Suit Over FLSA Violation
GOOGLE INC: Sued Over Closure of Adsense Accounts Before Due
GOOGLE INC: Plaintiff Not Satisfied With $324MM No Poach Accord
GRATIS PHONE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Class Says

HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Sued Over Excess Profits & Exec Bonuses
INDIANA: Bureau Of Prisons Faces Class Action Over 'Muslim Pants'
INFOBLOX INC: "Ansfield" Suit Claims Earnings Report Misleading
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Defrauded Customers, Manhattan Judge Says

JUSTMUGSHOTS.COM: Fla. Woman Can't Represent Class, Judge Rules
LIFEWATCH INC: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Law Violations
LUGGAGE SERVICES: Does Not Pay Overtime, Drivers Class Claims
M&G POLYMERS: Supreme Court to Hear Retirees' Action
MAJOR ENERGY: Faces Suit Over High-Pressure Sales Tactics

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Denies Bid to Reconsider Some Arguments
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Publishing Social Securities
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Illegally Supplied Painkillers, Suit Claims
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seeks Dismissal of Super Bowl Ticket Class Action
NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Court Approves FCRA Class Action Settlement

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Brooklyn Over Defective Car Part
NORTHERN TRUST: Accessed Pendo's Software Source Code, Suit Says
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Gov't Still in Talks Over Abuse Settlement
OMNICARE INC: Sued for Violating Tel. Consumer Protection Act
PAPA JOHN'S: Illegally Charged Sales Tax, Class Action Says

PERFORMANCE PLUMBING: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages & Penalties
PINNACLE FOODS: Being Sold to Hillshire for Too Little, Suit Says
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROSPECT CAPITAL: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit Alleging Breach of Securities Law

ROD'S PRODUCTION: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
RJ REYNOLDS: Supreme Court Rejects $70MM Damage Awards Appeal
SANRAJ INC: Fails to Pay Non-Exempt Workers OT Wages, Suit Says
SEHAT SUTARDJA: Marvell Officers Facing Patent Suit
SHANGHAI TAN: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act

SKY CHEFS: Court Rejects $1.75-Mil. Class Action Settlement
SMOKY MOUNTAIN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Penalties
SPOKEO: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Consumer Class Action
ST. ANTHONY MEDICAL: Fails to Provide Retiree Benefits, Suit Says
STAR CAREER: Class Certification Granted in Consumer Fraud Suit

SUSSER HOLDINGS: Being Sold to ETP for Too Little, Suit Claims
TAX DEFENSE: Sued for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act
TELGIAN CORPORATION: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TEXAS: Agency Discriminated Against Muslim Inmates, Court Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Face Suit Over Pinching Tips, Judge Rules

US NATIONAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in UCL Class Action
VIBRAM SPA: September 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
WELLS FARGO: Investors Seek Approval for $62.5MM Settlement
ZEOBIT LLC: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Customers

* FCC Rejects Solvable Frustrations' Bid to Expand TCPA Suits


                            *********


169 WHITE PLAINS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altobeli Navarro Juarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 169 White Plains Rest. Inc. d/b/a Porter House, 165
Cafe Corp. d/b/a Hudson Grille, Brian Mahon, and Paul Dillane,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03901 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2014), seeks to recover
from the Defendants, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys'
fees and costs.

169 White Plains Rest. Inc. d/b/a Porter House, is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York, with a principal place of business at 169 Mamaroneck Avenue,
White Plains, New York 10601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


4620 UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Alvarez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. 4620 University, Inc. d/b/a Inverrary Diner, Dimitrios
Kehagias, Dimitrios Stathakis, Case No. 0:14-cv-61277 (S.D. Fla.,
May 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

4620 University, Inc. d/b/a Inverrary Diner is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Broward County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACCERA INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Axona Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that a Miami couple
filed a putative class action on May 27 against Colorado-based
biotechnology company Accera Inc., claiming they were duped into
believing the company's "medical food" product Axona would be
effective in treating the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease.
In a suit filed in Florida's Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in
Miami, Max and Sandra Goldfarb accused Accera of violating the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act with its
marketing of Axona, which purportedly enhances memory and
cognition in mild and moderate Alzheimer's cases.

But the plaintiffs, who want to represent a class of Florida
consumers, say that the product is derived from coconut oil and
made up of common food ingredients and has not been proven to be
effective in treating Alzheimer's.

"Axona is, in reality, a milkshake made from a mixture of
ingredients from coconut oil, milk products, sugar, sunflower oil
and preservatives, which Accera calls a 'medical food' and then
prices at multiples of its costs to an unsuspecting public
desperate for relief from Alzheimer's disease," the Goldfarbs
said.

Axona was recommended for Sandra Goldfarb, who has been diagnosed
with dementia.  The plaintiffs say that by marketing Axona as a
"medical food," Accera was able to avoid the studies that would be
required to prove the effectiveness of the product.  The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration does not require studies prior to the sale
of the public of medical food products, according to the
complaint.

"Accera engaged in a uniform campaign through which it
misrepresented, and continues to misrepresent, to consumers the
benefits of Axona as a 'medical food' that aids those with mild to
moderate Alzheimer's disease, even though there are no proven
distinctive nutritional requirements or unique nutrient needs for
individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease," the
plaintiffs said in the suit.

In December 2013, the FDA told Accera that its marketing and sale
of Axona as a medical food was false and misleading because it
failed to meet the criteria for medical food, according to the
suit.

The plaintiffs say the company has recently begun promoting the
potential use of the product by patients with cognitive impairment
from multiple sclerosis.

Axona sells for between $70 and $100 for a 30-day supply, while it
costs just a fraction of that to produce it from common food
ingredients.  The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of
Florida consumers who bought the product from May 27, 2010, to the
present.

In a statement released in January, Accera said that it is working
with the FDA after receiving a warning letter from the agency.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lance A. Harke and Howard M.
Bushman of Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, by Thomas A. Tucker
Ronzetti -- tr@kttlaw.com -- and Adam M. Moskowitz --
amm@kttlaw.com -- of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton PA and by Robert
W. Rodriguez PA.

The case is Goldfarb et al. v. Accera Inc., case number 2014-
13704, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.


AD BOOM: Faces Class Action Over Charging Consumers "Free Trial"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
commenced in San Diego, Calif., claims defendants Ad Boom Group,
Wholenutra, Healthizon, and Level Nutra defraud consumers by
repeatedly charging them for a so-called "free trial" of diet
supplements.


AHRC HEALTH: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Marie A. Joseph, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. Ahrc Health Care, Inc. and Tracy-Ann Adams,
and Kent Willingham, each in their individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-03861 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2014), seeks
to recover overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ahrc Health Care, Inc., is a New York not-for-profit corporation
providing health care and social services to its clients.  The
Company maintains its principal place of business at 83 Maiden
Lane, New York, New York 10038.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter J. Andrews, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
     Great Neck, New York 11021
     Telephone: (516) 248-5550
     Facsimile: (516) 248-6027


ALAMO LAKELINE: Has Refused to Pay Minimum Wage, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Michaels, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated
v. Alamo Lakeline LLC d/b/a Alamo Drafthouse Lakeline, Case No.
1:14-cv-00502 (W.D. Tex., May 30, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay Plaintiff and those similarly
situated minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Alamo Lakeline LLC d/b/a Alamo Drafthouse Lakeline, operates a
movie theater and restaurant.  It maintains its principal place of
business at 612 E. 6th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Scott Cook, Esq.
     Austin Harris Kaplan, Esq.
     Melissa Anne Jacobs, Esq.
     THE COOK LAW FIRM
     919 Congress Avenue, Suite 1145
     Austin, TX 78701
     Telephone: (512) 482-9556
     Facsimile: (512) 597-3172
     E-mail: scook@rcooklaw.com
             akaplan@rcooklaw.com
             mjacobs@rcooklaw.com


ALORICA INC: Faces "Beckerley" Suit for Underpaying CSRs Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Beckerley, Dianne Maddox, Raymorn Edden, Cassandra Allen,
Dawn Fulmore, Quoashia Lewismurray, Vanessa Gomez, and Ancelle
Parker, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated
v. Alorica, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00836 (C.D. Cal., May 30,
2014), alleges that the Defendant maintains an unlawful policy and
practice of not compensating its Customer Service Representatives
nationwide for work performed before the start of their scheduled
shifts, after the end of their scheduled shifts, and during their
shifts. This action further alleges that the Defendant underpays
overtime pay by failing to include all required compensation in
their hourly overtime rate.

Alorica, Inc., with corporate headquarters in Irvine, California,
is a call center company with 36 facilities worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 638-8805
     Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
     E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com


AMEDISYS INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties' appellate briefing against the dismissal of a
consolidated securities, derivative and ERISA suit against
Amedisys, Inc. is complete and oral argument was already held,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana (the "Court") against the Company and certain of our
current and former senior executives. Additional putative
securities class actions were filed in the Court on July 14, July
16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the
putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal
Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the
Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-
lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs") for the
putative class. On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated
the ERISA class action lawsuit with the putative securities class
actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about our business, financial condition, operations
and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our
business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The
Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June
28, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on
April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. The parties' appellate briefing is complete and
oral argument was held on March 31, 2014.

                   Derivative Actions

On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on
behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former
officers and directors. Three similar derivative suits were filed
in the Court on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010 (together,
the "Federal Derivative Actions"). The company is named as a
nominal defendant in all of those actions. On October 22, 2010,
the Court issued an order consolidating the Federal Derivative
Actions with the putative securities class action lawsuits and for
pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative
Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint (the "Derivative
Complaint") which supersedes the earlier-filed derivative
complaints. The Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of our
current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by making allegedly false statements, by
allegedly failing to establish sufficient internal controls over
certain of our home health and Medicare billing practices, by
engaging in alleged insider trading, and by committing unspecified
acts of waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. All
defendants in the Federal Derivative Actions, including the
Company as a nominal defendant, moved to dismiss the Derivative
Complaint. That motion was still pending before the Court when the
parties reached the settlement described.

On June 24, 2013, all parties to the Federal Derivative Actions
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") with
respect to the Federal Derivative Actions. On September 5, 2013,
following notice to shareholders and a final approval hearing, the
Court issued an order of dismissal with prejudice finally
approving the proposed settlement in accordance with the
Stipulation. As part of the Court-approved settlement, the Company
has agreed to adopt and/or maintain certain corporate governance
reforms as set forth in the Stipulation. The Court's order also
awarded co-lead plaintiffs' counsel of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount of $445,000, which was paid by the Company's
insurer on its behalf. The order dismissed the Federal Derivative
Actions with prejudice, and approved the release of all named
defendants by all plaintiffs, the Company, and its shareholders
from all claims that were or could have been alleged in the
Federal Derivative Actions.

On July 23, 2010, a derivative suit (the "State Derivative
Action") was filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana (the "State Court")
which also purported to assert claims on behalf of the Company
against certain of our current and former officers and directors.
By order dated December 8, 2010, the State Derivative Action was
stayed pending resolution of the Federal Derivative Actions. On
October 17, 2013, the State Court issued an order granting the
parties' joint motion for dismissal of the State Derivative Action
based on the federal Court's final approval of the settlement of
the Federal Derivative Actions, and dismissing the State
Derivative Action with prejudice.


AMEDISYS INC: Fairness Hearing for ERISA Suit Accord Set for July
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana scheduled a final fairness hearing for July 22, 2014,
for a settlement reached in a suit alleging violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by Amedisys, Inc.,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

According to the Company, "On September 27, 2010 and October 22,
2010, separate putative class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
against the Company, certain of our current and former senior
executives and members of our 401(k) Plan Administrative
Committee. The suits allege violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA") since January 1, 2006 and July 1,
2007, respectively. The plaintiffs brought the complaints on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
participants in our 401(k) Plan. The plaintiffs assert that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's
participants by causing the 401(k) Plan to offer and hold Amedisys
common stock during the respective class periods when it was an
allegedly unduly risky and imprudent retirement investment because
of our alleged improper business practices. The complaints seek a
determination that the actions may be maintained as a class
action, an award of unspecified monetary damages and other
unspecified relief. On December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated
the putative ERISA class actions with the putative securities
class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial purposes. In
addition, on December 10, 2010, the Court appointed interim lead
counsel and interim liaison counsel in the ERISA class action."

"On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell
(the "Co-ERISA Plaintiffs"), filed an amended, consolidated class
action complaint (the "ERISA Complaint"), which supersedes the
earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints. The ERISA Complaint
seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class
action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
participants in our 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008 through
present. All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the ERISA
Complaint. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending before
the Court.

"On November 5, 2013, the company reached an agreement in
principle to settle the ERISA class action lawsuits on a class-
wide basis under which the company would make a payment of $1.2
million (which the company correctly anticipated would be paid by
our insurance carrier) and provide additional non-monetary
benefits to 401(k) Plan participants. The company then negotiated
a formal settlement agreement with the Co-ERISA Plaintiffs and on
December 13, 2013, submitted it to the Court for preliminary and
final approval. The formal settlement agreement describes how the
$1.2 million settlement payment would be allocated among the
putative class of 401(k) Plan participants after certain expenses
and fees are deducted.

"On April 14, 2014, the Court granted the motion for preliminary
approval and scheduled a final fairness hearing for July 22, 2014.
Our insurance carrier funded the $1.2 million settlement pool
shortly after the entry of the April 14, 2014 order."


AMEDISYS INC: Opt In Notice Mailed to Putative Labor Suit Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The notice to opt into the conditionally certified wage and hour
litigation against Amedisys, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut was mailed to putative class
members, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against the company in which three former employees
allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim
that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty
hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More
specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-visit and
an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their
misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them
overtime pay. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing
that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous
and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and
plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held
that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the
plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week
over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under
other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work,
in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based
on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of
current and former employees they allege are similarly situated,
plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages
going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the
Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the
statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs
who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the
date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for
conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this
lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a
motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3,
2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class
members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the
date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs'
July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA
claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members
to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April
17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members.
Putative class members who wish to opt in to the action and join
in plaintiffs' FLSA claims have 90 days from the mailing of the
notice to return the written consent form included with the notice
packet.

On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the company in which a
former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former
employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly
basis, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and
entitling her to overtime pay. The plaintiff alleges violations of
Federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of
similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois
statute. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion
to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues
and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case.


APPLE INC: Faces "Backhaut" Suit iMessage Service
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses Apple of violating a slew of laws by intercepting and
failing to deliver text messages sent from iPhones to people who
switched from an iPhone to a non-Apple device.

Lead plaintiff Adam Backhaut claims Apple violates the federal
Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, and California unfair competition and consumer laws.
Backhaut claims it does this by "accessing and intercepting the
delivery of text messages sent by current iPhone users with
iMessage enabled ('iPhone/iMessage Users') to former
iPhone/iMessage Users (i.e. users who switched from an iPhone to a
mobile device running a competing operating system)."  In other
words, Backhaus says: "(A)fter a user stops using an iMessage-
enabled

iPhone and switches his or her wireless service to another mobile
device running a different operating system (e.g. Android, Windows
Phone, or BlackBerry), Apple improperly retains the former
iPhone/iMessage User's phone number in its iMessage systems.

"When a current iPhone/iMessage User sends a text message to the
former iPhone/iMessage User, Apple intercepts that text messages
and diverts it from the standard SMS/MMS protocols to Apple's
iMessage system.  The text message is, therefore, never received
by the intended recipient and because of Apple's interception and
unauthorized access.

"Apple never informs either the sender or the intended recipient
of its interception and unauthorized access of the text message."

He seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, disgorgement
and restitution of ill-gotten gains, punitive damages, an
injunction and costs.

He is represented by William Audet, of San Francisco.


ARGOSY UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over False Accreditation Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Argosy University lured
students with false claims about accreditation and transferability
of credits, a student claims in a class action in King County
Court in Seattle.


ARIA CONTRACTING: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Pursuant to FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald E. Wallace, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. James F. Jerge, JR. and Aria Contracting
Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-00423 (W.D.N.Y., June 2, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aria Contracting Corp., is owned and operated by James F. Jerge
with an office and principal place of business at 3907 North
Buffalo Road in Orchard Park, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafael O. Gomez, Esq.
      LOTEMPIO & BROWN, P.C.
      181 Franklin St.
      Buffalo, NY 14202
      Telephone: (716) 855-3761
      Facsimile: (716) 855-3437
      E-mail: rgomez@lotempioandbrown.com


AT&T CORP: Faces Shareholder Action Over Proposed DirecTV Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline reports that less than two weeks after AT&T and DirecTV
sealed their $48 billion-plus tie-up, a shareholder has filed a
class action objecting to the deal.  The suit filed on June 5 in
Los Angeles Superior Court names as defendants AT&T, the satcaster
and its board members, including former CBS honcho Peter Lund and
ex-Fox Networks Group chief Tony Vinciquerra.  In the lawsuit,
investor Teresa Silvestri claims the purchase price for the
satcaster is too low considering its long-term potential.

"DirecTV's recent financial performance is indicative of a company
on the rise with growth potential yet to be recognized," the suit
reads.  It also takes the board members to task.  "In approving
the Proposed Acquisition . . . the Individual Defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care
and disclosure by . . . agreeing to sell DirecTV without first
taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class members would
obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the
circumstances and engineering the Proposed Acquisition to benefit
themselves and/or AT&T without regard for DirecTV public
shareholders.  Absent judicial intervention, the merger will be
consummated, resulting in irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the
Class."

The filing, which demands a jury trial, claims breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.  Attorney
Evan J. Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- of Brodsky & Smith in
Beverly Hills is representing the plaintiffs.


BLUE CROSS: Reaches Settlement on 3 Autism Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Premera Blue Cross will cover neurodevelopmental therapy for
autistic and developmentally disabled policyholders regardless of
their age, remove treatment caps and pay $3.5 million for past
claims, under a settlement agreement to three class actions in
state and federal courts from parents of autistic children.

Premera and its subsidiary LifeWise Health Plan of Washington
restricted certain therapies, including speech, physical and
behavioral therapy, for autistic people and limited therapies to
children older than 7, according to the lawsuits.

The class claimed this violated the Washington Mental Health
Parity Act, which requires health plans in the state to cover
services to treat mental disorders listed in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The settlement came after five days of "arduous negotiations," and
"fundamentally changes the insurance landscape for all of
Premera's Washington insureds with developmental disabilities and
autism," according to the 65-page settlement.

Premera agrees to provide "medically necessary" therapies,
including Applied Behavioral Analysis, for DSM conditions.

"Consistent with this broad coverage right, Premera has agreed not
to impose any outright exclusion or age limitation on such
coverage. Moreover, Premera has further agreed not to impose any
visit limitations or monetary caps on medically necessary
neurodevelopmental therapies," according to the settlement.

The insurer will set up a $3.5 million settlement fund "to pay for
past claims related to neurodevelopmental therapy, attorney fees,
costs, incentive awards and costs of administration."

The settlement must be approved by the judges in the three cases.

The complaints were filed by Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger
of Seattle between 2011 and 2013.


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Judge Tosses Four Claims in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal
judge on May 28 tossed four claims against BMW of North America
LLC in a putative class action alleging the company fraudulently
failed to disclose that the tops on its 6 Series convertibles are
defective, and kept the remaining three claims alive.

U.S. District Judge William J. Martini dismissed the claim brought
under New Jersey's consumer fraud law on the grounds that
California law applies to the case, and dismissed the claim under
California's Song-Beverly Act.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Accord in Defibrillator Suit v. Guidant Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Justice of Ontario Court verbally approved a $3 million
settlement reached in a suit against Guidant Corporation over
defibrillators, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various state
and federal jurisdictions against Guidant Corporation (Guidant)
alleging personal injuries associated with defibrillators or
pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product
communications. Further, the company is aware of approximately 30
Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international
jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers,
including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product
communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were
filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the
outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice
of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom
defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family
members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of
Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were
implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative
claims. In each case, these matters generally seek monetary
damages from the company. The parties in the defibrillator class
action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter
for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge verbally
approved the settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: MDL Over Transvaginal Surgical Mesh Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-District Litigation-2326 which consolidates cases over
transvaginal surgical mesh products by Boston Scientific
Corporation continues in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, according to the company's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

According to the Company, "As of May 7, 2014, there were over
20,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal
surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary
incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against the
company. The cases are pending in various federal and state courts
in the United States and include eight putative class actions.
There were also over ten cases in Canada, inclusive of three
putative class actions. Additionally, as of May 7, 2014, there
were three claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs
allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal
surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and
manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud,
violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of
consortium claims.  Over 1,700 of the cases have been specially
assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February
7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court
transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated
pretrial proceedings. In addition, in October 2012, the Attorney
General for the State of California informed the company that
their office and certain other state attorneys general offices
intended to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of
transvaginal surgical mesh products."

"During the fourth quarter of 2013, the company received written
discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices.
The company responded to those requests. The company established a
product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and
claims asserted against the company as well as costs of defense
thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products."


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Marchese" Antitrust Lawsuit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the antitrust suit Marchese, et al. v.
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, according
to the companies' May 8, 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 a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.  On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the
District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the
Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying
claim and related state common law claims to proceed.
Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on
February 13, 2012.  Discovery is proceeding.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Consumer Suit Expert Discovery Done by Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
directed that expert discovery in In Re Cablevision Consumer
Litigation proceed with a completion date of September 30, 2014,
according to Cablevision Systems Corporation's May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.  On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.  Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.  On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the
Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to
plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard
to the remaining claims, which were dismissed.  On April 16, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which
asserts a claim only for breach of contract.  The Company's answer
was filed on May 2, 2012.  On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion
for partial summary judgment.  In April 2013, the Court deferred
further fact and expert discovery, if any, until it had ruled on
the pending motions.  On March 31, 2014, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without
prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  The parties
have 60 days within which to submit to the Court a proposed class
notice.  On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert discovery
proceed with a completion date of September 30, 2014.


CALIFORNIA: Students File Class Action Over Lost Learning Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Oakley, writing for Oakland Tribune, reports that when
Eric Flood's economics teacher at Fremont High School went on
maternity leave last fall, a procession of substitute teachers
filled the days with easy, irrelevant and uninspiring work.  It
was so boring, many students stopped going to the first-period
class altogether.

When his teacher returned, she expected them to be caught up with
the work.  Many of them ended up with D and F grades, Mr. Flood
said.

Mr. Flood, 17, is one of 11 student plaintiffs across the state in
a class-action lawsuit filed on June 5 against the state
Department of Education.  The suit says the students have been
denied equal access to teaching time compared with students who
attend schools in more well-to-do neighborhoods.

The suit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, cites a loss of
valuable learning time due to a number of systemic failures,
including a shortage of teachers and mental health counselors, and
the failure to have class schedules ready at the beginning of the
year.

"We didn't even have to do the work.  The substitute just marked
us as being there even if we weren't," Mr. Flood said on June 5.
"There was no point in going to that class anyway, so we just
stayed home."

Lawyers involved in the suit say they hope it will get the state
to devise a way of tracking how many hours and minutes of
instruction students actually get at school, so schools will be
forced to provide a minimum standard for learning time.
Currently, schools simply report whether a student was there
sometime between the start and end of the day.

Northern California plaintiffs in the lawsuit include two students
at Castlemont High School and two at Fremont High School in
Oakland and one at Nystrom Elementary School in Richmond.  The
other named plaintiffs are at four Southern California schools.
Also named as a defendant is the state superintendent of education
Tom Torlakson, who is running for re-election.

Attorneys from Public Counsel, an advocacy firm, the ACLU of
Southern California and other lawyers are handling the case on
behalf of the students.

The ACLU of Southern California was part of a similar class action
brought against the state and settled in 2004 that contended the
state failed to provide public school students with equal access
to instructional materials, safe and decent school facilities, and
qualified teachers.

"We interviewed teachers and administrators in low-income schools
and identified several factors that cause students to lose days
and weeks of learning time," said Michael Soller, spokesman for
Public Counsel, about the suit filed on June 5.

The suit alleges the schools' failure to have class schedules
ready at the start of the year takes away from learning time.  A
lack of mental health counselors in schools where kids are victims
of violence and where shots are fired near schools takes away
teaching time when teachers become ad hoc counselors, the suit
says.

And at schools where there are not enough teachers, substitutes do
a poor job and students are assigned to help out in school offices
instead of being in class learning, the suit alleges.  It also
says both Castlemont and Fremont high schools have a difficult
time just getting students inside their classrooms.

At Castlemont, "Each morning, more than half of the student body
arrives late to school and misses the beginning of first period.
In many first period classes, there are typically fewer than five
students present in a 25-student class when the bell rings to
start the school day, and, in some classes, there is not a single
student present for the first few minutes of class.  Many students
miss first period altogether," the suit alleges.

"All of those contribute to a really challenging teaching
environment and leads to higher turnover and higher vacancies,"
which cuts down on teaching time, said Public Counsel staff
attorney Kathryn Eidman.  "We really don't see this as a case of
schools needing more money.  We see it as identifying a need at
these schools."

Oakland school district spokesman Troy Flint said the district has
been trying to turn around Castlemont and Fremont high schools for
a number of years with little success.

"We are grateful for any action that is going to produce more
resources we can use to improve outcomes at schools in the
district," Mr. Flint said.

Mr. Torlakson and state board of education President Michael Kirst
issued a statement on June 5 in response to the suit, calling it
"costly and unnecessary."  They said the new shift toward giving
school districts more control over how they spend state money,
called the Local Control Funding Formula, is "the best way to
improve student achievement and meet the needs of our schools."

Danielle Dixon, a special-education teacher at Castlemont for the
past two years, said she is quitting her job because a lack of
teachers makes it too stressful to stay.

"Mental health is one of the greatest needs I see," Ms. Dixon
said.  "My students on a daily basis know students who have been
shot.  I have homeless students who don't have enough to eat and
are still expected to take the tests and earn the grades to
graduate, but they don't have the support to do that.  We need an
investment of qualified and certified psychiatrists and
counselors.  We need wrap-around services which we don't have
right now."

She said the school has vacancies for special education assistants
that are not filled for an entire year.

"There should be people whose job it is to bring those assistants
to us," Ms. Dixon said.


CALIFORNIA: Issues Statement on Students' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and State
Board of Education President Michael Kirst issued the following
joint statement in connection with a class action lawsuit, Cruz et
al. v. State of California, filed on May 29 in Oakland.

"California's education system is in the midst of a historic
effort to shift authority over decision making to local school
districts, empowering them to determine how best to meet the needs
of the students they serve.

"While neither the California Department of Education nor the
State Board of Education has had an opportunity to review the
specific claims made in [the] suit, we believe continuing to
implement California's Local Control Funding Formula, rather than
shifting authority to Sacramento, is the best way to improve
student achievement and meet the needs of our schools, and we will
resist any effort to derail this important initiative through
costly and unnecessary litigation.

"We encourage the ACLU to continue to communicate with us at the
state and, more importantly, to work with local school districts
about the best ways to support local students and improve
educational outcomes."


CANNON INDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Mendoza, Miguel Navar, Michael Castro, Arvester Garner,
Ryan Broussard and Kevin Sneed, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons v. Cannon Industrial Services,LLC,
Michael B. Sheppard and Michael Sheppard, Case No. 4:14-cv-01508
(S.D. Tex., May 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees.

Cannon Industrial Services, LLC, is a Texas limited liability
company located at 8920 Lawndale Street Suite B, Houston, Texas
77012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
     1201 Prince Street
     Houston, TX 77008
     Telephone: (713) 868-3388
     Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
     E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


CBEYOND INC: Being Sold to Birch for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
Cbeyond to Birch Communications too cheaply through an unfair
process, for about $10 a share or $323 million, shareholders claim
in Chancery Court in Wilmington, Del.


CHARLESTON MEDICAL: Dissenting Judge Says Suit "Frivolous"
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals has certified a class action lawsuit against Charleston
Area Medical Center for allegedly accidentally placing a database
containing medical information on the Internet, while a dissenting
justice claims the case is an example of a frivolous class action.

On June 24, 2013, the Kanawha Circuit Court issued an order that
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in their
action against Charleston Area Medical Center and CAMC Health
Education and Research Institute after they allegedly accidentally
placed personal and medical information contained on a database
onto the Internet.

The database included names, contact details, Social Security
numbers and dates of birth for 3,655 patients.

Justices Robin Jean Davis, Brent D. Benjamin, Margaret L. Workman
and Allen H. Loughry II voted in the majority, while Justice Menis
E. Ketchum II issued a dissenting opinion.  The opinions were
released on May 28.

The threshold inquiry for the Supreme Court's consideration is
whether the circuit court erred in finding that Larry Tabata,
Shirley Chancey, William Wells, Donald R. Holstein Jr. and Kay
Kirk, as named plaintiffs, lack standing.

"The circuit court determined that the petitioners lack standing
because they have not suffered a concrete and particularized
injury," the opinion states.  "The circuit court's determination
is based in substantial part on the petitioners' contention below
that the common injury that they share with the proposed class
members is the increased risk of future identity theft."

The circuit court reasoned that a prospective injury does not meet
the requirement for standing of a concrete injury but rather is
conjectural, according to the opinion.

"We agree with the circuit court that the risk of future identity
theft alone does not constitute an injury in fact for the purpose
of showing standing," the opinion states.  "However, in their
complaint, the petitioners also asserted cause of action for
breach of confidentiality and invasion of privacy."

"Applying our law on standing to the petitioner's breach of
confidentiality claim, we find that the petitioners, as patients
of CAMC, have a legal interest in having their medical information
kept confidential.  In addition, this legal interest is concrete,
particularized and actual.  When a medical professional wrongfully
violates this right, it is an invasion of the patient's legally
protected interest."

Therefore, the petitioners and the proposed class members have
standing to bring a cause of action for breach of confidentiality
against the respondents, according to the opinion.

The petitioners also alleged a cause of action for invasion of
privacy.

"Application of our law to the facts of this case indicates that
the petitioners have standing to bring a cause of action for
invasion of privacy," the opinion states.  "The petitioners and
proposed class members have a legal interest in privacy which is
concrete, particularized and actual.  Therefore, they have
standing to bring a cause of action against the respondents for
the alleged invasion of that legal interest."

The circuit court found that the petitioners have failed to show
commonality among their claims and the proposed class members.

There are common questions such as whether the respondents'
conduct breached the duty of confidentiality that a doctor owes a
patient and whether the conduct invaded the privacy of the
petitioners and the proposed class members, according to the
opinion.

"Having found the existence of a common nucleus of operative fact
and law and common issues, we believe that the circuit court
abused its discretion in determining that the petitioners failed
to meet the commonality requirement for class certification," the
opinion states.

The circuit court also found that the lack of typicality prevents
class certification.  However, the Supreme Court believes as a
practical matter, this case fits the definition of typicality
between the petitioners and proposed class members, according to
the opinion.

"When this court applies these guidelines to the instant facts, it
is clear that common issues of law predominate over individual
questions," the opinion states.  "Simply put, all of the proposed
class members are in the same position.  Their causes of action
are the same and they arise from the same event."

There is no evidence of unauthorized access of their personal and
medical information, no evidence of actual identity theft and no
evidence of economic injury arising from the alleged wrongdoing,
according to the opinion.

Rather, all of the proposed class members allege that their
interests in confidentiality and privacy have been wrongfully
invaded by the respondents.

"Therefore, this court finds that common questions of law and fact
predominate over individual issues for the purpose of class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3)," the opinion states.

The Supreme Court emphasizes that the scope of its opinion is
narrow.

"We hold only that the circuit court erred in finding that the
petitioners lack standing and that the circuit court abused its
discretion in ruling that the petitioners failed to meet the
requirements for class certification of commonality, typicality,
and the predominance of common issues of law or fact," the opinion
states.  "This court makes absolutely no determination regarding
the merits or the lack thereof of the petitioners' causes of
action for breach of confidentiality and invasion of privacy such
as whether the petitioners have adduced evidence sufficient to
prove the elements of these causes of action."

The court reversed the June 24, 2013, order of the Kanawha Circuit
Court that denied the petitioners' motion for class certification
and remanded the case to the circuit court for proceedings
consistent with its opinion.

In Justice Ketchum's dissenting opinion, he called the case a
typical example of a frivolous class action lawsuit.

"The named plaintiffs' lawyer admitted during oral argument that
discovery did not reveal that any of his client's medical records
or personal information was accessed or viewed by any unauthorized
person," Justice Ketchum's dissenting opinion states.  "As soon as
it was discovered the information was placed accidently on the
internet it was removed before any unauthorized person viewed the
named plaintiffs' records."

The majority opinion concedes that discovery reveals the named
plaintiffs have suffered no injury, according to the dissenting
opinion.

"No harm, no foul," his dissenting opinion states.  "The
plaintiffs lack standing to sue or represent a class of unnamed
plaintiffs.  Although the majority allows class certification, our
law is clear that if discovery reveals that no unnamed member of
the class has suffered harm that the trial judge should decertify
the class action and dismiss the suit.

"Of course, this cannot occur until massive amounts of attorney
fees are incurred by the defendants conducting discovery relating
to more than 3,000 unnamed class members."

The plaintiffs were represented by Sean W. Cook of Meyer Ford
Glasser & Radman.

The defendants were represented by Marc E. Williams --
marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- Nathan I. Brown --
nathan.brown@nelsonmullins.com -- and Jenna E. Hess --
jenna.hess@nelsonmullins.com -- of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP.

The case was first filed in Kanawha Circuit Court in February 2011
and was assigned to Circuit Judge James C. Stucky.

W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 13-0766


CHARM COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constantine Pappas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Charm Communications Inc., He Dang, Zhan
Wang, Gang Chen, Nick Waters, Engadin Parent Limited, and Engadin
Merger Limited, Case No. 1:14-cv-03926 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2014),
seeks to enjoin the parties' Merger unless and/or until defendants
cure their breaches of fiduciary duty.

According to Bloomberg News, Charm last month announced that a
buyout group, Engadin Parent Ltd, had offered $4.70 for each of
its American depositary receipts. The merger, which Charm
accepted, is expected to close before the third quarter.  In the
lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, investor Constantine
Pappas claims that He Dang, Charm's founder and chairman, and
other board members breached their fiduciary duty by agreeing to
the transaction.  Analysts had said each share is worth $5, Pappas
said in the complaint.

Charm Communications Inc., is incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands. It maintains its principal executive offices at
Legend Town, CN01 Floor 4, No. 1 Ba Li Zhuang Dong Li, Chaoyang
District, Beijing 100025, People's Republic of China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & Korsinsky, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, New York 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile:(866)367-6510


CITIGROUP INC: Judge Okays $8.5MM Accord on Securities Fraud Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Citigroup paying thousands of shareholders $8.5 million to resolve
liability over the subprime-mortgage crisis constitutes a "fair,
reasonable, and adequate" settlement, a federal judge has ruled in
Manhattan.

Participants in Citigroup's Financial Analyst Capital Accumulation
Program have spent the last five years suing the bank for
securities fraud on both coasts.  Citigroup misled investors by
overstating the value of subprime mortgages and downplaying the
risks, the shareholders alleged.

Originally filed in California in 2009, the case was transferred
to New York, where four years of litigation still left trial a
long way away.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein described the legal wrangling
that the settlement avoids.  "The complexity in this action, if
litigated to a verdict, looms large," the nine-page opinion
states.  "Expert discovery and summary judgment and pretrial
motions, as well as an extended trial and a possible appeal all
would lie ahead and all would consume vast resources.  Approval of
this settlement will avoid that extended and costly litigation."

While it won't make it a dent in Citibank's finances, the
settlement represents an estimated 2 percent of the class's out-
of-pocket loss, the court found.

"In this case, absolutely nothing in the record suggests that a
judgment greater than $8.5 million would challenge defendants'
solvency," Stein wrote.  "It would be fanciful in the extreme to
even suggest it."

None of the 7,409 class members objected to the settlement, though
one requested exclusion, according to the opinion.

"This positive reaction weighs heavily in favor of approval of the
settlement," Stein wrote.

Attorneys involved in the case have not yet returned requests for
comment.


COMCAST CORP: Sued in NJ Court for Illegal Disconnection Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Comcast illegally charges
for "the disconnection or downgrade of a trial or promotional
service," a class action claims in Middlesex County Court in New
Brunswick, N.J..


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

Courthouse News Service reported that bad lending practices drove
the price of Conn's (furniture & electronics) from $79 to $32,
shareholders say in a federal class action in Houston.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONVISINT CORPORATION: Sued Over Violation of Securities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen J. Desrocher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Convisint Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-03878 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Securities Act.

Convisint Corporation provides a cloud engagement platform in the
United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Mario Alba Jr.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             malba@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
     110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 230-0063
     Facsimile: (619) 255-1856


CTS-COMPLETE TECHNICAL: Moore Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Moore, Dennis McDonald, Daniel Riffe, and Rodney Guerrant,
on behalf of themselves and others collective action similarly
situated v. CTS-Complete Technical Services, Inc. and Nabors
Offshore Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00184 (S.D. Tex., May 30,
2014), seeks to recover employees' unpaid overtime wages as well
as other damage permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CTS-Complete Technical Services, Inc., is a Texas corporation with
its principal office in Spring, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David I. Moulton, Esq.
     Bruckner Burch PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


DELL INC: Faces Class Action Over False and Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Dell Inc. and its CEO
Michael Dell goosed the company's stock price in 2012 with false
and misleading statements and the share price fell by 17 percent
in a day when the truth came out, the City of Pontiac employees'
retirement system claims in a federal class action in Manhattan.


DIRECTV: Being Sold for Too Little to AT&T, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that to no one's surprise,
shareholders claim that DirecTV is selling itself too cheaply
through an unfair process to AT&T, for $48.5 billion, in a class
action in Chancery Court in Wilmington, Del.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Athletes' Likeness Suit for $20 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Sam Keller and his teammates
used to eagerly await the annual release of the NCAA Football
video game, the popular EA Sports product featuring lifelike
depictions of every major team.  Judging the ability of his on-
screen persona in the game was all in good fun, but once Mr.
Keller's career was finished the former Arizona State and Nebraska
quarterback felt something wasn't right.  The pros collected
royalties from EA's Madden NFL game, for example, but the
collegians couldn't.

"It's a great game, but it was flawed," Mr. Keller said.  "It was
wrong."

The NCAA announced on June 9 that it will pay $20 million to
former football and basketball players who had their images and
likenesses used in video games, hoping the settlement will help
keep amateurism rules intact for college sports.  Hours before the
O'Bannon trial began in California challenging the NCAA's the
authority to restrict or prohibit payments to athletes, the
largest governing body in college sports said it had settled
another potentially damaging lawsuit scheduled to go to trial next
March.  Mr. Keller's attorneys filed the class-action suit in May
2009 and contended the NCAA unfairly deprived college players of
revenue.

"It wasn't until after I was done playing football that the light
turned on in my head about what was really going on.  When you're
a student athlete you kind of become like a robot," Mr. Keller
said in an interview with The Associated Press.

He added: "Friends would share with me, 'Hey bro, I won the
Heisman Trophy with you.' . . . Meanwhile, we couldn't sell a
jersey or do autographs or anything to profit from our likeness.
It was all big corporations."

The deal came a little more than a week after Electronic Arts
agreed to a $40 million settlement of similar allegations.

The $60 million worth of settlements cover claims made in the
Keller and O'Bannon cases against EA, along with two other cases,
attorney for the plaintiffs Steve Berman said.  The agreement
announced Monday covers Division I men's basketball and Bowl
Subdivision football players whose images, likenesses or names
were included in game footage or in an EA video game after 2005.
The $40 million settlement covers athletes to 2003, even if they
were not in the video games.

Final details were still being worked out.  How much each player
gets will be determined by how many athletes file claims.  Based
on historical trends, Mr. Berman said, payments to Division I
men's basketball and Bowl Subdivision football players are
expected to range from $400 to $2,000 each.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of
California must approve the settlement.

Last July, the NCAA said it would no longer allow Electronic Arts
Inc. of Redwood City, California, to use its logo once the current
contract expired this month.  That ended a lucrative business deal
with the multibillion-dollar video game industry giant, which is
well known for Madden NFL, FIFA Soccer and other games.  EA Sports
first began making an NCAA Football game in 1998.

Mr. Berman estimated that more than 100,000 athletes are now
eligible to seek compensation over EA video games they contend
relied on close depictions of college football and basketball
players.

"With the games no longer in production and the plaintiffs
settling their claims with EA and the Collegiate Licensing
Company, the NCAA viewed a settlement now as an appropriate
opportunity to provide complete closure to the video game
plaintiffs," NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said.

The NCAA said current players who receive part of the settlement
won't be at risk of punishment under rules that generally bar
compensation for their athletic skills.

"In no event do we consider this settlement pay for athletics
performance," Mr. Remy said.

With the NCAA increasingly becoming embroiled in legal cases, the
playing field has changed.

CBS and Turner are paying the NCAA an average of more than $770
million per year to televise the men's basketball tournament, some
schools are making millions more per year from deals made between
television networks and conferences, and the new College Football
Playoff will be putting another $7.2 billion over 12 years into
the coffers of schools that play big-time college football.  So
when others profited from the video games, college athletes went
to court to get a bigger piece of the pie.

Ed O'Bannon, the former UCLA basketball player, and other
plaintiffs are asking U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken for an
injunction that would allow athletes to sell the rights to their
own images in television broadcasts and rebroadcasts.  That trial
began on June 9 in federal court in California.

While the long-term ramifications from the settlement in the
Keller case are yet to be determined, the short-term implication
is clear.

"Going forward, I think people will be on notice that if they are
going to use players likenesses, they will have to pay for them,"
Mr. Berman said.


ESCAMBIA COUNTY: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Duwayne Reuben, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Escambia County Sheriff's Department, Case
No. 3:14-cv-00250 (N.D. Fla., June 2, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP PA
      515 S. Federal Hwy, Ste. 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Defrauding Propane Gas Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Ortiz, Stephen Morrison, and Steven Tseffos, individually
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v.
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership; Ferrellgas,
L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Blue Rhino;
Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing
business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange; and UGI Corporation, a
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02257 (D. Kan., May 30, 2014),
arises out of a conspiracy to fix fill levels of exchangeable
portable cylinder tanks containing propane gas commonly referred
to as "propane exchange tanks."

According to Courthouse News Service, the class action claims that
Ferrellgas, Blue Rhino and Amerigas Partners defrauded customers
by reducing the amount of propane in their "exchange tanks" from
17 lb. to 15 lb.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
     Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP - KC
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Telephone: (816) 714-7132
     Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
     E-mail: vahle@stuevesiegel.com
             siegel@stuevesiegel.com


FREEDOM OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Pursuant to FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Bowlin and Dakota Pearson, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Freedom Oilfield Services, L.L.C.
d/b/a Mosley's Freedom Oilfield Services LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00199 (S.D. Tex., May 30, 2014), to recover overtime wages brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Oilfield Services, L.L.C. d/b/a Mosley's Freedom Oilfield Services
LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Louisiana, having its principal place of
business in Haughton, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig M. Sico, Esq.
     SICO WHITE et al.
     802 N Carancahua, Ste 900
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Telephone: (361) 653-3300
     Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
     E-mail: csico@swhhb.com


FURIEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling Furiex
Pharmaceuticals too cheaply through an unfair process to Forest
Laboratories, shareholders claim in a class action in Wake County
Court in Raleigh, N.C..


GENERAL INFORMATION: Sued Over Inaccurate Background Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
claims that General Information Services misidentified "thousands
of employment applicants" as criminal defendants, because they
posted bond for someone else who had been arrested.

Lead plaintiff Betty Lacy sued General Information Services for a
nationwide class estimated in the thousands.  GIS is based in
Chapin, S.C.

"Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of thousands of employment
applicants throughout the country who have been the subject of
prejudicial, misleading, and inaccurate background reports
performed by the defendant and sold to employers," the lawsuit
states.  "Defendant has adopted and maintained a policy of
misidentifying sureties, consumers who post bond for someone who
has been arrested, as criminal defendants in a criminal case,
therefore misidentifying an innocent consumer as having a criminal
record.  The prejudice caused by this erroneous reporting is
exacerbated by defendant's failure to notify the consumer
contemporaneously of the fact that the inaccurate criminal record
information is being sent to the employer.

"As a result, consumers who are entitled to receive copies of
their consumer files from defendant pursuant to section 1681k of
the FCRA [Fair Credit Reporting Act] are deprived of a proper and
timely disclosure, and unable to adequately verify and/or dispute
the accuracy of the information that defendant sells to employers.
Defendant's practice harms consumers seeking employment by
prejudicing their prospective employers with inaccurate and
misleading information, and harms interstate commerce as a whole."

Lacy seeks class certification, statutory damages of $100 to
$1,000 for each violation of two sections of the FCRA, punitive
damages and costs.

Her lead counsel is Ronald Burdge -- info@burdgelaw.com -- of
Dayton, Ohio.


GENERAL MOTORS: Axes Four In-House Lawyers Amid Recall Probe
------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that General
Motors Co. axed at least four in-house lawyers and two directors
as part of a purge related to deadly ignition switches that took a
decade to recall.

GM CEO Mary Barra said on June 5 that 15 high-level employees were
"removed"; presumably that means some were allowed to retire.
"Some were removed because of what we consider misconduct or
incompetence," Ms. Barra said.  "Others have been relieved because
they simply didn't do enough: They didn't take responsibility;
didn't act with any sense of urgency."

Ms. Barra and GM declined to release details on those who were
removed, but names have leaked out to various news media.  None
could be reached for comment, and GM declined further comment on
June 6.  But the names of the departed were sprinkled throughout
the internal investigation report that the company released on
June 5.

Among those reported ousted:

    * Michael J. Robinson, vice president for environmental,
sustainability and regulatory affairs since October 2009, and
previously general counsel for GM North America for one year.
Robinson, 59, joined GM in 1984 and has held a number of positions
on the legal staff, according to a previous company news release.
Before assuming the North America GC role in 2008, he served as a
practice-area manager on the legal staff and then managing
attorney responsible for a variety of regulatory functions.  Prior
to that, he was responsible for GM compliance activities and led
development of the company's "Guidelines for Employee Conduct."

   * Lawrence Buonomo, administrative head of product litigation
in GM's legal department and, since March 2012, chairman of the
legal review committees that decided whether to settle significant
lawsuits.  In these roles, Mr. Buonomo saw numerous fatal crash
cases pass before him but, according to the report, he never
alerted general counsel Michael Millikin to the problem.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Mr. Buonomo joined GM 20 years
ago as a litigation attorney; he previously was an associate and
litigator at Bingham, Dana & Gould.

   * William Kemp, counsel for GM's global engineering
organization, who was widely regarded as GM's most knowledgeable,
experienced and trusted safety lawyer, according to the report.
He served as liaison between the engineers and the GC's office,
and reported directly to the North America GC.  He also sat on the
legal review committees that decided settlements in the fatal
crashes since 2006 but, according to the report, never alerted
Mr. Millikin to the ignition-switch problem.

The report says that Kemp was in a meeting with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration as early as June 2004 over
the ignition problems that caused vehicles to stall and air bags
to not deploy.  His notes indicate, "NHTSA told GM that, in a case
where the number of failures was 'inordinately high,' the factors
should be considered but not necessarily 'immunize' a manufacturer
from conducting a safety recall."

   * Jennifer Sevigny, an attorney who leads GM's field product
assessment group.  As head of this group, Ms. Sevigny often worked
with the litigation staff on lawsuits and legal claims.  She is
mentioned numerous times in the report as having worked on
assessments of the ignition problem.

Several other lawyers are mentioned in the report, and it is not
yet known if more attorneys were dismissed or are among the five
employees who Ms. Barra said received other disciplinary actions.
GM also dismissed two department directors for their roles in not
identifying and fixing the safety issue.  They were Gay Kent,
general director of vehicle safety and crashworthiness, and
M. Carmen Benavides, who also served as director of product
investigations and safety regulations until March, when she was
reassigned to director of safety improvement initiatives.
Kent appears in a Washington Journal video, talking about GM
safety at the 2013 auto show in Washington, D.C.  At the beginning
of the ignition-switch problems, she was director of product
investigations and engaged with NHTSA in the late spring of 2004
regarding the engine stalling, which she and others at GM insisted
was not a safety issue.

Ms. Benavides' name is on many documents in which GM responded to
questions from NHTSA, including several in the recall of the
faulty switches.  She also received an email last summer in which
a top NHTSA official called GM "slow to communicate" and "slow to
act" on details and recalls.


GEORGE CARDENAS: Faces "Ocampo" Suit Over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Ocampo, Jose Irrizarry Torres, Mucio Lino Betancur and
Juan Lopez, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. George Cardenas
Landscaping, Ltd. and George Cardenas, Individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-04041 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

George Cardenas Landscaping, Ltd., provides landscaping and
maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE INC: Sued Over Closure of Adsense Accounts Before Due
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Google cheats Google AdSense advertisers by closing their ad
accounts just before payments are due to the website owners, a
class action claims in Federal Court in San Francisco.

Lead plaintiff Free Range Content, of San Francisco, claims Google
intentionally closes AdSense accounts to deny full payment to
website owners.  The amount each website owner and publisher loses
can range from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of
dollars per year, according to the 22-page lawsuit.

"The AdSense program is enormously popular. This popularity
translates annually to billions of dollars payable to AdSense
publishers -- Google's parlance for website operators that host
its ads," the complaint states.  "But as the plaintiff and many
other publishers have found, Google often shuts down AdSense
accounts shortly before a periodic payment is due and then denies
the publisher the entirety of the expected payment,
notwithstanding all the ads the publisher already has served to
visitors to its website during the payment period."

AdSense is an advertising service created by Google, which places
advertisements on high-traffic websites.  When visitors view or
interact with the ads, the website owners are supposed to collect
a portion of the advertising fees Google collects from the
advertisers.  But the class claims that due to the way Google runs
the program, many website owners wind up being paid nothing.

"It is Google's wrongful refusal to pay terminated AdSense
publishers the monies they have earned and are owed that is the
subject of this lawsuit," the complaint states.  "Google's actions
constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law."

Free Range seeks class certification, money owed, and damages for
unjust enrichment, unfair competition, breach of contract and
breach of faith.

Its lead counsel is Jeff Friedman -- jfriedman@friedman-
lawyers.com -- with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, of Berkeley.


GOOGLE INC: Plaintiff Not Satisfied With $324MM No Poach Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
$324 million settlement with Apple and other tech giants is
"grossly inadequate," a class representative said, likening terms
over the alleged poaching ban to having a shoplifter pay $40 for
an iPad.

Michael Devine, in a letter to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, said
a tentative settlement involving no-hire claims against Google,
Apple, Intel and Adobe "fails to achieve justice for the class."

Software engineers, on behalf of an estimated class of 64,000,
sued the companies, plus Intuit and Walt Disney subsidiaries
LucasFilm and Pixar, in 2010, over illegal "no cold-call
agreements" that restricted or eliminated competition for high-
tech employees, which "disrupted the normal price-setting
mechanism that apply in the labor setting."

The poaching ban maintained internal salary structures at the
companies from 2005 to 2009, workers claimed, and involved
"gentleman's agreements" via CEO-to-CEO emails between the late
Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley CEOs.

Devine said the estimated settlement, "which was correctly
reported in the press as being in the amount of $324 million,"
equals less than 1 percent of compensation for each class member
over the duration of the alleged poaching ban.

"The evidence of the defendants' illegal conspiracy, and its
intended impact, is very strong," Devine wrote.  "In fact, the
defendants' own actions reveal their valuation of the conspiracy.
Just look at Google which, when Facebook rejected their initial
overture, felt compelled to raise annual compensation 10 percent
companywide to stem the flow of employees to Facebook."

Google reportedly bid on Facebook in 2004 and 2007, without
success.

Devine also liked the settlement to a shoplifter caught with an
iPad, allowed to walk nearly scot-free.

"As an analogy, if a shoplifter is caught on video stealing a $400
iPad from the Apple Store, would a fair and just resolution be for
the shoplifter to pay Apple $40, keep the iPad, and walk away with
no record or admission of wrongdoing?" Devine wrote.  "Of course
not, nor is such a resolution appropriate in our case.  Perhaps,
though, the prevalence of corporate crime is in part due to
absence of real justice for the victims of the courtroom? Why,
with such uniquely compelling evidence in hand, would we short
circuit this case? Please, Your Honor, allow us our day in court."

Devine said he was not informed of mediation that led to the
tentative agreement until a day after competing counsels "had
already reached an agreement," adding he informed the plaintiffs'
counsel in writing of his intent to oppose the deal.

"The tentative settlement, if it stands, amounts to big profits
for plaintiffs' counsel, insulation from real liability for the
defendants, and locks in a significant net loss for the class,"
Devine, one of four named plaintiffs in the case, said.

Lucasfilm, Pixas and Intuit agreed to pay $20 million to exit the
suit late last year.

The four remaining companies notified Koh by letter in late April
of their intent to settle the lawsuit, claiming the parties
"reached an agreement to settle all individual and class claims
alleged in the consolidated amended complaint."

Co-lead class counsel and the defendants' counsel -- Kelly
Dermondy with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Robert Van Nest
and Joseph Saveri -- signed the letter.

Koh issued orders granting workers' separate motions for final
approval of the settlement, which has not yet been officially
announced, as well as for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses and service awards.

Dermody said that unlike Devine the remaining class
representatives fully support the proposed settlement.

Daniel Stover, Siddharth Hariharan and Mark Fichtner, in separate
declarations, said attorneys at Lieff Cabraser regularly updated
them regarding the case.

"My attorneys informed me of the proposed settlement with the
defendants, and I agreed that the proposed settlement was fair,
adequate, and reasonable," the declarations state.  "I authorized
my attorneys to agree to the proposed settlement."

Dermody called the settlement an "excellent result."

"This settlement was reached under the supervision of a very
experienced former federal judge who supervised the negotiations,"
Dermody told Courthouse News.  "We think it is an excellent
result."

Settlement specifics, which have not yet been filed with the
court, will be available no later than May 22, Dermody added.


GRATIS PHONE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Carpio Gutierrez, and all others similarly situated v.
Gratis Phone, Inc.; Iqbal Ali; and, Shabana Ali, Case No. 4:14-cv-
01531 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gratis Phone, Inc., is a Texas corporation headquartered at 11715
West Bellfort, Suite B, Stafford, Texas 77477.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ONE ARENA PLACE
      7322 Southwest Frwy, Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Telephone: (713) 223-1300
      Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
      E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Neely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Halliburton Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-01534 (S.D.
Tex., June 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages owed
to the Defendant's workers specifically Directional Drillers and
MWD/LWD Field Operators under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Halliburton Company is a major services and construction company,
including well logging, well completion, and reservoir
engineering.  It is a Delaware corporation doing business in
Texas. It may be served through its registered agent: Capitol
Corporate Services, Inc., 800 Brazos Street, Suite 400, Austin,
Texas 78701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com


HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Sued Over Excess Profits & Exec Bonuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Health Care Service Corporation, a Blue Cross Blue Shield
insurer, violated its mission as a nonprofit mutual company by
accumulating more than $5 billion in excess profits, and dishing
it out in executive bonuses, a class action claims.

Lead plaintiff Babbitt Municipalities sued Health Care Service
Corp. (HCSC) in Cook County Court.

"As a nonprofit mutual company, defendant is obligated to act for
the mutual benefits of its members -- the policyholders.  This
mandate is contained in defendant's articles of incorporation, its
bylaws, and numerous public statements made by defendant," the
lawsuit states.

"Over the past five years, defendant has accumulated excess
profits of almost five billion dollars, funds not necessary to
protect against any unforeseen financial contingency.  HCSC is
supposed to use these excess profits for the mutual benefit of the
members of the corporation.  Defendant, however, has failed to
allocate its excess profits for this purpose."

HCSC is a licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
and provides insurance plans under the Blue Cross Blue Shield
name.  HCSC is the largest customer-owned health insurer in the
United States, and as a nonprofit, answers to policyholders rather
than investors.

But rather than spend its profits to benefit members, HCSC "has
used those funds to expand its business operations and pay its
corporate executives millions of dollars in 'bonus' money -- the
payment of which is tied to defendant's earnings growth.  In other
words, the more money HCSC accumulates, the more money its
executives get paid.  This has resulted in a perverse incentive
system that favors the continued accumulation of profits and
expansion of the nonprofits' business operations at the expense of
its policyholder members," Babbitt claims.

The top 10 executives were paid nearly $96 million in bonuses over
the past three years, according to the complaint.

It adds: "Blue Plans historically have represented that retained
profits of three months of claims payments was more than
sufficient to cover any unexpected financial contingency.

"HCSC, however, maintains excess profits of nearly 6 months of
claims payments -- nearly double of the benchmark 3-month
reserve."

The insurer has increased profits by charging members higher
administrative fees, even while it remains very profitable, the
complaint states.

HCSC "acts in a manner contrary to its mission by branching out
and conducting business activities separate and apart from its
mission.  For example, defendant generates enormous fees simply by
administering its members' health care benefits -- a task with
little to no risk to the insurer.  For 2013 alone, defendant
generated revenue of over $229 million dollars from such
administrative fees.  This revenue results in an ever-increasing
accumulation of excess profits.  Members did not mutually benefit
from this significant receipt of funds.  Instead, defendant is
using excess profits to expand its business operations without
corresponding mutual benefit to its members," Babbitt claims.

Babbitt seeks an order finding that HCSC has breached its
contracts by not using its excess profits for members' benefit,
and recovery of improperly distributed excess profits.

Its lead counsel is Ari Scharg with Edelson PC.


INDIANA: Bureau Of Prisons Faces Class Action Over 'Muslim Pants'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Muslim inmate filed a class
action in Terre Haute, Indiana, against the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, claiming that Islam prohibits Muslim men from wearing
pants below their ankles, but his prison prohibits him from
hemming pants above the ankles.

Yahya "John" Lindh sued the directors of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons and the warden of the Terre Haute federal pen, in Federal
Court.  The lawsuit states: "Yahya Lindh is Muslim and it is a
clear tenet of Islam that Muslim men are prohibited from wearing
pants below their ankles.  Despite this, it is a formal policy of
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons that 'Islamic
inmates may not hem or wear their pants above the ankle.'  This
policy imposes a substantial, and unjustified, burden on the
religious exercise of Mr. Lindh and all Muslim prisoners with the
Federal Bureau of Prisons and violates the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act."

Lindh also objects to the strip-search policy imposed for visits.
He seeks an injunction and costs.

He is represented by Kenneth Falk -- kfalk@aclu-in.org -- and by
Gavin Rose with the ACLU, in Indianapolis.


INFOBLOX INC: "Ansfield" Suit Claims Earnings Report Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ansfield, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Infoblox, Inc., Robert D. Thomas, and Remo E. Canessa,
Case No. 5:14-cv-02500 (N.D. Cal., May 30, 2014), arises from the
Defendants' nondisclosure and concealment of the true nature of
the Company's business operations, including but not limited to
the Defendants' use of heavy discounting to retain market share
and its use of false and misleading statements to misrepresent
earnings and revenue projections and financial performance.

Infoblox, Inc., headquartered in Santa Clara, California, provides
a broad family of enterprise and service provider-class solutions
to over 7,000 enterprises and service providers with a goal of
making customer networks more available, secure, and automated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Insys Therapeutics boosted
its stock price with false and misleading statements about its
"unethical off-label marketing," and the share price fell from
$45.28 to $37.55 in a day when the truth came out, then fell
another $9.88, shareholders claim in Federal Court in Phoenix.


IT'S JUST LUNCH: Defrauded Customers, Manhattan Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
matchmaking service that allegedly had employees tell every
prospective client, "Oh, by the way, I've got three people that
I'm thinking for you just off the top of my head," must face fraud
claims, a federal judge ruled in Manhattan.

In 2007, nine men and women sued the New York-based matchmaking
service It's Just Lunch and its regional affiliates, alleging that
they roped in clients with a sales pitch that promised to find
multiple matches for everybody, whether or not it was true.  The
proposed representative for the New York class claims that the
company violated the state's general-business laws by charging him
more than $1,000 per year.

It's Just Lunch sales staffers pick up an "info-call script" at
"First Date University" to guide them through calls with potential
customers, the complaint alleges.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein liberally quoted from that script
in an opinion that green-lights the New York class to pursue
class-action fraud claims.  It's Just Lunch president Melissa
Brown acknowledged in a deposition that the script warned "in all
capitals" that salespeople should "NOT DEVIATE FROM THE INFO CALL
PRESENTATION," according to the 41-page opinion.

One sample come-on said: "Ok, so far I have 3-4 ideas for your
first date," the opinion states.

"When asked for an example of a situation in which she would
reject a prospective customer rather than claiming to be able to
provide matches, Jill Vandor, co-owner of the New York IJL
franchise at which plaintiff Bruno was a customer, testified that
she would 'likely' reject 'a 55-year-old [who] came in and only
wanted to date a 30-year-old,'" Stein wrote.

Sales representative Camila Craig testified that she initially
turned down a potential customer who "could not complete a full
sentence" but "ended up taking him" upon the advice of a
supervisor, the opinion states.

"In short, the evidence in the record that defendants' salesforce
ever diverged from the script is speculative at best," Stein
found.

Class counsel John Balestriere with Balestriere Fariello applauded
the verdict.

"We are very happy the court agreed that there is evidence to show
that It's Just Lunch perpetrated fraud on a massive scale, that
our clients are able to proceed against It's Just Lunch as a class
action," Balestriere said in an email.

Attorneys for the defendants did not return a request for comment.


JUSTMUGSHOTS.COM: Fla. Woman Can't Represent Class, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deshayla Strachan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Florida woman whose mug shot appeared online after her
arrest last year is not fit to represent a class that would
include troubled pop star Justin Bieber, a federal judge ruled.

"The court cannot disregard the right of certain individuals to
pursue damages based on the commercial value of their image due to
their celebrity, i.e. pop star Justin Bieber and professional
athletes Chad 'Ochocinco' Johnson and Manny Ramirez, whose images
appeared on the websites and would be part of the class," the
decision states.  "Further, some of the class members paid to have
their image removed and may be entitled to a refund and bound by
an arbitration provision."

Shannon Bilotta brought the lawsuit in question after her name and
image stemming from a June 2013 arrest in Florida appeared online,
allegedly for commercial purposes without her permission.

U.S. District Judge James Moody refused earlier this year to
dismiss the claims against Arthur D'Antonio, who operates the
websites justmugshots.com and mugshots.mobi.  Citizens Information
Associates LLC, Justmugshots.com and Kyle Prall are also named as
defendants.

Bilotta alleged common-law invasion of privacy and violations of
Florida's right of publicity statute and Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The defendants retrieve mug shots from the websites of various
law-enforcement offices and publish them on bustedmugshots.com,
mugshotsonline.com, justmugshots.com, mugshots.mobi and
whosarrested.com.

Visitors can pay a fee to utilize the "unpublishing services" of
these websites, or they can have their mug shot taken down for
free if they submit documented evidence of exoneration from the
arrest, as defined by defendants.  The websites also advertise
other products and services.

Bilotta asked that the court certify a class of "all persons who
were arrested in Florida and whose names and photographs have been
published on the websites since August 30, 2009."

Judge Moody declined to do so on the grounds that Bilotta could
not adequately represent the class since her situation was not
typical and she did not have the same injury as other potential
class members.

The defendants had argued that class certification as to the
injunctive claims alone would deny the rest of the class due
process as to their monetary claims.

Moody agreed, stating: "a class should not be certified if the
court must engage in individualized determinations of disputed
fact in order to ascertain a person's membership in the class."

"A class is ascertainable if the court can determine whether a
given person is a class member through administratively feasible
methods," he added.


LIFEWATCH INC: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Lifewatch defrauded people
by telling them, falsely, that a family member had bought a
medical alert device for them and all they had to do was pay
monthly fees for it, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Edward J. Reynolds, D.D.S., sued Lifewatch Inc. and
several affiliates for fraud, unjust enrichment, and consumer law
violations.

Lifewatch sells medical alert and monitoring devices.

Reynolds claims the company called him, and others, "telling them
that a family member, friend, or other person purchased the
defendants' medical alert device for them and/or a doctor
recommended it for them.  Thus, consumers were told that the
device was 'free' and that they only had to pay for the monthly
monitoring fees, as their family member, friend or other person
intended.  The defendants' statements were false, untrue, and/or
otherwise misrepresentations. The defendants subsequently charged
consumers for the device and/or a monthly fee for monitoring
services."

Reynolds demands disgorgement, damages for fraud, unjust
enrichment, and consumer law violations and an injunction.

He is represented by Barry Gainey with Gainey McKenna & Egleston,
of Paramus, N.J.


LUGGAGE SERVICES: Does Not Pay Overtime, Drivers Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alonzo Talton, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Luggage Services and Logistics, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:14-cv-02505 (N.D. Cal., May 30, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime to drivers
for each and every hour worked and the failure to pay for time
spent driving in accordance with the designated wage scale,
warrants liquidated damages under California Labor Code

Luggage Services Logistics, LLC, is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business at 3050 Highland Parkway, Suite 100,
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christina Ann Humphrey, Esq.
     MARLIN & SALTZMAN
     29229 Canwood St., Suite 208
     Agoura Hills, CA 91301
     Telephone: (818) 991-8080
     Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
     E-mail: chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com


M&G POLYMERS: Supreme Court to Hear Retirees' Action
----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that retirees who blocked a requirement to make health care
contributions must defend their action in the Supreme Court, the
justices said.

Hobert Freel Tackett led the class action in Columbus, Ohio,
against M&G Polymers USA and associated health plans after M&G
announced in December 2006 that its retirees would need to start
making health care contributions.

After a bench trial, a federal judge said the retirees should get
health care for life without contributions and ordered them
reinstated to the post-2007 benefits plans.

Both parties appealed, with the retirees complaining that their
pre-2007 plans should be reinstated, but the 6th Circuit affirmed
the permanent injunction this past August.

"Given the inapplicability of the capping agreements, the district
court did not clearly err in finding that pre-August 9, 2005
retirees had a vested right to receive contribution-free health
care benefits," the decision states.

The Supreme Court granted M&G a writ of certiorari, noting that it
would answer only one of two questions presented.

The question asks:

"Whether, when construing collective bargaining agreements in
Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, courts should presume
that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care
benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and
therefore continue indefinitely), as the Sixth Circuit holds; or
should require a clear statement that health-care benefits are
intended to survive the termination of the collective bargaining
agreement, as the Third Circuit holds; or should require at least
some language in the agreement that can reasonably support an
interpretation that health-care benefits should continue
indefinitely, as the Second and Seventh Circuits hold."

Per its custom, the court did not otherwise comment on the case.


MAJOR ENERGY: Faces Suit Over High-Pressure Sales Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Major Energy/Respond Power
used high-pressure sales tactics in a bait and switch scheme to
put customers into unfavorable variable-rate contracts, a class
action claims in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Denies Bid to Reconsider Some Arguments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that as
a June antitrust trial approaches in former college athletes'
class action demanding the rights to profit from their own names,
images and likenesses, a federal judge in May denied the NCAA's
motion to reconsider certain arguments.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken also granted a motion by a
number of broadcasters and nonprofits to file an amicus brief in
support of the NCAA.

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

In the first complaint, former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon
said the NCAA violated his and other athletes' right to make money
off their likenesses.  A separate complaint, later consolidated,
was filed by former Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller.

In April this year, Wilken ruled partly in the athletes' favor in
one of several motions for summary judgment.

The NCAA has argued that the competitive effects of not paying its
student-athletes outweigh the anti-competitive effects.

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

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

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

The NCAA also claimed that by not paying its so-called student-
athletes, schools' athletic budgets can better support more
women's sports.

Wilken rejected this argument.

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

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

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

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

"The NCAA has not explained why it could not adopt more stringent
revenue-sharing rules," the judge wrote, granting the athletes
summary judgment on that issue.

"The challenged restraint is not justified by the NCAA's claimed
desire to support women's sports or less prominent men's sports."

The NCAA sought leave to move for reconsideration, arguing that
Wilken did not consider the law and facts involving "the scope of
the 'college education' market" and "the non-existence of less
restrictive alternatives."

The NCAA argued that Wilken failed to consider that the college
education market includes athletes besides basketball and football
players, as well as other college students.  The NCAA quoted its
economic expert, who said "the appropriate market definition
should be broad enough to consider the full range of competitive
effects at issue, including effects on students who are not men's
basketball and football athletes."

Wilken rejected this argument, and denied the motion.

"The breadth of the NCAA's challenged conduct is not evidence of
the breadth of the relevant market," Wilken wrote.

"Antitrust plaintiffs' evidence and arguments make clear that they
are challenging the NCAA's restrictions on student-athlete pay
because of the specific impact those restrictions on the college
education market for Division I football and basketball recruits."

The NCAA also argued that less restrictive alternatives were not
feasible, citing declarations from university administrators and
athletic directors.

"These declarations assert that Title IX makes it difficult for
universities and conferences to redistribute revenue from men's
sports to women's sports," Wilken wrote.  "These declarations rest
on a questionable understanding of Title IX.

"Furthermore, to the extent Title IX does prevent Division I
schools and conferences from redistributing revenue from men's
football and basketball to women's sports, it would undermine the
NCAA's own argument here -- namely, that restrictions on student-
athlete compensation make it easier for schools to redistribute
funding to women's sports and less prominent men's sports."

Earlier in May a number of broadcasters and nonprofits filed two
amicus briefs in support of the NCAA's motion for interlocutory
appeal of Wilken's April order.  The broadcasters include ABC, CBS
and Fox, and were joined by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press.

The First Amendment Coalition filed a separate brief.

"State law has consistently vested exclusive broadcasting rights
in the producers of entertainment, not individual participants in
a team sport," attorney Celeste Phillips wrote for the
broadcasters.

As the NCAA has done, the broadcasters' brief notes that Little
League and high school basketball games often appear on
television, and those minor athletes are not compensated for their
rights of publicity.

Wilken granted the broadcasters' motion to submit their amicus
briefs in a one-page order.  The judge wrote that the antitrust
plaintiffs can submit a reply brief, but cannot repeat any
arguments they previously raised.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Publishing Social Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that The National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust published full Social Security numbers of
people it sued for debts, a class action claims in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Illegally Supplied Painkillers, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that for decades the National Football League illegally supplied
painkillers to players to keep them in the game, without telling
them the severity of their injuries or the side effects of the
drugs, former players say in a federal class action.

"Rather than allowing players the opportunity to rest and heal,
the NFL has illegally and unethically substituted pain medications
for proper health care to keep the NFL's tsunami of dollars
flowing," lead plaintiff Richard Dent says in the lawsuit.

Dent and the seven other named plaintiffs -- Jeremy Newbery, Roy
Green, J.D. Hill, Keith Van Horne, Ron Stone, Ron Pritchard and
James McMahon -- played for different teams at different times
from 1969 to 2008.  They say the NFL cares more about its profits
than its athletes' health.

"More games, longer seasons, shorter recovery between games, plus
bigger and stronger players, equals more frequent and debilitating
injuries.  This is problematic for the league, which needs players
on the field on every given Sunday so the money can keep rolling
in," the lawsuit states.

To keep injured players in the game, the NFL supplies them with
non-prescription opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(NSAIDs), and local anesthetics such as Lidocaine, with little
regard for a player's medical history or potentially fatal
interactions with other medications, the complaint states.

"Administering medications in this cavalier manner constitutes a
fundamental misuse of carefully controlled prescription
medications and a clear danger to the players," according to the
complaint.

Among the medications handed out, the players say, were Percodan,
Vicodin, Percocet, Prednisone, Toradol, Ambien and Celebrex.
Toradol's complications include renal failure and increased risk
of bleeding, but it is increasingly used on the athletes,
according to the lawsuit.

"In the case of NFL players, Toradol is particularly problematic
because it deadens feeling, inhibiting an athlete's ability to
feel pain and sense injury.  The problem with prophylactically
using Toradol as a masking agent is that pain tells or even
compels the player to stop.  If a player cannot feel the pain, he
exposes himself to further danger," the complaint states.

The NFL encouraged "the misuse of narcotic pain medications in
combination with NSAIDs, anesthetics and other substances such as
alcohol despite clear evidence of the potentially fatal
interactions of such combinations.  NFL doctors travel with their
teams and know that players are being provided with such
medications along with alcohol that the NFL provides on plane
trips back from games," the athletes say.

A Washington Post survey found that nine out of 10 former players
reported playing while hurt, 56 percent of whom said they did so
frequently and 68 percent of whom said they did not feel they had
a choice about whether to play, according to the complaint.

Van Horne, an offensive tackle for the Chicago Bears from 1981 to
1993, "played an entire season on a broken leg, the first month of
which he required a special medical boot to reduce the swelling
before he could suit up.  He was not told about the broken leg for
five years, during which time he was fed a constant diet of pills
to deal with the pain," the complaint states.

Dent -- who played for the Bears, the San Francisco 49ers, the
Indianapolis Colts, and the Philadelphia Eagles -- broke a bone in
his foot in 1990, but followed the advice of his doctors and
trainers and continued playing with the help of painkillers for
the next eight weeks.  He says he now has permanent nerve damage
in that foot.

The named players say they received hundreds, if not thousands, of
injections and pills from doctors and trainers, but never were
told about the side effects of the medications.  Many of them say
they became dependent on painkillers and were forced to buy over-
the-counter drugs to satisfy their need after they stopped playing
for the NFL.  They seek class certification, medical monitoring
and punitive damages for fraud, fraudulent concealment,
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring and
retention, and loss of consortium.

They are represented by William Sinclair --
bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- with Silverman Thompson Slutkin White
in Baltimore.

The NFL is still trying to settle claims brought by former players
who claim that injuries they suffered on the field were
intensified due to the league's covering up information it had on
concussions.  A federal judge in Pennsylvania refused to approve a
$765 million settlement with more than 4,000 players on the
grounds that it does not contain enough money to properly
compensate all the athletes.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seeks Dismissal of Super Bowl Ticket Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the National
Football League has filed a reply memorandum in further support of
its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit against it that
alleges it violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act while
selling 2014 Super Bowl tickets.

The NFL's memorandum was filed on May 15 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey after plaintiffs Josh
Finkelman and Ben Hoch-Parker filed a brief in opposition to the
defendant's motion to dismiss on May 8.

"Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss serves
merely to confirm that plaintiffs' amended complaint should be
dismissed," the memorandum states.

"Indeed, plaintiffs put the proverbial cart before the horse --
devoting the first half of their brief to arguments concerning the
alleged legislative history underlying Section 35.1 before
addressing the actual language of the statute or threshold
deficiencies in standing, causation and damages that, alone,
warrant dismissal of plaintiffs' claims."

The plaintiffs do not and cannot demonstrate that Mr. Hoch-Parker
has standing when he did not purchase tickets for the Super Bowl
and, even if he did, he is a resident of Oregon to whom the NJCFA
does not apply, according to the defendant's memorandum.

The NFL claims the plaintiffs' assertion that Mr. Hoch-Parker is
entitled to standing is based purely on a purported "loss of
opportunity" because he allegedly considered purchasing Super Bowl
tickets but chose not do is "so baseless it would essentially
confer standing on anyone who even though about attending the
Super Bowl."

"Plaintiffs also cannot overcome the absence of allegations
sufficient to demonstrate causation," the defendant's memorandum
states.  "Neither plaintiff alleges that he attempted to purchase
tickets at face value through the NFL lottery.  In the absence of
any such allegations, plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that
defendants caused them to pay . . . above face value for their
tickets."

In the plaintiffs' brief in opposition to the NFL's March 14
motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs stated that each year the NFL
uses the same distribution method, which withholds from sale to
the general public almost 99 percent of the tickets.

Seventy-five percent of withheld Super Bowl tickets are split
among the 32 NFL teams, five percent to the host team, 17.5
percent to each team represented in the Super Bowl, and 35 percent
split among the remaining 29 teams, with each getting 1.2 percent.
The remaining 25 percent of tickets are withheld for broadcast
networks, media sponsors, the host committee and other league
insiders, according to the plaintiffs' brief.

"The NFL asks the court to ignore the very reason why the law was
passed and completely overlooks the legislative history and
governmental studies which required 95 percent of tickets be sold
to the public," said Bruce H. Nagel, an attorney for the
plaintiffs.  "The NFL fails to read the plain language of the law
and puts its head in the sand hoping to avoid what is clear as
day."

The NFL parties place no restrictions on the NFL's member clubs
use of Super Bowl tickets, resulting in the auctioning by NFL
franchises of their ticket allotments to the highest bidding
ticket broker, according to the brief.

"The brokers then sell the tickets for exorbitant amounts on the
secondary market," the brief states.

The NFL's actions force all consumers wanting tickets to the Super
Bowl into the secondary market, where they have to pay
substantially more than face value, according to the brief.

"Hoch-Parker has standing because he alleges a loss of
opportunity," the brief states.  "In addition, he has standing to
assert his claims because the event giving rise to the claim
occurred in New Jersey, a New Jersey statute regulates the NFL
parties' conduct in New Jersey and New Jersey has a strong
interest in protecting consumers from the unlawful acts of
companies doing business in New Jersey."

While the plaintiffs' contend that the amended complaint is more
than adequate to survive this motion, in the event that the court
finds that any of the counts are lacking, the plaintiffs
respectfully request an opportunity to amend their pleadings, the
brief states.

In its motion to dismiss, which was filed March 14 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, the NFL stated that
the class action is billed as an attempt to address alleged
violations of the NJCFA, a statute that regulates the practices of
ticket brokers who are involved in the business of reselling
ticket of admissions to places of entertainment within New Jersey
and who charge premiums in excess of price, plus taxes, printed on
the tickets.

"In reality, the action represents a challenge to a law
considerably older and more tested than the NJCFA -- that of
supply and demand," the motion to dismiss states.  "Plaintiffs
. . . aim to attribute the prices of Super Bowl tickets on the
secondary market to the NFL's ticket distribution policies rather
than the overwhelming demand for tickets to one of the most
popular sporting events in the world."

Where there are numerous justifications warranting dismissal of
the amended complaint for failing to state a claim, at the outset,
the action should be seen for what it is -- a "strained attempt to
stretch the NJCFA far beyond its obvious scope," according to the
motion.

Every year the NFL prints "tens of thousands of Super Bowl
tickets, yet it only allocates a meager one percent of these
tickets for release to the general public through a lottery
system, forcing all other fans into a secondary market for the
tickets where they must pay substantially more than the ticket's
face value to attend one of the most popular and iconic sporting
events of the year," according to a complaint filed Jan. 6 in the
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey.

Josh Finkelman and Hoch-Parker claim the profits from these
secondary market sales are returned to the NFL and its franchisees
in lucrative contracts with secondary ticket buyers who must
purchase large blocks of tickets to regular season games of a
franchise team in order to secure a small allotment of Super Bowl
tickets.

The plaintiffs' claim the secondary market buyer then enhances
their profitability by packaging their tickets into expensive
deals requiring the interested fan to purchase extras, such as
multi-night minimum stay hotel rooms, pre-game parties and
limousine services.  The plaintiffs claim the practice of
withholding all but one percent of its tickets to the general
public constitutes a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.

On Dec. 30, Mr. Finkelman purchased two tickets to Super Bowl
XLVIII for $2,000 per ticket, which was far in excess of the face
value of the tickets, according to the suit.  Mr. Hoch-Parker
considered purchasing Super Bowl tickets, but ultimately decided
not to because of the cost.  The plaintiffs claim the NFL already
has tax-exempt status and its acts and omissions allow it to gain
millions of dollars in profits that it otherwise would not have
gained.  The plaintiffs are seeking judgment against the NFL on
their own behalf and that of others similarly situated for
disgorgement of the monies by which the defendant was unjustly
enriched, compensatory damages with interest and punitive damages.

They are being represented by Bruce Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com
-- Diane E. Sammons -- dsammons@nagelrice.com -- and Greg M. Kohn
-- gkohn@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel Rice LLP.

The NFL is being represented by Jonathan D. Pressment --
jonathan.pressment@haynesboone.com -- of Haynes and Boone LLP; and
Karen A. Confoy -- kconfoy@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild
LLP.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Peter G. Sheridan.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case number:
3:14-cv-00096


NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Court Approves FCRA Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Igor Kossov, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal
court on May 29 approved a $870,500 settlement between trucking
company New England Motor Freight and a class of people suing it
for denying employment after looking at their credit reports
behind their backs.

According to the court, 1,890 of 5,843 preliminary class members
filed timely and complete claim forms.  Job applicants whose
records were checked without their knowledge will get up to $333
each and a sub-class who were explicitly denied employment after
the credit checks will get up to $800 each.

The court said that the awards will be disbursed after 30 percent
of the total $870,500 fund will pay for attorneys' fees.  Lead
plaintiff Leonard Smith will get $5,000.  NEMF will not admit to
any alleged wrongdoing.

"The class members were given an opportunity to object to the
settlement. No objections were filed in this case," the court
wrote in the approval order.

According to the complaint, NEMF violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by purchasing potential job applicants' consumer
reports from Sterling Infosystems Inc. and affiliates.  Mr. Smith,
a New York resident, said that the company takes "adverse" action
against applicants based on the reports.

The company made these evaluations of applicant consumer reports
without first asking the applicants if this is okay.  Nor were the
applicants provided with a summary of their rights under the FCRA,
the complaint said.

Mr. Smith applied to work at NEMF and was rejected in 2011.  In
court documents, Mr. Smith wrote that he was "advised" that his
employment was denied because of consumer report info.  Mr. Smith
said he never authorized the report or learned that one was being
reviewed until he got rejected.  He alleged four claims of failure
to consult and provide notice.

NEMF denied all liability, according to court documents.  The
parties engaged in arms-length negotiations until they reached a
tentative agreement in the fall and a fuller settlement in April,
according to the order.

New England Motor Freight Inc. was represented by Thomas A.
Cunniff -- tcunniff@foxrothschild.com -- Irina Brant Elgart --
ielgart@foxrothschild.com -- and Jack Kolpen --
jkolpen@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild LLP and by Liza M.
Walsh -- lwalsh@connellfoley.com -- of Connell Foley LLP.

Leonard Smith was represented by James A. Francis and Erin Amanda
Novak of Francis & Mailman PC.

The case is Smith v. New England Motor Freight, Inc, case number
2:12-cv-03559-MF in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Brooklyn Over Defective Car Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Nissan sold Altimas, Quests,
Maximas, Frontiers, Xterras and Pathfinders with faulty timing
chain tensioners, a class action claims in Kings County Court in
Brooklyn.


NORTHERN TRUST: Accessed Pendo's Software Source Code, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Northern Trust accessed the
source code to Pendo's BasisPoint software, removed the code from
Pendo's data center, and has refused to pay licensing fees, Pendo
claims in Cook County Circuit Court.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Gov't Still in Talks Over Abuse Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that neither the government, nor the lawyer
representing the plaintiffs, will confirm or deny that a deal has
been reached with the former residents of the Nova Scotia Home for
Colored Children.  However, some news agencies in Halifax are
reporting a deal has been reached in the class-action lawsuit.

About 150 former residents of the orphanage allege they were
sexually, physically and psychologically abused by staff over a
50-year period, until the 1980s.  In December, Judge Arthur
LeBlanc granted permission for a class-action lawsuit against the
province to proceed.

A representative from Premier Stephen McNeil's office told CBC
News that "the government is still in discussions and is hopeful
that a settlement can be reached."  However, the premier's office
would not confirm whether those discussions are close to
conclusion or when an announcement would be made.

Ray Wagner, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the case,
said there is "no comment" about a potential settlement.

Both The Chronicle Herald and CTV say the deal, expected to be
worth millions of dollars, has been reached and was expected to be
made public last week.  The Herald says the premier was set to
make the announcement on June 3.

In November, Mr. McNeil announced his government would try to
settle the suit -- something his New Democratic Party predecessor
fought in the courts before being defeated in October's provincial
election.

The allegations in the class-action have not been tested in court
and previously lawyers for the government have argued that some of
them are based on speculation or hearsay.


OMNICARE INC: Sued for Violating Tel. Consumer Protection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Omnicare, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01335 (S.D. Cal. June
1, 2014), seeks redress for business practices that violate the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Omnicare, Inc. provides a broad range of pharmacy-related
services, and is incorporated and organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware with its principal place of business in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Robledo, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ROBLEDO
     9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
     San Diego, CA 92131-1084
     Telephone: (619) 500-6683
     Facsimile: (619) 810-2980
     E-mail: roberto@robertorobledo.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Illegally Charged Sales Tax, Class Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action claims that Papa John's charges Illinois customers an
illegal sales tax on its pizza delivery charge.  Zachary Tucker
sued Papa John's International and Papa John's USA in Madison
County Court. Tucker claims the pizza giant charges the illegal
tax on the delivery charge.

"In Illinois, sales tax may only be imposed on the local sales
price of taxable tangible property," the lawsuit states.  "The
sales price is the total amount paid for tangible goods, including
services that are part of the sale; however, when a customer has
the option to either pick up the goods or have the goods delivered
by the seller, as in the case herein, a seller may not legally
charge sales tax on a separate charge for delivery where the cost
of delivering the merchandise is equal to or exceeds the delivery
fee.  To the extent the actual cost of delivery is less than the
delivery fee itself, under Illinois law, Papa John's is permitted
to charge sales tax only on the excess amount."

Since customers have the option to pick up their food or have it
delivered, Tucker claims Papa John's cannot legally charge sales
tax on its delivery fees.

"Despite clear Illinois law to the contrary, Papa John's and its
franchise stores have in the past charged and continue to charge
sales tax on the entire delivery fee," the complaint states.  "As
a result, every customer who has ordered food for delivery from
any Papa John's location in Illinois has paid excess sales tax
that defendants and other franchise owners were not entitled to
collect."

The class consists of anyone who ordered from a Papa John's in
Illinois who were charged, and paid, sales tax on an itemized
delivery fee.  The class seeks a cease and desist ruling
prohibiting Papa John's from continuing to charge the sales tax in
question.  It also seeks damages for negligence, breach of
contract/breach of faith and violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The class is represented by Francis J. "Casey" Flynn Jr. of Carey,
Danis & Lowe in St. Louis.


PERFORMANCE PLUMBING: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Bashore, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Larry Langley, individually, and Randal Langley,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-00296 (M.D. Fla., May 30, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc.,is a Florida
corporation with its principal place of business in Naples,
Collier County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
     Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: (561) 447-8888
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


PINNACLE FOODS: Being Sold to Hillshire for Too Little, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors of Pinnacle Foods
are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to
Hillshire Brands in a cash and stock deal valued at $6.6 billion,
shareholders claim in Chancery Court in Wilmington, Del.


PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Hernandez, and all others similarly situated v. Praxair
Distribution, Inc.; and Texas Welders Supply Co., Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-01535 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Praxair supplies welding gases, industrial gases, welding
equipment and welding supplies.  It is headquartered at 211 East,
7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ONE ARENA PLACE
      7322 Southwest Frwy, Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Telephone: (713) 223-1300
      Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
      E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


PROSPECT CAPITAL: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 29 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Prospect Capital Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-
3847 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Prospect Capital securities
between August 23, 2013 and May 6, 2014, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Prospect Capital securities
during the Class Period, you have until July 28, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Prospect Capital is a financial services company that primarily
lends to and invests in middle market privately-held companies.
The Company is a closed-end investment company that has filed an
election to be treated as a business development company under the
Investment Company Act of 1940.  The Company invests primarily in
senior and subordinated debt and equity of companies in need of
capital for acquisitions, divestitures, growth, development and
recapitalization.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
certain of Prospect Capital's wholly owned companies were
investment companies for accounting purposes that were required to
be consolidated by the Company; (2) as such, certain of Prospect
Capital's wholly owned holding companies should have been
accounted for as investment companies; (3) as a result, the
Company's reported investment income and financial results were
misstated; (4) as such, the Company's financial statements were
not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"); (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal
and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 6, 2014, after the market close, the Company filed its
Form 10-Q with the SEC and announced that the SEC's staff had
asserted that some of the Company's wholly owned companies are
investment companies for accounting purposes and must be
consolidated.  The Company announced that the Company may have to
restate its prior financial statements to resolve the issue.  One
potential effect of a restatement would be to decrease the
Company's historical net investment income by the amount of
interest and structuring income paid by such wholly-owned
companies in excess of the amount of income that can be reported
as dividend income based on taxable earnings and profits.

On this news, shares of Prospect Capital declined $0.54 per share,
over 5%, to close on May 7, 2014, at $10.20 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

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


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit Alleging Breach of Securities Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regional
Management Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03876 (S.D.N.Y., May
30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Securities Act of 1933.

Regional Management Corp., is a subprime consumer finance company,
providing various loan products primarily to subprime borrowers
with limited access to consumer credit from banks, thrifts, credit
card companies, and other traditional lenders, including small and
large installment loans, automobile purchase loans, furniture and
appliance purchase loans, and payment protection insurance
products, such as credit life, credit accident, health,
involuntary unemployment, collateral; protection collision, and
property insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Mark K. Blasy, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWN LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
     VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONT, PC
     79 Alfred Street
     Detroit, MI 48201
     Telephone: (313) 578-1200
     Facsimile: (313) 578-1201


ROD'S PRODUCTION: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Saenz, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Rod's Production Services, LLC and Rodney Smith, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00525 (D.N.M., June 2, 2014), alleges violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires nonexempt employees to be
compensated for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek at one and
one-half times their regular rate.

Rod's Production Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company operating throughout the United States including New
Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL FABER
      4620C Jefferson Lane NE
      Albuquerque, NM 87109
      Telephone: (505) 830-0405
      Facsimile: (505) 830-3641
      E-mail: dan@danielfaber.com


RJ REYNOLDS: Supreme Court Rejects $70MM Damage Awards Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court has turned
away appeals from cigarette manufacturers of more than $70 million
in court judgments to Florida smokers.

The justices did not comment on June 9 in rejecting the companies'
complaints.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA Inc. and Lorillard
Tobacco Co. wanted the court to review cases in which smokers won
large damage awards without having to prove that the companies
sold a defective and dangerous product or hid the risks of
smoking.  Those cases all relied on a Florida court ruling that
allows individual smokers or their surviving relatives to use jury
findings in an earlier large class-action lawsuit, even though the
verdict in that earlier case was overturned.  Each plaintiff still
has to show addiction to cigarettes, and resulting death or
illness.


SANRAJ INC: Fails to Pay Non-Exempt Workers OT Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Rodriguez and Sandra Diaz-Soto, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Sanraj, Inc., dba Linden Motor Inn, and
Sailesh Patel aka Sam Patel, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-03386
(E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2014), arises from the alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
specifically for failure to pay non-exempt employees overtime
compensation.

Sanraj, Inc., dba Linden Motor Inn, is a domestic business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York, with a principal place of business located at 714 S.
Conduit Blvd., Brooklyn, New York 11208.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEHAT SUTARDJA: Marvell Officers Facing Patent Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Sebastiano D'Arrigo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of Marvell Technology Group,
LTD., v. Sehat Sutardja, Juergen Gromer, John G. Kassakian, Arturo
Krueger, Randhir Thakur, Pantas Sutardja, Weili Dai, and DOES 1-
20, Case No. 5:14-cv-02523 (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for violating state and federal law by
breaching their fiduciary duties, engaging in fraud and dishonest
conduct by willfully infringing federal patents held by Carnegie
Mellon University, unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of
the Company, and wasting corporate assets.

Sehat Sutardja is the co-founder of Marvell and has been a
director and the Chairman and CEO of Marvell at all relevant
times.

Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., is a Bermuda corporation with its
principal executive offices located at 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa
Clara, CA 95054.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini , Jr., Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com


SHANGHAI TAN: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wen Jian Chen, Laigen Qin, and Gui Zhen Ma, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Shanghai Tan
Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Shanghai Tan a/k/a Shanghai Tide, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03435 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2014), alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

Shanghai Tan Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Shanghai Tan a/k/a Shanghai
Tide, was a domestic corporation, organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New York on September 16, 2008, with a
principal address at 135-20 40th Road, Flushing, NY 11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Telephone: (718) 762-1324
     Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
     E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


SKY CHEFS: Court Rejects $1.75-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- at
BakerHostetler, in an article for Mondaq.com, reports that meals
on airlines have all but disappeared for anyone other than those
in first class, but the company Sky Chefs contends on its website
that it still serves over a million airplane meals a day.  And,
apparently, many of those meals are prepared in California by
about 3,100 employees.  As one might have predicted of a
California employer of that size, one of those 3,100 employees
ultimately asserted the usual laundry list of California wage and
hour claims (in this instance 10 of them), all arising out of
alleged problems with rounding the time they clocked in and out.
Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., Case No. C-12-02705 DMR (N.D. Cal. May
19, 2014).

After months of procedural wrangling, the parties settled the case
for a total of $1.75 million.  Of that amount, the average class
member would receive about $375, the lead plaintiff was to receive
an incentive award of $15,000, and the plaintiffs' attorneys were
to be awarded $525,000 plus expenses.  They presented the proposed
agreement for court approval, which held a hearing on December 18,
2013.  Now, ordinarily, we wouldn't waste a reader's time with the
colloquy at the hearing, but, at least according to the opinion,
the Magistrate Judge verbally requested "supplemental briefing on
significant unanswered questions bearing on the fairness of the
settlement."  Those questions apparently included:

    * Questions about the thoroughness of the examination used to
      estimate the value of the claim.

    * Discrepancies with administration costs (which proved to be
      higher than the parties had allocated)

    * Disparities with the incentive award

    * A 30% fee award, when the "benchmark" was only 25%

None of these is a trivial question, and yet the court found that
the parties did not address them, but "chose to respond in large
part by indicating that the court's concerns were misguided."
After reviewing the questions it had posed, and the lack of any
explanation, the court was left with little choice but to reject
the settlement.  The opinion makes it clear that the court was not
holding it to be unreasonable, but, rather, that the parties had
not given it enough information to make a decision one way or the
other.  In that regard, the plaintiffs' attorneys were lucky as
other courts have been more critical when faced with unsupported
settlements.

One can only wonder why class counsel did not do more to defend
the settlement.  No attorney likes to talk about the weaknesses in
their case, but they had to do so for the court to find the
settlement reasonable.  The incentive award was either supportable
by some risk or involvement by the named plaintiff, or should have
been reduced to comply with the court's expectations, and the
district court was unlikely to overlook a one-year old Ninth
Circuit case rejecting a far smaller figure.  The attorney fee
award, too, should have been supported if valid, and reduced if
the time, expense, difficulty, etc. did not warrant it.  The
administrative cost discrepancy amounted to $3,600 or .02% of the
settlement.  Fortunately for the parties, the court gave them an
additional 45 days to remedy this issues (along with correcting
what the court thought was an unduly time line), so the settlement
may yet stand.  Just as airplane meals have all but disappeared,
however, there are fewer free lunches in the class action context
and the parties need to prove the reasonableness of the settlement
terms.


SMOKY MOUNTAIN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Waitman and Robin Waitman, Individually and on behalf of
similarly situated employees v. Smoky Mountain Children's Home,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00234 (E.D. Tenn., June 2, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, including minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Smoky Mountain Children's Home -- http://carecampus.org/-- is a
private, faith-based, not-for-profit, multi-service agency that
provides professional care and treatment for boys and girls
referred for its services due to emotional, behavioral and life
situations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse D Nelson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JESSE D. NELSON, PLLC
      P.O. Box 22685
      Knoxville, TN 37933
      Telephone: (865) 383-1053
      Facsimile: (865) 383-1054
      E-mail: jesse@jessenelsonlaw.com


SPOKEO: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that online
data aggregator Spokeo is asking the Supreme Court to hear an
appeal of a ruling that allowed a consumer to proceed with a
potential class-action lawsuit.

The company seeks to reverse a decision issued by the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, which revived Virginia resident Thomas Robins's
lawsuit accusing Spokeo of violating the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act.  The 9th Circuit rejected Spokeo's argument that
Mr. Robins hadn't suffered an economic injury, and therefore
lacked "standing" to proceed in federal court.

The 9th Circuit ruled that Mr. Robins didn't need to show an
economic injury to proceed, given that the Fair Credit Reporting
Act provides for private lawsuits by consumers.  Mr. Robins
alleged that Spokeo violated that law by selling false
information, without allowing him to correct mistakes.

Spokeo is now asking the Supreme Court to decide whether
Mr. Robins can proceed with the lawsuit.  The company argues that
people shouldn't be able to sue in federal court unless they've
been harmed -- regardless of whether a law allegedly was broken.
Spokeo notes in its legal papers that the question comes up
frequently in potential class-action cases, including a recent
lawsuit accusing online video company Hulu of violating a federal
privacy law by sharing information about users with Facebook

Spokeo argues that the Supreme Court should rule on that issue in
order to settle the question nationally.

The company says that in the past, judges have reached different
conclusions about whether consumers can proceed in court without
first showing a tangible loss.  "Unless this Court steps in, the
extent and limits of federal jurisdiction will continue to vary
circuit by circuit and case by case," Spokeo argues in a petition
filed earlier in May.  "And in those circuits where a harmless
statutory violation has been held sufficient to confer standing,
class actions presenting huge damages exposure based on harmless
conduct will proliferate."

Two years ago, the Supreme Court declined to issue a decision in a
case that presented a similar issue.

Justin Brookman, director of consumer privacy for the digital
rights group Center for Democracy and Technology, says that a
pro-Spokeo ruling by the Supreme Court would mark a setback for
consumers' ability to bring private lawsuits to enforce their
rights.  But he adds that the Federal Trade Commission and state
attorneys general would still be able to bring cases -- though
there are questions about whether law enforcement authorities
"have the resources to go after all the bad actors."

Center for Democracy and Technology previously asked the FTC to
investigate Spokeo for selling information about job applicants to
potential employers, without first taking steps to ensure the
data's accuracy.  The FTC later brought charges against Spokeo,
which the company resolved by agreeing to pay $800,000 and also
promising to comply with the consumer protection law in the
future.


ST. ANTHONY MEDICAL: Fails to Provide Retiree Benefits, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lenore R. Owens, Jean L. Jewett, Lori L. Buksar, and Julia Snyder,
on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. St. Anthony Medical Center, Inc. ("SAMC"),
The Franciscan Sisters Of Chicago Service Corporation ("FSCSC"),
Donna Gosciej, an individual, Linda Hornyak, an individual, the
members of the Samc Retirement Committee, and John and Jane Does,
each an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-04068 (N.D. Ill., June 2,
2014), seeks an order requiring the Defendants to comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and afford the Class all
accrued benefits to which they are entitled under the terms of the
Retirement Plan and Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

St. Anthony Medical Center, Inc., is a non-profit corporation
located in Homewood, Illinois

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 357-0370
      Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
      E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com


STAR CAREER: Class Certification Granted in Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey state
judge on May 29 granted class certification in a consumer fraud
suit against Star Career Academy, a for-profit school accused of
concealing changes to state law that would preclude its surgical
technology students from obtaining work in the field upon
graduation.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Anthony M. Pugliese certified the
class on May 29 and, in a separate ruling, cleared the case for
trial, according to a statement from attorneys representing
members of the class.


SUSSER HOLDINGS: Being Sold to ETP for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling Susser
Holdings Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to Energy
Transfer Partners in a cash and stock deal valued at $80.60 per
share, or $1.8 billion, shareholders claim in Chancery Court in
Wilmington, Del.


TAX DEFENSE: Sued for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve V. Argem and Patrick Fairon on behalf of themselves and of
all others similarly situated v. Tax Defense Partners, A
California Limited Liability Company, Professional Services
Systems, A California Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-
00826 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2014), brings this action for damages,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, resulting from negligently and/or
intentionally contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular
telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Tax Defense Partners is a California limited liability company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Manning, Jr., Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R. MANNING, JR.
      4667 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150,
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 200-8755
      Facsimile: (866) 843-8308


TELGIAN CORPORATION: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Ramos, Ed Rodriguez, and Edward Kralick, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were
employed by Telgian Corporation and any other entities affiliated
with, controlling, or controlled by Telgian Corporation v. Telgian
Corporation and any other entities affiliated with, controlling,
or controlled by Telgian Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03422
(E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Telgian Corporation is a foreign corporation authorized to do
business within the State of New York, with its principal place of
business at 2615 South Industrial Park, Ave., Tempe, Arizona
85282.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
     111 Broadway, 14th Floor, Suite 1403
     New York, NY 10006
     Telephone: (212) 943-9080
     Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
     E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


TEXAS: Agency Discriminated Against Muslim Inmates, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Texas discriminates in limiting religious services for Muslim
inmates to one hour a week, under supervision by guard, chaplain
or volunteer, a federal judge ruled in Houston.

Bobby Brown raised the challenge by resurrecting his 1969 class
action against the Texas Department of Corrections over its
treatment of Muslim inmates.

Though the department, now known as the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice or TDCJ, was bound by a 1977 consent decree to
treat Muslim inmates equally as compared with adherents to
Catholic, Protestant and Jewish faiths, it moved to terminate the
consent decree in August 2012.  The consent decree required Texas
to include copies of the Quran in prison libraries, hire five
Muslim chaplains, provide pork-free diets, and let adherents
possess Islamic literature and keepsakes.

Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Native American inmates
were allowed under the decree to an average of six hours of
religious activities a week.  The decree also permitted inmate-led
religious services under "indirect" supervision that entailed a
guard checking in from time to time on the meeting through
windows, or with video cameras and audio recordings.

When the TDCJ obtained a stay of that order, however, it
implemented a policy against inmate gatherings in groups of more
than four for religious services unless a guard, chaplain or
outside volunteer is present.  This reduced religious services for
Muslim inmates to one hour a week based on the availability, or
lack thereof, of Muslim chaplains and volunteers.  Thanks to the
availability of more volunteers and chaplains for other faiths,
however, inmates of these groups continued to enjoy the weekly
average of six hours of religious activities.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt sided with Brown on April 30.
Noting that Islam requires its followers to participate in Jum'ah
-- prayer sessions that must occur every Friday just after noon --
Hoyt found the TDCJ's new policy effectively prohibits Muslim
inmates from practicing this tenant of their faith.  This
conclusion relies on the relative dearth both of Muslim chaplains
in the TDCJ system and of possible volunteers from the community
-- few Muslims live around Texas prisons where Muslim inmates are
incarcerated.

The ruling notes that there are 6,775 Texas inmates who identify
as Muslim, and 88,504 Protestant prisoners.  There are 111 prisons
in the TDCJ system and just five Muslim chaplains who are each
assigned to an average of 20 units.  The fact that most Muslim
inmates are assigned to prisons in rural areas far from cities
with large Muslim populations results in the TDCJ not having
enough Muslim community volunteers to oversee the inmates'
services, Hoyt found.

Hoyt also pointed out that the TDCJ gives Jewish and Native
American inmates access to each other and to community volunteers
of their faith by assigning them to specific prisons.

"By contrast, there are no units designated as Muslim units in
close proximity to Muslim citizen volunteers -- that consideration
was not contemplated by TDCJ in assigning Muslim inmates to
housing units," Hoyt wrote.

"The neutrality problem is exacerbated with regard to Muslim
inmates because the most sacred event in Islam -- Jum'ah -- must
occur shortly after midday on Fridays, a day when potential
volunteers are at work and unable to travel to prison units to
participate," he added.  "Protestant services are commonly held on
weekends when many potential volunteers are available to travel to
TDCJ's units.  Hence, TDCJ's policy, or lack thereof, on Muslim
housing assignments and Islam's mandatory Friday services
effectively precludes volunteer-led Muslim religious activities on
Islam's holiest day."

The TDCJ failed to show that security concerns justify the policy
change.  Citing testimony from prison chaplains in the case, Hoyt
said there was no evidence of "any incident, event or episode
involving a security or safety threat of any kind at any time
during the thirty-five years the consent decree remained in
effect."  The TDCJ also could not support its demand for having a
guard or a volunteer supervise religious services to prevent the
discussion of unauthorized activities.

This argument conflicts with the fact that indirectly supervised
groups of inmates can play dominoes, participate in choir and band
practice, and work in prison craft shops, according to the ruling.
Hoyt also found that the TDCJ could not cite cost concerns as
justification for its policy change because its new policy
requires an increase in staff to supervise Muslim religious
services, while a guard was not necessary under the consent decree
regime.  The TDCJ's new policy violates the establishment clause
of the First Amendment, which gives Muslim inmates the right to be
free from discriminatory policies, Hoyt held.

"TDCJ openly favors the Protestantism and disfavors Islam by
devoting state resources to the former disproportionately," the
35-page ruling states.  "Specifically, TDCJ provides resources for
volunteer led services in the form of staff-provided security,
screening, volunteer training, meeting space, record-keeping, and
scheduling, and provides other expenditures that support primarily
Protestant volunteers."

Hoyt also concluded that the new policy violates the free-exercise
clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act.  The ruling reinstates three
provisions of the consent decree and enjoins application of the
new policies to Muslim and Jehovah's Witness inmates

Edward Mallett -- edward@msblawyers.com -- an attorney for the
plaintiffs, said he is happy with the ruling.

"As the court said the facts show that they were establishing
Protestant Christianity as the state religion in the prisons,"
Mallett said in an interview.  "By the way I am a Protestant
Christian, I'm an Episcopalian, but there's very convincing
evidence -- convinced me and convinced the judge -- that
participation in religious activities is good for rehabilitation
and lowers recidivism and helps keep prisons peaceful and safer,
and so it's a good thing."

Though Mallett said "we won across the board when were entitled to
win," he added that both sides will be filing motions to amend the
ruling.

"There are things that we don't like and there are things the
attorney general doesn't like," Mallett said.  "And then I
anticipate the attorney general will pursue their appellate
remedies and ask the 5th Circuit to set aside the order."

The attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Face Suit Over Pinching Tips, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the maker of a taxi-service smartphone app cannot force
drivers -- prospective or current -- to drop their rights to sue
the company for allegedly pinching their tips, a federal judge
ruled.

The decision came May 2, 2014, in class action that taxi drivers
Douglas O'Connor and Thomas Colopy filed in August 2013, alleging
that Uber Technologies discourages riders from tipping by falsely
advertising that the fare includes gratuity.  The San Francisco
startup's "on demand" smartphone application allows customers to
request rides from the driver nearest them, but drivers never get
their tips, the class claims.  Since a similar suit was already
playing out in Massachusetts, the California plaintiffs sought to
represent Uber drivers in all states but that commonwealth.

Both the Massachusetts suit and another in Illinois were pending
when Uber told drivers on July 22, 2013, that they had to approve
new licensing agreements to keep using the phone app.  Users were
given 30 days to opt out of one agreement's arbitration provision,
by sending a letter via hand delivery or overnight mail to Uber's
counsel.  Within a week of filing suit, the California drivers
moved for an emergency protective order to strike arbitration
clauses or provide notice of suit and more opt-out time.

In December, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco held
that Uber likely hoped its new arbitration provision would block
the pending class actions.  After all, "many, if not the majority
of Uber drivers are smaller outfits run by immigrants for whom
English is not their native language," that decision said.  Chen
also blocked Uber from issuing current or prospective drivers any
new licensing agreement with class action waivers until the court
sends out revised notices and procedures.

Uber sought reconsideration of the December order after Mediation
proved unsuccessful.  Chen denied the motion May 2, 2014, again
noting that "the timing of the promulgation of the licensing
agreement by Uber and the inexplicably onerous nature of the opt-
out option strongly suggest the agreement was motivated as a
response to the class action suit filed in Mass."  The judge
tossed aside the claim that he lacks authority to regulate Uber's
contact with prospective drivers who have downloaded the app.

"The court has authority to regulate communications which
jeopardize the fairness of the litigation even if those
communications are made to future and potential putative class
members," Chen wrote.

The ruling compares Uber's alleged wrongdoing with an accused
employer requiring job applicants to sign a waiver agreeing to
arbitration and prohibiting participation in a class action.

"Under Uber's proposed rule, defendants could unilaterally limit
the size and scope of the class to be certified without being
subject to court supervision," Chen wrote.

The court also rejected Uber's proposed corrective notice, which
allows no opt out.

"Conditioning use of its app on accepting the arbitration
provision is clearly an attempt to discourage participation in the
class action," Chen wrote.  "It imposes on drivers a stark choice:
participate in the suit or forego working for or with Uber.  This
is an improper communication."

The plaintiffs' proposed corrective notice similarly failed to
satisfy, however, as it "tends more to urge participation rather
than provide impartial information," according to the ruling.  The
parties were given seven days to decide and agree on a compliant
corrective notice, or else submit their own separate notices
within two weeks.

In an earlier ruling, Chen also dismissed Uber's president and
vice president as defendants, but refused to dismiss the non-
Californian plaintiffs.


US NATIONAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in UCL Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Christina Martin, writing for Liberty Blog, reports that on
May 29, in Duran v. U.S. National Bank, the California Supreme
Court issued a ringing endorsement of the due process right to
mount a defense in a class action lawsuit.  The case involved a
wage and hour class action under California's Unfair Competition
Law on behalf of 260 "business banking officers" (BBOs) who
claimed U.S. Bank misclassified them and denied them overtime pay
in violation of the Labor Code.  The trial court, disregarding all
protocols for statistical analysis, selected 18 BBOs, plus the 2
named plaintiffs, from whose evidence the court extrapolated the
amount of time spent outside the office and the amount of overtime
allegedly improperly withheld.  The court adamantly followed its
own made-up procedure, refusing to allow U.S. Bank to submit 78
declarations of BBOs swearing that they had not been
misclassified.  Based solely on the non-random sample, and despite
the plaintiff's estimated 43% margin of error, the judge decided
that the bank owed the entire class overtime and awarded it $15
million (averaging $57,000 each) and $18 million in attorneys'
fees.  The appellate court reversed, finding that this trial
process denied U.S. Bank its Due Process right to mount a defense.

PLF submitted an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court,
arguing that the trial court violated U.S. Bank's rights to Due
Process by denying it the opportunity to make a defense.  PLF
urged the court to consider how an overly permissive approach to
class actions could damage businesses, the economy, and employees.
Meanwhile, plaintiffs' attorneys and their amici urged the court
to allow procedural innovations like statistical sampling, because
it would allow injured plaintiffs a greater (and more economical)
opportunity to recover.

In a strongly worded opinion, the California Supreme Court
unanimously rejected the application of these innovations, calling
the trial court's methods "profoundly flawed" in violation of the
defendant's right to Due Process.

"The court's decision to extrapolate classwide liability from a
small sample, and its refusal to permit any inquiries or evidence
about the work habits of BBOs outside the sample group, deprived
USB of the ability to litigate its exemption defense. . . . The
injustice of this result is manifest.  While representative
testimony and sampling may sometimes be appropriate tools for
managing individual issues in a class action, these statistical
methods cannot so completely undermine a defendant's right to
present relevant evidence."

"Procedural innovation must conform to the substantive rights of
the parties."

The May 29 decision does not completely foreclose class
certification in employment law cases, but it clearly
distinguishes those cases that permit certification of varying
claims for the purpose of calculating damages with the much more
stringent constraints on certification for determining liability.
The limits on certification are critical because, as the court
noted, once certified, 89% of cases end in settlement, compared
with 15% of cases in which certification is denied.  Courts may
not, however, use the likelihood of settlement to deny defendants
the right to assert defenses, even on an individual basis.  Courts
must assume that the case will proceed to trial, with all the due
process protections intact.  As the court concluded,

"reliance on statistical proof cannot be used to bar the
presentation of valid defenses to either liability or damages,
even if the alternative would require adjudication of a defense on
an individual level.  When liability is to be established on a
classwide basis, the defendant must have an opportunity to present
proof of affirmative defenses within whatever method the court and
parties fashion to try these issues."

This is a big win for the civil justice system, which depends on
adversarial presentation of proof, not a court-ordered thumb on
the scale.


VIBRAM SPA: September 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Douglas, writing for Runner's World, reports that consumers
who bought Vibram FiveFingers shoes between March 21, 2009 and
May 27, 2014 can now file a claim as part of the class action suit
that the company settled earlier last month.  Claims are being
accepted online at a site created after the settlement.

As reported earlier on Runner's World Newswire, in March 2012
Valerie Bezdek brought a class action suit against Vibram,
alleging that Vibram deceived consumers by advertising that the
footwear could reduce foot injuries and strengthen foot muscles,
without basing those assertions on scientific evidence.  Vibram
settled to put the matter to rest and avoid additional legal
expenses.  "Vibram expressly denied and continues to deny any
wrongdoing alleged in the Actions, and neither admits nor concedes
any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing or liability," read the
court brief.

Claimants can seek to be reimbursed for up to two pairs of
FiveFingers; no proof of purchase is necessary to file a claim.
Vibram will award up to a maximum of $94 per pair, although the
agreement acknowledges that, based on similar settlements, it is
reasonable for class members to expect to receive between $20 and
$50 per pair.  The deadline for submitting a claim is
September 24, 2014.

In addition to putting $3.75 million into an escrow account to pay
for filed claims, the settlement requires Vibram to stop making
health claims for FiveFingers unless scientific evidence arises to
support such claims.


WELLS FARGO: Investors Seek Approval for $62.5MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, reports that a group of about 100
investors on May 28 asked a Minnesota federal judge to sign off on
a $62.5 million settlement with Wells Fargo Bank NA to resolve
allegations that the bank's risky strategies breached the terms of
their securities lending contracts.

In a 29-page motion, the group led by pension fund The City of
Farmington Hills Civil Employees Retirement System asked that the
court grant preliminary approval for the agreement, which came
after "extensive arms-length negotiations."


ZEOBIT LLC: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Customers
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Zeobit defrauds people by
claiming their computers need to be repaired no matter what their
true state, a class action claims in Federal Court in Pittsburgh.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, on May 20, 2014, Holly
Yencha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZeoBit LLC, a California limited liability company,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00578-JFC (W.D. Pa., May 6, 2014) alleges breach
of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William R. Caroselli, Esq.
          CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY
          20 Stanwix Street, Seventh Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 391-9860
          E-mail: wcaroselli@cbmclaw.com


* FCC Rejects Solvable Frustrations' Bid to Expand TCPA Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Tagvoryan and Joshua Briones, writing for Inside Counsel,
report that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently
denied a petition for rule-making filed by Solvable Frustrations,
Inc., which sought amendments to the FCC's rules to allow class
actions to be brought before the FCC against common carriers for
alleged violations of FCC rules and regulations.  While the
petition did not directly reference the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), the granting of the petition would have
opened a new front for TCPA class action litigation.

The petitioner, Solvable Frustrations, Inc., is a social network
that aggregates customer complaints and seeks to "use legal and
media resources to convince or require wayward corporations or
other entities to fix the damage they caused."  The petition
argued that the FCC should supplement its rules to allow class
actions because such actions "provide a number of benefits that
reinforce the goals of the Commission," including allowing class
members to share litigation costs, making it possible for wronged
individuals to seek relief for minor injuries, and conserving
administrative resources.

No one filed comments in favor of the petition, and four entities
filed comments opposing it.  One commentator called the petition
"a self-serving vehicle for advancing [Solvable Frustrations,
Inc.'s] private interests" and warned, correctly, that granting
the petition would create "an inherently complex and time-
consuming process with which the [FCC] has no experience or
expertise" and would "strain the [FCC's] already limited
resources.  Another commentator warned that it "would create an
ineffective, inefficient substitute for the public and private
remedies that already exist, and would require a staggering
diversion of the [FCC's] resources."

The FCC agreed. In denying the petition, the FCC explained that
"[t]here is no need for the Commission to entertain class actions
[because] "such suits may be brought in federal court" and there
is "no basis for concluding that the public would benefit from an
additional redundant process before the [FCC].  . . . [F]ederal
courts have decades of experience handling class actions" and can
invoke the primary jurisdiction doctrine if they would be "aided
by the Commission's expertise or guidance with respect to a
particular issue."

The FCC made the right call and thereby prevented a further
expansion of the already burgeoning class action litigation
involving the TCPA.  The FCC has also recently issued several
clarifying rulings/orders regarding the TCPA.  There are a
multitude of additional FCC petitions pending.  As the FCC rules
on them good actors and innovators will benefit from further
clarification and the peace of mind that comes from not having to
be needlessly subjected to enforcement actions or lawsuits, which
could discourage them from offering new consumer-friendly
communications services.


                             *********

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  * * *