CAR_Public/140623.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 23, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 123

                             Headlines


AARON BROTHERS: Obtains Final Approval of "Tijero" Suit Accord
AFFINITY LOGISTICS: 9th Cir. Revives Home-Delivery Drivers Suit
AMERICAN PENSION: Accused of Bilking 5,400 Investors of $23-Mil.
AMICUS MEDIATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Kaye" Class Suit
APPLE INC: Court Approved $6 Million ITunes Gift Card Settlement

APPLE INC: Has Settled Consolidated Suit Over E-Book Price-Fixing
AVIS RENT: Removed "Hancock" Suit to Los Angeles District Court
BACKYARD STEAKHOUSE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
BANKRATE INC: To Settle Private Securities Class Action
BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Removed "Hoffman" Suit to N.J. District Court

BEAR NAKED: Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 2 in Misleading Suit
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Judge Axes Two Claims in Class Action
BREEDING CONSTRUCTION: Sued for Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
BROOKFIELD DTLA: Seeks Final Approval of Settlement in Stock Suit
CANNAVEST CORP: Shareholder Sues Over Alleged "Securities Fraud"

CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Wins Partial Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
DIAMOND FOODS: Court Dismisses "Surzyn" Suit with Leave to Amend
DOMENICK'S BLINDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EDDIE MERLOT: Sued for Requiring Workers to Join Invalid Tip Pool

EXPRESS STORES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Wages
GAF MATERIALS: Can't Escape Class Action Over Defective Shingles
GENERAL MOTORS: "Benton" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Kelley" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "McConnell" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: "Ponce" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Ramirez" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Satele" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Woodward" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GEORGIA: Corrections Dept Sued Over Abuses in Juvenile Prisons

HERTZ CORP: Fails to Disclose Accounting Errors, Suit Claims
HITTITE MICROWAVE: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
IBERIA LINEAS: Bid to Reopen Discovery in Giannopoulos Case Nixed
IMH FINANCIAL: Results of Class Settlement Offerings Disclosed
IRVING OIL: Lawyers to Defend Train Derailment Class Action

JOHN HANCOCK: First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
KBR INC: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action in Texas
KROLL FACTUAL: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Okayed in Part
LA HUEHUETECA BAKERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
LIHUA INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

LYFT INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Driver Says
MARKIT LTD: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Credit Default Swaps
MATHESON TRI-GAS: "Ambriz" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
MCGOVERN LEGAL: Removed "Torsiello" Suit to N.J. District Court
MEDTRAK EDUCATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid in "Sturdy" Suit Denied

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Summary Judgment Appealed in Suit Over TCA
METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Owens" Suit in Georgia Over TCA Continues
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Indemnity Claim from Sun Life in Canada
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Trials in TCPA Violations Suits Set in August
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Crouch" Suit Joined in Engineered Wheat MDL

NATROL INC: "Dao" Suit Included in Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL
NATROL INC: "Eisner" Suit Included in Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL
NEVADA PROPERTY: CoStars Still Unable to Get Certification
NEVADA PROPERTY: Faces Suit in Cal. for "Unlawful" Call Recording
NEVADA PROPERTY: Provides Updates on Condominium Hotel Litigation

OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action
PAYTIME INC: Faces "Storm" Class Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
QANTAS AIRWAYS: Court Approves Air Cargo Cartel Suit Settlement
RCS CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Proposed in Summit Merger Suit
RED ROBIN: Moved "Smith" Suit to San Diego Federal Court

REDBOX AUTOMATED: Dismissal of Privacy Class Action Upheld
RESEARCH MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Dumped Patient Records
SABRE CORP: To Appeal Judgment in Suit v. Online Travel Agents
SABRE CORP: Bid to Amend Online Hotel Bookers' Suit Opposed
SECURITY CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

SHENGDATECH INC: Opposes Third Amended Securities Complaint
TECHE HOLDING: Dismissed Together with IBERIABANK in "Solak" Suit
THOMAS CLIME: Accused of Unlawfully Withholding Workers' Payment
TJX COMPANIES: Removed "Affen" Suit to New Jersey District Court
TREMOR VIDEO: Plaintiffs in Suit Over IPO File Amended Complaint

UNITED BANCORP: Inks MoU to Settle Old National Merger Suit
UNITED STATES: "Barry" Suit Wins Conditional Class Cert.
UNITED STATES: HHS Sued Over Medicare Denial Appeals Process
UNITED STATES: Farmers Can't Intervene in Class Suits
UNITEK GLOBAL: Seeks Final Approval of $1.6MM Stock Suit Accord

URBAN OUTFITTERS: "Abdulhaqq" Suit Goes to Calif. Superior Court
URBAN OUTFITTERS: "Moore" Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
US BANK: Trial Court Judgment in "Duran" Suit Must be Reversed
VOLTARI CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. Motricity Appealed
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Receives $5.6MM From Antitrust Suit Accord

WASABI II LLC: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Ex-Servers Say

* Michael Lewis Firm Files Class Action v. 13 Stock Exchanges


                            *********


AARON BROTHERS: Obtains Final Approval of "Tijero" Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted final approval of a
class action settlement in JOSE TIJERO, AMANDA GODFREY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AARON BROTHERS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 4:10-CV-
01089-SBA, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of Judge Armstrong's May 28, 2014
Order is available at http://is.gd/Nny04X from Leagle.com.

The Court found that the Settlement Class is properly certified as
a class for settlement purposes only. The provisional Settlement
Class is defined as: "All Persons employed by Defendant as non-
exempt, hourly employees within the State of California between
May 7, 2005 and December 19, 2013 (the date of the entry of the
Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval to this settlement)".

Eight Class Members: Dorothy Elizabeth Cadzow, Ariana Marie
Preston, Trenton Lee Vendetti, Matthew Walker, Konnie Kim,
Christopher John Burdett, Sylvania E. Matassa, and Jessica Leigh
Davis, have timely requested exclusion from the Settlement, and
have thus been excluded and are not bound by the Judgment in the
Action, ruled Judge Armstrong.

The Court confirmed the appointment of Plaintiffs Jose Tijero and
Amanda Godfrey as the Class Representatives; and the Law Offices
of Badame & Associates, APC and the Law Offices of Daniel Feder as
Class Counsel.

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, the Court awarded the
Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., its fees and
expenses in connection with the administration of the settlement
in the amount of $91,804.00 to be paid from the Settlement Fund.

The objection to the Settlement Agreement filed on May 22, 2014
was found to be untimely, and therefore not properly before the
Court. Furthermore, the objection was without merit. Accordingly,
the late-filed objection to the Settlement Agreement was
overruled.

Jose Tijero, Plaintiff, represented by Kristopher Philip Badame --
kbadame@badameandassociates.com -- Badame & Associates, APC,
Arthur Kim -- akimhaiti@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Daniel Feder,
Daniel L. Feder -- danfeder@pacbell.net -- The Law Offices of
Daniel L. Feder & Michele Eileen Pillette --
mpillettelaw@hotmail.com -- Badame and Associates.

Amanda Godfrey, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kristopher Philip Badame,
Badame & Associates, APC, Arthur Kim, Law Offices of Daniel Feder,
Daniel L. Feder, The Law Offices of Daniel L. Feder & Michele
Eileen Pillette, Badame and Associates.

Aaron Brothers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Catherine A. Conway --
cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Heather
Dawn Hearne -- hhearne@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP.


AFFINITY LOGISTICS: 9th Cir. Revives Home-Delivery Drivers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Home-delivery drivers suing Affinity Logistics Corp. qualify as
employees, not independent contractors, the 9th Circuit ruled on
June 16, 2014, reviving their class action.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Daniel A. Osborn, Esq.
          OSBORN LAW PC
          295 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 725-9800
          Facsimile: (212) 725-9808
          E-mail: dosborn@osbornlawpc.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          James H. Hanson, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN  46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com

The appellate case is Fernando Ruiz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Affinity Logistics Corporation,
Case No. 12-56589, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Fernando Ruiz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Affinity
Logistics Corporation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.


AMERICAN PENSION: Accused of Bilking 5,400 Investors of $23-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A retirement fund administrator bilked 5,400 investors of $23
million through "high-risk investments" in friends' failed
mortgage and loan companies, a class action claims, reports Jonny
Bonner at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Darlene Oliver sued American Pension Services and
Curtis L. DeYoung, of Riverton, in Salt Lake County Court.

Oliver claims the defendants commingled clients' funds and
embraced high-risk investments, while keeping mum on the
"inflated" values of clients' accounts.

DeYoung launched American Pension Services in 1982.

APS, a so-called third-party administrator of retirement accounts,
is based in Riverton.

The company separates itself from other IRA custodians, Oliver
claims, by promoting customers' ability to purchase non-
traditional assets within their accounts.

APS customers opened a variety of retirement accounts, including
IRAs, simplified employee pension plans, simple plans and Roth
IRAs.  DeYoung tracked down potential clients at investment
seminars, the complaint states.

As of December 2013, APS allegedly had 5,488 customers with
accounts valued at $351,795,430.30.

Total cash balances on APS customer account statements were to
equal cash on deposit in APS master trust accounts, Oliver says.

However, "Upon information and belief for the year ending Dec. 31,
2012, the cash balance in the master trust accounts at First Utah
was $23,879,948," the 29-page complaint states.

"Upon information and belief customer account statements prepared
and sent out by APS indicate that the total customer cash that
should have been in the master trust accounts on Dec. 31, 2012 was
$45,949,847.  The master trust accounts had a shortage of
$22,069,899 in customer funds."

Oliver claims the discrepancies continued.

"Upon information and belief for the year ending Dec. 31, 2013,
the balance in the master trust accounts held at First Utah was
$34,553,402.

"However, upon information and belief, customer account statements
prepared and sent out by APS indicate that the total customer cash
that should have been in the master trust accounts on Dec. 31,
2013 was $57,311,527.  The master trust accounts had a shortage of
$22,758,125 in investor funds.  The amount of the missing customer
funds had increased by nearly $700,000 from 2012 to 2013," the
complaint states.

The missing money, Oliver says, points to DeYoung's unsecured
investments in his friends' failed mortgage and loan modification
businesses.

According to the complaint: "Numerous APS customers hold
promissory notes issued through a 'friend' of Curtis DeYoung
('Friend A') or Friend A's entities in their APS accounts.

"Upon information and belief this Friend A and DeYoung are close
business associates, and DeYoung recommended Friend A promissory
notes to APS customers.

"APS customers hold promissory notes from several Friend A
entities, including, but not limited to: Innovative Services LLC,
Innovative Equity Partners LLC, Prime Utah LLC, and Sawtell
Capital LLC.

"Friend A's businesses vary from residential mortgages, loan
modification and debt settlement to single purpose investment
entities.

"Upon information and belief, in addition to individual
investments made by APS customers, DeYoung directly invested APS
funds with Friend A or Friend A's various business entities
without disclosing to customers this use of customer funds.

"Upon information and belief, all of the investments DeYoung made
for APS customers with Friend A or his entities were unsecured.

"Friend A's business ventures never generated a profit and since
approximately 2010, all promissory notes issued by Friend A to APS
and APS customers are in default.

"Upon information and belief, in 2010, DeYoung agreed to forgive
all investments APS made with Friend A, even though the funds
invested were not DeYoung's to forgive the debt."

Other investments widely held in APS customer accounts include
National Note of Utah LC and Management Solutions Inc., Oliver
says.  Investments in those entities allegedly continued to be
held at full investment value long after they became worthless or
significantly reduced in value.

DeYoung also allegedly invested $2.8 million in an office building
in Wichita, which was lost.

Oliver claims she transferred $55,000 from a Roth IRA account at
Fidelity to APS, in 2009.  She learned in April that her assets
with APS had been frozen, as the company was placed under
receivership at the request of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

During sworn testimony, DeYoung refused to answer any questions
regarding the missing $23 million, the complaint states.

Oliver, of Long Beach, Calif., seeks $50 million in punitive
damages, plus an injunction and accounting for securities fraud,
misappropriation of funds and emotional distress.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Christensen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          9980 South 300 West, Suite 200
          Sandy, UT 84095
          Telephone: (801) 285-7491
          Facsimile: (888) 569-2786
          E-mail: zchristensen@christensenyoung.com


AMICUS MEDIATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Kaye" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC bring this
action against defendants Amicus Mediation & Arbitration Group,
Inc. and Hillary Earle on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated. Plaintiffs' Complaint sets out three classes:
it alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, with respect to two classes and
violations of state law, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-570c, with
respect to the third.

Pending before the court are plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class
Certification and defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

District Judge Janet C. Hall, in an amended ruling dated May 27,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/EOhvUgfrom
Leagle.com, granted plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class
Certification and denied defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A copy of
Judge Hall's original ruling is available at http://is.gd/fyuWzv
from Leagle.com.

The Court certified Class A and subclasses of Classes B and C as:

"Class A" shall consist of all persons to whom defendants sent or
caused to be sent a fax advertisement containing a notice
identical or substantially similar to the Opt-Out Notice from
June 1, 2012 through March 14, 2013, or on October 17, 2010,
January 14, 2011, January 22, 2011, January 30, 2011, June 6,
2011 or June 25, 2011.

"CTLA Class B" shall consist of all persons whose fax numbers
defendants obtained through the CTLA directory and to whom
defendants sent or caused to be sent an unsolicited fax
advertisement from June 1, 2012 through March 14, 2013, or on
October 17, 2010, January 14, 2011, January 22, 2011, January 30,
2011, June 6, 2011 or June 25, 2011.

"CTLA Class C" shall consist of all persons in Connecticut whose
fax numbers defendants obtained through the CTLA directory and to
whom, without having obtained express invitation or permission,
defendants sent or caused to be sent a fax advertisement from
June 1, 2012 through March 14, 2013 or on June 6, 2011 or June
25, 2011.

Lead plaintiffs Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MC PC are
appointed as class representatives of each class. Plaintiffs'
counsel, Attorneys Aytan Y. Bellin and Roger Furman, are appointed
as class counsel for each of the three classes.

The case is ROGER H. KAYE et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMICUS MEDIATION
& ARBITRATION GROUP, INC. et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13-CV-347 (JCH), (D. Conn.).

Roger H. Kaye, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Y. Bellin --
aytan.bellin@BELLINLAW.COM -- Bellin & Associates LLC & Roger
Furman, Roger Furman.

Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Y. Bellin,
Bellin & Associates LLC & Roger Furman, Roger Furman.

Amicus Mediation & Arbitration Group, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Geraldine A. Cheverko -- gcheverko@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Jason S. Feinstein --
jfeinstein@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott
LLC & Marshall D. Bilder -- mbilder@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.

Hillary Earle, Defendant, represented by Geraldine A. Cheverko,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Jason S. Feinstein, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC & Marshall D. Bilder, Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott LLC.


APPLE INC: Court Approved $6 Million ITunes Gift Card Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Johnson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Apple must credit consumers for more than $6 million worth of
iTunes gift cards it deactivated before they were redeemed under a
settlement given final approval by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said on June 13, 2014, that the
settlement "represents 100% recovery for the class."

An estimated 287,218 deactivated gift cards purchased between the
class period of September 2007 and December 2009 have a value of
more than $6 million, according to the stipulation of settlement.

Apple, Best Buy and Incomm Holdings are obligated under the
settlement to "provide class members with iTunes account credits
for all Credited Gift Cards; iTunes account credits for all
Identified Gift Cards; assure all Reactivated Gift Cards have been
reactivated as of November 14, 2013; [and] honor all Qualified
Verified Valid Receipts," according to the final approval order.

The order also appoints Barbara Fafard as the representative of
the settlement class, and it designates Kershaw, Cutter &
Ratinoff, of Sacramento, Calif., and Marcus & Auerbach, of
Jenkintown, Pa., as class counsel.

The firms will recover $750,000 in attorneys' fees, and Fafard
will receive a $5,000 incentive fee.

The cost of the settlement administration and class notice, which
the defendants must also cover, is expected to be in excess of
$300,000, according to a motion filed in February 2014.

Wilken granted the deal preliminary approval in April.  The final
order states that no class member opted out of or objected to the
settlement.

Fafard claimed in the complaint that the gift cards did not list
an expiration date and that neither Best Buy nor Apple informed
customers of one.

InComm Holdings provided activation and deactivation services for
the gift cards.

"Neither Best Buy nor Apple provides the purchaser with any
reasons why, or an example of any circumstance under which, a gift
card would be deactivated after purchase," the complaint alleged.

Fafard said she received gift cards from her daughter, but that
the cards were canceled less than a year after purchase.

"Apple made it clear to plaintiff that Apple had not canceled the
gift cards, but rather the gift cards had been cancelled by Best
Buy . . . and that Apple would not accept the gift cards," the
complaint states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Kershaw, Esq.
          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          Lyle W. Cook, Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER, & RATINOFF LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
          E-mail: wkershaw@kcrlegal.com
                  stalley@kcrlegal.com
                  lcook@kcrlegal.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Auerbach, Esq.
          Jerome M. Marcus, Esq.
          Steven G. Tyson, Esq.
          MARCUS & AUERBACH LLC
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 310
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 885-2250
          Facsimile: (888) 875-0469

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Michael Walsh, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: dwalsh@mofo.com

               - and -

          Matthew McKenna Wrenshall, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: mwrenshall@reedsmith.com


APPLE INC: Has Settled Consolidated Suit Over E-Book Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avoiding a damages trial that could cost it hundreds of millions
for e-book price-fixing, Apple settled claims from consumers and
state attorneys general, according to Adam Klasfeld, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The terms of that settlement were not disclosed in either the
notice that appeared on the docket on June 16, 2014, afternoon or
the subsequent order signed by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.

Apple had fought longest against several antitrust class actions
against it and publishers Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, Penguin,
Hachette and HarperCollins.

While the other publishers settled those claims for a total of
$166 million, Apple went to a bench trial last year that ended
with U.S. District Judge Denise Cote finding that it had played a
central role in the price-fixing conspiracy.

In preparing for a July damages trial, an expert for the
plaintiffs put the figure at $280 million.  That amount would have
been tripled under antitrust law, their Seattle-based attorney
Steve Berman explained.

The 2nd Circuit made the future of that trial uncertain, however,
when it advanced Apple's appeals of multiple Cote decisions.  That
court stopped class action notification and potentially postponed
the trial.

On June 16, 2014, the parties announced that they had reached a
confidential settlement in advance of the appellate court's
ruling.

"As set forth in the memorandum of understanding, any payment to
be made by Apple under the settlement agreement will be contingent
on the outcome of that appeal," plaintiffs' attorney Berman wrote
in a letter to the judge.

Cote signed an attached order the same day halting class action
notification and setting a schedule to move toward the
settlement's approval.

Berman declined to reveal any details of the settlement.  Apple
has not returned a request for comment as of June 17, 2014.

The multidistrict litigation is known as In Re Electronic Books
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 11-md-02293 (DLC), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


AVIS RENT: Removed "Hancock" Suit to Los Angeles District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kim Hancock v. Avis Rent A Car
System, Inc. et al., Case No. BC544154, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-04587-BRO-MAN to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
                  mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Solomon E. Gresen, Esq.
          Steven V Rheuban, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RHEUBAN & GRESEN
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 815-2727
          Facsimile: (818) 815-2737
          E-mail: seg@rglawyers.com
                  svr@rglawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jody Ann Landry, Esq.
          Tiffany Nicole Cruz, Esq.
          Jerrilyn T. Malana, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: jlandry@littler.com
                  tncruz@littler.com
                  jmalana@littler.com


BACKYARD STEAKHOUSE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy Barrientos, 11205 Soldiers Ridge Circle, Suite 101,
Manassas, Virginia 20109, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Backyard Steakhouse, Inc., d/b/a Backyard
Bar & Grill, 13999 Metrotech Drive, Chantilly, Virginia 22015;
RFQ, Inc., d/b/a Backyard Bar & Grill, 7421 Sudley Road, Manassas,
Virginia 20109; and Robbie Qreitem, 25573 Arthur, South Riding,
Virginia 20152, Case No. 1:14-cv-00727-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va., June 12,
2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Backyard Steakhouse, Inc., doing business as Backyard Bar & Grill,
is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in
Chantilly, Virginia.  RFQ, Inc., doing business as Backyard Bar &
Grill, is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of
business in Manassas, Virginia.  Robbie Qreitem is an officer and
owner of BS and RFQ.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          836 Bonifant St.
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


BANKRATE INC: To Settle Private Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. on June 9 disclosed that it has reached a proposed
agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle the private
securities class action pending against the Company and certain
current and former officers of the Company.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bankrate would pay a
total of $18 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all
claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Bankrate stock between June 16, 2011 and October 15,
2012.  The proposed settlement further provides that Bankrate
denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability.  Bankrate's insurers
are expected to fund at least a substantial portion of the
Settlement Fund.

If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice to
the Class members will be sent with information regarding the
allocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund and
instructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on the
Settlement Fund.


BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Removed "Hoffman" Suit to N.J. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hoffman v. Barlean's Organic Oils,
L.L.C., Case No. BER-L-04374-14, was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03770-CCC-JBC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          Facsimile: (201) 221-7890
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew B. Lustigman, Esq.
          THE LUSTIGMAN FIRM
          149 Madison Avenue, Suite 805
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 683-9180
          E-mail: alustigman@olshanlaw.com


BEAR NAKED: Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 2 in Misleading Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Bear Naked
Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it
falsely labeled food products as "100% Natural" and "100% Pure &
Natural" when they included synthetic and artificial ingredients.

Class members who purchased Bear Naked products between Sept. 21,
2007, and May 1 may be eligible for benefits from the settlement.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that they purchased Bear
Naked food products based, at least in part, on the allegedly
misleading statements printed on the products' labels that the
products were "100% Natural" or "100% Pure & Natural."

Bear Naked denies that it did anything wrong and asserts that its
labels were truthful and consistent with the law.

On May 27, the order preliminarily approving the settlement was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The proposed settlement provides for monetary relief to the
settlement class by requiring Bear Naked to pay $325,000 into a
settlement fund.

Chanee Thurston, the named plaintiff in the class action, may
apply for a $2,000 incentive award from the settlement fund,
according to the order.

Class members may seek reimbursement of $.50 per package for every
Bear Naked product purchased between Sept. 21, 2007, and May 1.
Those without proof of purchase can submit a claim for up to $10
per household.

In 2011, the plaintiff filed her class action complaint against
Bear Naked, and it and another class action complaint against the
company were consolidated. On March 12, 2012, the first amended
consolidated complaint was filed.

On April 11, 2012, Bear Naked filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and on July 16, 2012, the court granted in part and
denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, according to the
order.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
cause of action and on Aug. 15, 2012, Bear Naked answered the
complaint.

On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted on July 30. On Aug. 12, Bear
Naked filed a petition to appeal the court's class certification
order.

On Oct. 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied
Bear Naked's petition for permission to appeal the district
court's class certification ruling.

On Oct. 23, the parties participated in mediation before an
experienced mediator and on May 2, the parties entered into a
stipulation of settlement.

Class counsel must submit a motion for attorneys' expenses and
incentive awards before July 28, according to the order.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for Sept. 2

Thurston was represented by Michael David Braun of Braun Law
Group; Maureen Davidson-Welling of Stember Cohn & Davidson-
Welling; Joseph N. Kravec Jr. and Wyatt A. Lison --
wlison@fdpklaw.com -- of Feinstein, Doyle, Payne & Kravec LLP;
Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- of
Finkelstein Thompson LLP; and Janet Lindner Spielberg of the Law
Office of Janet Lindner Spielberg.

Kenneth Kiyul Lee -- KLee@jenner.com -- Dean Nicholas Panos --
dpanos@jenner.com -- and Richard P. Steinken --
rsteinken@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block LLP.

The case was assigned to District Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number: 3:11-cv-02890


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Judge Axes Two Claims in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on June 6 axed two claims in a putative class action
accusing BMW of North America LLC of knowingly selling cars with
defective navigation systems, but said it's too early to toss the
class action allegations.

U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares dismissed on June 6 the suit's
accusations of unjust enrichment and multistate class allegations,
but said BMW's attempts to also get the general class action
allegations thrown out are premature.  BMW moved to dismiss the
proposed class action in mid-February.

"The court grants defendant's motion insofar as it moved to
dismiss plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim and multistate class
allegations," Judge Linares wrote.  "The court concludes that the
arguments raised by defendant in support of its request to strike
or dismiss plaintiff's class action allegations are premature
given the early stage of this litigation."

The case launched in December 2013, when William B. McGuire filed
a putative class action alleging BMW sold or leased vehicles with
defective navigation systems, despite knowing of the defects'
existence.

According to Mr. McGuire's complaint, BMW marketed the navigation
systems as "reliable, accurate, detailed and quick to update."
BMW also claimed the navigation systems offered real-time traffic
information that would be updated every three minutes, along with
other capabilities, the suit says.

In reality, the navigation systems failed to display local real-
time traffic information for the vehicle's immediate area, and
also failed to automatically reroute vehicles to help avoid
traffic.  The suit alleges that BMW knew about the defects,
"possibly as early as June 2012," and that the company
"nevertheless misrepresented the navigation system to have
qualities it did not have."

Judge Linares tossed McGuire's claim of unjust enrichment because
the suit only alleges that BMW concealed certain defects and
misrepresented the abilities of the navigation system -- not that
McGuire didn't receive the product he had purchased.

"The court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a facially
plausible claim of unjust enrichment because the conduct
underlying plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim sounds in tort."

Judge Linares also said that McGuire "lacks standing" to assert
claims for a multistate class action, noting that he cannot assert
claims "under the laws of the states in which he does not reside,
or in which he suffered no injury."

As for Mr. McGuire's general class action allegations, Judge
Linares said that it's simply too early in the process to make a
definitive decision either way, writing that the court cannot
"reasonably at this time" determine the validity of his class
action claims.

Judge Linares said that Mr. McGuire has until July 31 to amend his
claims "to the extent he is able to cure the noted pleading
deficiencies."

Mr. McGuire is represented by James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC.

The case is McGuire et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, case
number 2:13-cv-07356, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


BREEDING CONSTRUCTION: Sued for Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eriso Corado, Fredy Villanueva, Edin Villanueva, Max Aguilar and
Guillermo Najera, On Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly
Situated Individuals v. Breeding Construction, Inc., and James
Breeding, 8241 Backlick Road, Suite L, Lorton, Virginia 22079,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00728-JCC-TCB (E.D. Va., June 12, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay them and
other similarly situated construction and labor employees at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants operate a construction business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.
          836 Bonifant St.
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


BROOKFIELD DTLA: Seeks Final Approval of Settlement in Stock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval of a settlement reached in the Common Stock
Actions against Brookfield entities is being sought, according to
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc.'s May 15, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger
Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA,
Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions," together with the Common Stock Actions, the "Merger
Litigations").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by
failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further
alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,
and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,
Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. On
June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as
the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21,
2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include
certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails
to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15,
2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint
amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board
of directors failed to disclose material information regarding
BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposed
settlement of all claims asserted therein. The parties
subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement dated
November 21, 2013 providing for the release of all asserted
claims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger made
prior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by defendants, of
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $475,000 (which will ultimately be determined by the
California State Court), which has been recorded as a liability as
of March 31, 2014 as part of accounts payable and other
liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The
asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of
settlement is approved by the court, following a hearing on notice
to the proposed class. There can be no assurance that the court
will approve the settlement. The hearing for final approval of the
settlement is scheduled for June 4, 2014.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014. A hearing date on the motion has
not been scheduled by the court.


CANNAVEST CORP: Shareholder Sues Over Alleged "Securities Fraud"
----------------------------------------------------------------
CannaVEST Corp. is facing a stockholder complaint alleging
securities fraud, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint alleging securities fraud and related claims against the
Company and certain officers and directors. Ms. Sallustro alleges
that between March 18 and 31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares of
the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.00.
The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 -- reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).

Additionally, the complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share."

The Company has not yet answered the complaint and management
intends to vigorously defend the allegations.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Wins Partial Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss
an amended securities complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2013 and November 2013, three securities class action
lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the
Court). These complaints, which were substantially identical,
purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities
laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the Company's
common stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013. Two of
the cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and the
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the third case on
January 3, 2014. However, the Court granted leave to the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 20 days.
On January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against the Company and one of its executive officers seeking
unspecified damages. The amended complaint purports to state a
claim for alleged misrepresentations regarding the development of
Firdapse on behalf of a class of those who purchase the Company's
common stock between August 27, 2013 and October 18, 2013. In
February 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part by the
Court.

The company is vigorously defending this lawsuit. While there can
be no assurance, the Company does not expect this lawsuit to have
a material adverse effect on the Company, and no amounts have been
accrued with respect to this potential contingent liability in the
accompanying March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 balance sheets.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minette Thomas-Dotson, on behalf of herself individually and all
others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-04221-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2014), seeks damages
arising from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from
engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair acts and practices.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., is a foreign business corporation
incorporated in Washington.  Convergent is a debt collector that
uses the mail, the telephone and other means to collect defaulted
consumer debts owed or due or alleged to be owed or due to others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette R. Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: Nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Court Dismisses "Surzyn" Suit with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominika Surzyn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, brought a putative consumer fraud class action
against Diamond Foods, Inc., alleging state law claims, inter
alia, for unfair competition, false advertising and negligent
misrepresentation, based on Defendant's "All Natural" designation
on the packaging of certain of its Kettle Brand TIAS! tortilla
chips.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike Complaint,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (f),
respectively.

District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong grants the motion to
dismiss and denies the alternative motion to strike for a more
definite statement as moot. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend.

The Plaintiff is given 21 days from the date the Order is filed to
file a First Amended Complaint, consistent with the Court's
rulings. Plaintiff is advised that any additional factual
allegations set forth in their amended complaint must be made in
good faith and consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

A copy of the District Court's May 28, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/Z0NIMmfrom Leagle.com.

The case is DOMINIKA SURZYN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND FOODS, INC., a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. C 14-0136 SBA, (N.D. Cal.)

Dominika Surzyn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Michael
Lopatin -- lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com -- The Law Offices of Howard
W. Rubinstein, P.A..

Diamond Foods, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com
-- Winston & Strawn LLP.


DOMENICK'S BLINDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Rezendes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Domenick's Blinds & Decor, Inc., a Florida
corporation, and Domenick Falconetti, individually, Case No. 8:14-
cv-01401-VMC-TBM (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2014) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Domenick's Blinds & Decor, Inc., is a Florida corporation
headquartered in Sarasota, Florida.  Domenick Falconetti is the
owner and president of the Company.  The Defendants sell, service
and install custom window treatments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A. Collier, Esq.
          Daniel Robinson Strader, Esq.
          SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
          240 S Pineapple Ave., 10th Floor
          PO Box 49948
          Sarasota, FL 34230-6948
          Telephone: (941) 366-6660
          Facsimile: (941) 366-3999
          E-mail: jcollier@slk-law.com
                  dstrader@slk-law.com


EDDIE MERLOT: Sued for Requiring Workers to Join Invalid Tip Pool
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Green, Michael Parsley, Mary Ragsdale, Alllen Gibson, Gary
Zeck, Ashley Kilkelly, Chris Stevenson, Chris Watson, and Samantha
Williams v. Eddie Merlot Fine Dining, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00439-JGH (W.D. Ky., June 12, 2014) alleges that the Defendant has
a uniform policy and practice of requiring tipped employees to
participate in an invalid tip pool and to share tips with non-
tipped employees, including managers and non-serving, non-tipped
kitchen staff.

Eddie Merlot Fine Dining, Inc. is a corporation conducting
business in Kentucky.  The Company has a restaurant operating in
Louisville, Kentucky.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert F. Childs, Esq.
          H. Wallace Blizzard, Esq.
          Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: rchilds@wcqp.com
                  wblizzard@wcqp.com
                  darciniegas@wcqp.com

               - and -

          Garry R. Adams, Esq.
          CLAY DANIEL WALTON & ADAMS PLC
          462 South Fourth Street, Suite 101
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 561-2005
          Facsimile: (502) 589-5500
          E-mail: garry@justiceky.com


EXPRESS STORES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhanna Moskalenko v. Express Stores, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03684-
TJS (E.D. Pa., June 13, 2014) seeks to recover payment for unpaid
overtime and other unpaid wages, along with damages resulting from
the Plaintiff's termination.

The Plaintiff contends that her termination was retaliatory and
arose from her complaints and opposition to the Defendant's
unlawful acts and practices.  She discloses that prior to being
able to "clock in" in the morning she would routinely perform
uncompensated work for the Defendant, including unlocking the
doors, turning o the lights, booting up the computer, disarming
the security system, opening the safe, and preparing the register.

Express Stores, LLC, is a New Jersey Limited Liability
Corporation, with a corporate office located in East Brunswick,
New Jersey.  The Defendant owns and operates over 50 T-Mobile
retail stores and has more than 300 employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey Green, Esq.
          SIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN, P.C.
          1101 Market Street
          2700 Aramark Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 574-0600
          E-mail: cg@sidkoffpincusgreen.com


GAF MATERIALS: Can't Escape Class Action Over Defective Shingles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that roofing materials
manufacturer GAF Materials Corp. on June 6 failed to persuade a
South Carolina federal judge to decertify a class action accusing
it of making defective shingles that damaged the roofs of houses.
U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs denied GAF's bid to
decertify the class of South Carolina consumers with GAF shingles
manufactured in its Alabama facility between 1999 to 2007, which
have cracked or torn.  The judge shot down GAF's arguments that
the damages calculation would require an individual assessment.

The plaintiffs, Jack Brooks and Ellen Brooks, who won class
certification in October 2012, had sought the cost of replacing
the cracked, split or torn shingles on their roof, which is
roughly $245 per square of shingle that must be replaced,
according to the opinion.  This damages methodology is consistent
with their classwide liability theory, Judge Childs said.

"It is conceivable that the only individualized factors that need
to be determined at trial are the number of squares of shingles on
each class member's house and whether the class member seeks
consequential damages," the judge said in her ruling.

GAF had argued for decertification, pointing to the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling in Comcast v. Behrend, in which the high court had
ruled that courts should review the plaintiffs' proposed damages
calculation methodology at the certification stage to make sure it
matches the classwide theory of liability.

GAF had argued that in the current case, the damages assessment
would require an individual evaluation of each roof, and that the
extent to which the shingles may have cracked may vary, according
to the opinion.

In May 2013, Judge Childs pared down two class actions in
multidistrict litigation similarly accusing GAF of making
defective shingles, throwing out negligence and fraud allegations
while allowing breach of warranty claims to move forward.

She cited Pennsylvania's economic loss doctrine and Virginia's
five-year statute of repose in dismissing key elements of two
suits targeting GAF's Timberline Ultra shingles for allegedly
containing a latent defect that caused the product to prematurely
crack.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel A. Speights and A.G.
Solomons III of Speights & Runyan and by Thomas H. Pope III of
Pope & Hudgens PA.

GAF is represented by David E. Dukes --
david.dukes@nelsonmullins.com -- of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP, by Gray Culbreath -- gculbreath@gwblawfirm.com --
of Gallivan White & Boyd PA, and by David B. Tulchin --
tulchind@sullcrom.com -- Esterina Giuliani --
giulianie@sullcrom.com -- Anna H. Fee -- feean@sullcrom.com -- and
Kathleen S. McArthur -- mcarthurk@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.

The case is Brooks et al v. GAF Materials Corp., case number 8:11-
cv-00983, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Benton" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Sylvia Benton v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00590, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04268-JMF to the proceeding.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (SEATTLE)
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 268-9320
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq.
          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          Robert B. Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2482
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  rgodfrey@kirkland.com
                  robert.ellis@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Kelley" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Devora Kelley v. General
Motors Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-00465, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04272-JMF to the proceeding.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          David K. Stein, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  ds@girardgibbs.com
                  ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq.
          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          Robert B. Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2482
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  rgodfrey@kirkland.com
                  robert.ellis@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "McConnell" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Katie Michelle McConnell v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00424, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-04270-JMF to the proceeding.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ponce" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Martin Ponce v. General Motors
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02161, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04265-JMF to the proceeding.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
          Kathryn Jeanine Harvey, Esq.
          Ashley D. Rose, Esq.
          MICHAELS LAW GROUP APLC
          2801 West Coast Highway, Suite 370
          Newport, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 527-6900
          Facsimile: (949) 581-6908
          E-mail: jmichaels@michaelslawgroup.com
                  kharvey@mlgautomotivelaw.com
                  arose@mlgautomotivelaw.com

               - and -

          Kianna Parviz, Esq.
          MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW, APLC
          2801 West Coast Highway, Suite 370
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 581-6900
          Facsimile: (949) 581-6908
          E-mail: kparviz@mlgautomotivelaw.com

               - and -

          Justin Benjamin Farar, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER LLP
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 620
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 785-0800
          Facsimile: (310) 575-8697
          E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          Linda M. Fong, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ramirez" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Esperanza Ramirez, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02344, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-04267-JMF to the proceeding.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          LACKEY HERSHMAN LLP
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 560-2232
          Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
          E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net

               - and -

          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Esq.
          Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: twalburg@lchb.com
                  pgnguyen@lchb.com
                  ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Benno B. Ashrafi, Esq.
          WEITZ AND LUXENBERG PC
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 247-0921
          Facsimile: (310) 786-9927
          E-mail: bashrafi@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          Robin Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ AND LUXENBERG PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5856
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
                  rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          6810 FM 1960 West
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
          E-mail: ere@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP PA
          404 Court Square North
          PO Box 987
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2376
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Wilson D. Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES PC
          218 Commerce Street
          PO Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Satele" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Teleso Satele, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00485, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-04273-JMF to the proceeding.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Major Alan Langer, Esq.
          PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN AND MENDOZA
          300 E San Antonio Drive
          Long Beach, CA 90807-0948
          Telephone: (562) 426-6155
          Facsimile: (562) 490-9823

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Woodward" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Woodward v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01877, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The New
York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04226-JMF to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No.
1:14-md-02543-JMF.  The litigation arises from alleged defective
ignition switches used in certain GM vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com

Defendant General Motors LLC is represented by:

          Richard Cartier Godfrey, Esq.
          Andrew Baker Bloomer, Esq.
          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          Robert Burkart Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (IL)
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 861-2391
          Facsimile: (312) 861-2200
          E-mail: rgodfrey@kirkland.com
                  andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  lfeller@kirkland.com
                  rellis@kirkland.com

Defendant Don McCue Chevrolet, Inc., is represented by:

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


GEORGIA: Corrections Dept Sued Over Abuses in Juvenile Prisons
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Georgia allows
unconstitutionally abusive conditions in its 26 juvenile prisons,
a class action claims in Georgia Federal Court.

The Plaintiff, Frankie Darren Flynn, is not represented by any law
firm.

The Defendants are the Georgia Department of Corrections, Ware
State Prison, Darrell James Griffin, Anthony E. Kirkland, Logan
Ray Rowell and Jonathan Christopher Waters.

The case is Flynn v. Georgia Department of Corrections, et al.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00043-LGW-JEG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia (Waycross).


HERTZ CORP: Fails to Disclose Accounting Errors, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ansfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global Holdings, Mark P.
Frissora, Thomas C. Kennedy, and Elyse Douglas, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03790-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., June 13, 2014) alleges that throughout the
Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
or failed to disclose that the Company had accounting errors, and
that, as a result, the Company's revenue and financial results
were overstated, Mr. Ansfield contends.

The Hertz Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Park Ridge, New Jersey.  Hertz Global Holdings is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Naples, Florida.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Hertz.  Hertz is one of
the nation's largest automobile and equipment rental companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          John M. Agnello, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  JAgnello@carellabyrne.com
                  LTaylor@carellabyrne.com
                  DEcklund@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com


HITTITE MICROWAVE: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delores Joyce, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Hittite Microwave Corporation, Gregory R. Beecher,
Ernest L. Godshalk, Franklin Weigold, Rick D. Hess, Adrienne M.
Markham, Brian P. Mcaloon, Steve Sanghi, Analog Devices, Inc., and
BBAC, Corp, Case No. 9758-VCP (Del. Ch. Ct., June 12, 2014) seeks
to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on June 9, 2014,
pursuant to which Analog will acquire the outstanding shares of
Hittite in a deal valued at approximately $2 billion, with each
Hittite stockholder receiving $78.00 per share of Company stock
upon consummation of the merger.

Hittite Microwave Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
principal executive offices in Chelmsford, Massachusetts.  Hittite
is a global company serving customers worldwide with substantial
international operations, including R&D centers and manufacturing.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Analog Devices, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation with its
principal executive offices located in Norwood, Massachusetts.
BBAC Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of defendant Analog.  Upon completion of the Proposed
Transaction, BBAC will merge with and into Hittite and cease its
separate corporate existence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Banko, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
          E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


IBERIA LINEAS: Bid to Reopen Discovery in Giannopoulos Case Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Varsamis, Lauren Mitchell Varsamis, Theodoros Giannopoulos,
and Alexandra Giannopoulos purchased airline tickets for travel
between the United States and Europe and, for at least parts of
their trips, traveled on aircraft operated by Iberia L¡neas Aereas
de Espana. Plaintiffs' flights were delayed, and they brought a
putative class action alleging breach of contract (Count I), and
violation of a European Union regulation that requires
compensation for airline delays under certain circumstances (Count
II). Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to
have the Giannopouloses and the Varsamises appointed class
representatives. After Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class
certification, this time seeking to have only the Varsamises
appointed class representatives, because Plaintiffs' counsel had
determined that the Giannopouloses' "claims [were] not amenable to
class treatment due to the nature of their flights."

On February 12, 2014, prior to deciding Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, the Court granted summary judgment to Iberia
on the Varsamis Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (Count I),
and dismissed the claim for violation of a European Union
regulation (Count II) as to Plaintiffs altogether.  Additionally,
the Giannopouloses have now accepted a settlement offer Iberia
made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

In light of the Court's rulings and the Giannopouloses'
settlement, none of the named Plaintiffs -- neither the Varsamises
nor the Giannopouloses -- have live claims before the Court.
Plaintiffs' counsel, however, has filed a "motion to reopen
discovery for the purpose of identifying substitute class
representatives and for an order authorizing plaintiffs' counsel
to engage in pre-certification communications with putative class
members."  Meanwhile, Iberia has filed a motion to dismiss the
Giannopouloses for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and to enter final judgment as to all
claims.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated May 29, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/rg0Fsvfrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin ruled that the Plaintiffs'
counsel's "motion to reopen discovery for the purpose of
identifying substitute class representatives and for an order
authorizing plaintiffs' counsel to engage in pre-certification
communications with putative class members," is denied, and
Iberia's motion to dismiss the Giannopouloses for lack of
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and
to enter final judgment as to all claims is granted.  As to Count
I, judgment is entered in favor of the Giannopouloses and against
Iberia in the amount of $1,652.16, and judgment is entered in
favor of Iberia and against the Varsamises. As to Count II,
judgment is entered in favor of Iberia and against all Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as moot.
The parties will bear their own costs.

The case is THEODOROS GIANNOPOULOS, ALEXANDRA GIANNOPOULOS, JAMES
VARSAMIS, LAUREN MITCHELL VARSAMIS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situtated, Plaintiffs, v. IBERIA LINEAS
AEREAS DE ESPANA, S.A., OPERADORA, SOCIEDAD UNIPERSONAL,
Defendant, NO. 11 C 775, (N.D. Ill.).

Theodoros Giannopoulos, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel O.
Herrera -- dherrera@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Jennifer Winter Sprengel --
JSprengel@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP, Joseph Henry Hank Bates, III -- hbates@cbplaw.com --
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC & Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky --
gorlawoffice@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky.

Alexandra Giannopoulos, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel O.
Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Jennifer
Winter Sprengel, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Joseph
Henry Hank Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC & Vladimir M.
Gorokhovsky, Law Offices of Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky.

James Varsamis, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Henry Hank Bates,
III -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC.

Lauren Mitchell Varsamis, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Henry
HankBates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC.

Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A., Defendant, represented by
Anthony U. Battista -- abattista@condonlaw.com -- Condon & Forsyth
Llp, Christopher R. Christensen -- cchristensen@condonlaw.com --
Condon & Forsyth LLP, Michael J Holland -- mholland@condonlaw.com
-- Condon & Forsyth, LLP, Brent R. Austin --
baustin@EimerStahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Matthew J Caccamo --
mcaccamo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Michael Lee
McCluggage -- mmccluggage@EimerStahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP.


IMH FINANCIAL: Results of Class Settlement Offerings Disclosed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, IMH
Financial Corporation disclosed results of class settlement
offerings.

Under the terms of the class action settlement with the company's
shareholders, in the first quarter of 2014, the company offered to
class members: 1) up to $20.0 million of 4% five-year subordinated
unsecured notes to class members in exchange for up to
approximately 2.5 million shares of the company's common stock at
an exchange rate of one share per $8.02 in subordinated notes
("Exchange Offering"); and 2) up to $10.0 million of convertible
notes to Class members that are accredited investors, with the
same financial terms as the convertible notes previously issued to
NW Capital ("Rights Offering"). The company commenced the Exchange
Offering and the Rights Offering on February 12, 2014, which
remained open for 25 business days and were closed for
subscription on March 20, 2014. Following the review of certain
documentation submitted by participating shareholders that
required additional administrative attention, as well as the
coordination and execution of final documents, the company
completed the issuance of notes under the Exchange Offering and
the Rights Offering on April 28, 2014. The final results of the
offerings were as follows:

            Accounting for the Class Settlement

As a result of the collective nature of the settlement terms under
the Final Order, which consisted of a cash settlement, the
Exchange Offering, and the Rights Offering, for financial
reporting purposes these transactions are considered a singular
transaction. As a result, the net effect of the fair value of the
components of this transaction were recorded as a net settlement
charge during the year ended December 31, 2013, which was accrued
at March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The final amount of
settlement loss resulting from these transactions is not expected
to vary materially from the amount previously reported in Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013. Accordingly no
additional charges related to the settlement were recorded during
the period ended March 31, 2014.


IRVING OIL: Lawyers to Defend Train Derailment Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Rucker, Euan Rocha and Sandra Maler, writing for Reuters,
report that shippers wrongly moved explosive gas as part of a
crude oil delivery that derailed and killed 47 people in a
Canadian town last year, lawyers seeking to represent the
devastated town in a class action lawsuit were expected to argue
in a proceeding that starts on June 9.

Several tank cars exploded with surprising force when the cargo
from North Dakota's Bakken energy patch jumped the tracks and
detonated in downtown Lac Megantic, Quebec, last July.

Since that deadly mishap, U.S. officials have warned that Bakken
fuel is more volatile than previously thought because of the
presence of dangerous gas and have encouraged shippers to bleed
off that gas before moving it on the rails.

But lawyers from the Toronto class action law firm Rochon Genova
LLP were expected to argue that oil companies were alert to Bakken
fuel dangers well before the Lac Megantic tragedy, and failed to
handle the fuel safely on the tracks.

Shippers and others in the supply chain "simply ignored the need
to take any meaningful steps to properly test, warn, label or
classify the oil," according to documents filed last week.

Those allegations have not been tested in court.

Rochon Genova was expected on June 9 to argue in the Quebec
Superior Court that residents and others who suffered loss due to
the accident should treated as a single group of claimants in a
class-action.

Although the discovery process has yet to formally begin, police
findings and industry paperwork already point to a haphazard
shipping process, the law firm said.

For at least eight months before the accident, oil train cargo
routinely arrived at the Irving Oil refinery labeled as the least-
dangerous class of flammable liquid, and near-empty tankers
returned to the field carrying a higher warning, according to a
Quebec police report.

A month before the Lac Megantic disaster, an Irving Oil executive
noted that fuel testing at the source "is almost non-existent,"
according to a company Power Point presentation seen by Reuters.

Irving Oil did not respond to a request for comment.  Besides the
refinery, the plaintiffs are suing other companies that they say
handled the fuel, such as World Fuel Services Corp, which arranged
the delivery.

World Fuel Services has argued in court filings that the rail
disaster was chiefly a human error and nothing in the labeling, or
packaging could have changed the outcome.

"While petitioners desire to find a solvent entity -- any solvent
entity -- to compensate for their losses, their allegations simply
cannot logically support pinning that liability on WFS," the
firm's lawyers said in a filing.

Rochon Genova was also expected to argue that officials at
Transport Canada, the federal transportation authority, should
answer for lax oversight before the accident.  The arguments are
expected to last for about two weeks.


JOHN HANCOCK: First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that John Hancock
Life Insurance Company did not breach its contract in a class
action lawsuit in regard to how it handed unclaimed insurance
policy proceeds.

The appeals court ruled that Richard Feingold's class action
lawsuit against John Hancock Life Insurance Company and John
Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company was properly dismissed for
failure to state a claim, according to the May 27 opinion.

Sandra Lynch, Bruce M. Selya and William J. Kayatta made the
ruling, while Lynch authored the opinion.

Mr. Feingold sued the defendants for damages said to have arisen
from Hancock's adherence to contractual terms requiring that it be
given notice of the death of its insureds before death benefits
are paid out to beneficiaries, according to the opinion.

"Specifically, Hancock is said to have an obligation, stemming
from a regulatory agreement between Hancock and several states, to
discover such deaths and notify beneficiaries," the opinion
states.  "The district court dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a claim."

On appeal, Mr. Feingold primarily argued the agreement Hancock
entered with several state governments in June 2011 regarding its
handling of unclaimed insurance policy proceeds imposed new
obligations on Hancock as to beneficiaries of its insureds under
state law.

The appeals court disagreed and affirmed the district court's
decision to dismiss the class action lawsuit.

Mr. Feingold filed the class action complaint on Jan. 30, 3013,
alleging that Hancock owed Mr. Feingold damages based on its
handling of unclaimed benefits under its life insurance policies.

On Feb. 26, 2013, Hancock moved to dismiss the complaint and the
district court held a hearing on July 25, 2013, and issued a
memorandum and order granting Hancock's motion to dismiss on Aug.
19, 2013.

The court applied both Massachusetts and Illinois law to
Feingold's claims because it concluded that the relevant laws of
both states were the same and so it did not need to resolve the
choice of law issue, according to the opinion.

"On appeal, Feingold challenges the district court's refusal to
consider the GRA in assessing the plausibility of his claims for
unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty," the
opinion states.  "He argues that Hancock breached the GRA and that
this breach makes his common law claims plausible because he is a
third-party beneficiary to the GRA."

Mr. Feingold also argues, in the alternative, that Hancock's
breach of the Global Resolution Agreement supports his common law
claims even if he is not a GRA third-party beneficiary, according
to the opinion.

"These arguments fail because Feingold is not a third-party
beneficiary to the GRA, and so Hancock owes Feingold no
enforceable duties under that agreement," the opinion states.

"At most, Feingold is an incidental, as opposed to direct,
beneficiary of the GRA.  This is particularly so given that the
GRA is a contract with state governments.

"Hancock's compliance with a different section of the Unclaimed
Property Act based on an event unrelated to Mollie Feingold's
death does not state a plausible violation of Illinois law."

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit case number: 13-2151


KBR INC: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against KBR, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of Texas,
and docketed under 4:14-cv-01572, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired KBR securities between April 25, 2013 and May 5, 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 KBR securities during the
Class Period, you have until July 8, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://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.

KBR is a global engineering, construction and services company
supporting the energy, hydrocarbons, power, minerals, civil
infrastructure, government services, industrial, and commercial
market segments.  KBR offers services through its Gas
Monetization, Hydrocarbons, Infrastructure, Government and Power
("IGP"), Services and Other business segments.

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)
the Company had improperly estimated costs to complete certain
contracts; (2)  the Company had improperly recognized revenues;
(3)  as a result, the Company's revenue and financial results were
overstated; (4) as such, the Company's financial statements were
not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"); (5)  the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 5, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed a
Current Report with the SEC on Form 8-K announcing that the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors had determined that
the Company's financial statements filed with the SEC on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 should no longer be
relied upon.  According to the Company, the material financial
statement errors were primarily attributable to how the Company
estimated costs to complete seven of its contracts, which resulted
in pre-tax charges in excess of $150 million and the reversal of
over $20 million in previously recognized profits.  In addition,
the Company identified an overstatement error in its revenue
recognition on a long-term construction project of approximately
$9.0 million pre-tax, and an understatement of its income tax
provision of approximately $6.5 million.  The Company further
announced that it intends to restate its consolidated financial
statement for fiscal 2013, and will postpone filing its Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2014 until after the amended Form
10-K is complete.

On this news, shares of KBR declined $1.61 per share, or nearly
7%, to close on May 5, 2014, at $24.23 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.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


KROLL FACTUAL: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Okayed in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH J. GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. KROLL FACTUAL DATA, INC.,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-0445-WJM-KMT, (D. Col.) is
before the Court on Kroll Factual's motion to strike class
allegations and claims in the Plaintiff's second amended
complaint.

"Since the Court has already denied the Class Certification
Motion, and in doing so considered the proposed class contained in
the Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that it is
appropriate to order removal of the class action allegations from
the Second Amended Complaint," ruled District Judge William J.
Martinez in his order dated May 28, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/WgNCMpfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff had argued that the Motion to Strike is overly broad
in that Defendant seeks to strike allegations which are not
exclusive to Plaintiff's class allegations.  Judge Martinez agreed
with this aspect of Plaintiff's argument. "Only allegations
specific to the class action, paragraphs 71-80, will be stricken
from the Second Amended Complaint," he said.

Accordingly, Judge Martinez concluded that the Defendant's Motion
to Strike the Class Allegations and Claims in Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint is granted in part; and the Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint will be deemed amended by the removal of
Paragraphs 71-80.

Joseph J. Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Searles --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C., James A.
Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman,
P.C., John J. Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis
& Mailman, P.C., Craig Carley Marchiando -- ccm@caddellchapman.com
-- Caddell & Chapman & Michael Allen Caddell --
mac@cadellchapman.com -- Caddell & Chapman.

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


LA HUEHUETECA BAKERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Manuel Gomez Lucas v. La Huehueteca Bakery, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Francisco M. Francisco, individually, and Blanca E.
Francisco, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-80792-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
June 12, 2014) seeks to recover damages for unpaid overtime and
minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

La Huehueteca Bakery, Inc., operates a restaurant business with
multiple locations in West Palm Beach and Lake Worth.  The
Individual Defendants are owners of Huehueteca.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
          Lisa M. Kohring, Esq.
          SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
          Phillips Point - East Tower
          777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1120E
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659-3300
          Facsimile: (561) 659-1911
          E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
                  lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com


LIHUA INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Lihua International, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 2:14-cv-
03503, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lihua securities
between August 9, 2012 and April 30, 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 Lihua securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 30, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://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.

Lihua International Inc. is a Delaware corporation that purports
to manufacture, market, and distribute refined copper products
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Danyang Lihua Electron Co.,
Ltd., ("Lihua Electron") and Jiangsu Lihua Copper Industry Co.,
Ltd. ("Lihua Copper").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, Defendants issued false
and misleading statements about the Company's business and
financial condition.  Throughout the Class Period, the Company
failed to disclose that: (1) Lihua's business experienced a
significant downturn starting from late 2012; (2) Lihua's
production activities slowed down dramatically in 2013, and have
almost ceased after January 31, 2014; (3) Lihua's warehouse has
been seized by the People's Republic of China court; (4) defendant
Jianhua Zhu, Lihua's Chairman and CEO, attempted to move inventory
in order to hide them from creditors, and is now being
investigated by the police for larceny.

On March 28, 2014, People's Daily, the official newspaper of the
government of China, published a report exposing Lihua's troubles
(the "People's Daily Report").  The People's Daily Report stated
that: (1) Lihua's cash flow has ceased, and its warehouse has been
seized and sealed by the local court; (2) Lihua's production
activities substantially decreased in 2013, and have nearly ceased
after the 2014 Spring Festival (January 31, 2014); (3) Zhu
attempted to move Lihua's inventory in order to hide assets from
creditors, and as a result, he is now being investigated by the
local police for larceny.

U.S. investors were made aware of these problems for the first
time on April 30, 2014, when GeoInvesting publicized the contents
of the People's Daily Report.  On this news, shares of Lihua's
stock to fell by more than 50% on April 30, 2014, from $4.33 to
$2.08 per share, before it was halted by NASDAQ stock exchange.

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.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


LYFT INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Driver Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Price, an individual; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC548636 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2014) accuses the Defendants of
failing to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation to its
drivers, including the Plaintiff.

Lyft, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.  The Company is engaged in transportation
and taxi business.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          11845 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com


MARKIT LTD: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Credit Default Swaps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Markit Ltd. is one of the defendants in a consolidated lawsuit
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York over alleged violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with credit default swaps, according to the
company's May 15, 2014, Form F-1 filing (Amendment No.1) with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Since May 2013, Markit has been named as a defendant with the
Dealers and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association in
a number of putative class action lawsuits filed in U.S. courts
and arising out of allegations of violations of federal and state
antitrust laws in connection with credit default swaps. The named
plaintiffs in each case include pension funds, investment
management funds and other buy-side firms who conduct business
activities involving credit default swaps. All cases were filed
either in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
Illinois or the Southern District of New York. On October 16,
2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
all cases to the Southern District of New York and on December 13,
2013, the court consolidated all such cases for pre-trial
purposes.

The primary allegations by plaintiffs are that the defendants
conspired to prevent competitors from offering execution and
clearing services for exchange-traded credit default swaps and
that the defendants conspired to fix and maintain credit default
swap bid/ask spreads in the OTC market above the spreads that
would have been realized with the development of exchange trading
of credit default swaps. The substance of plaintiffs' request for
relief seeks a permanent injunction foreclosing defendants from
continuing their alleged anticompetitive actions and trebled
damages in an unspecified amount, plus interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit.

There can be no assurance as to the outcome of the EC
investigation, the DOJ investigation, or the class action
lawsuits, but they could have a material adverse effect on
Markit's business, financial condition and results of operations.


MATHESON TRI-GAS: "Ambriz" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Larry Ambriz, et al. v. Matheson
Tri-Gas, Case No. 4:14-cv-01041-CW, was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland)
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).  The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-04546-JAK-JC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit against the Defendant, alleging
certain causes of action, including failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent "all
current and former California-based truck drivers employed by
Matheson four years prior to the filing" of the complaint.

Matheson Tri-Gas is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Basking Ridge, New Jersey.  Matheson provides scientific gas and
equipment to various companies in California and globally.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 842-8948
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com

               - and -

          Lee Richard Feldman, Esq.
          Alicia Olivares, Esq.
          Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq.
          THE FELDMAN LAW FIRM
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2490
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-7812
          Facsimile: (310) 552-7814
          E-mail: lee@leefeldmanlaw.com
                  alicia@leefeldmanlaw.com
                  leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clint D. Robison, Esq.
          Vickie V. Grasu, Esq.
          LECLAIRRYAN LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 350
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 488-0503
          Facsimile: (213) 624-3755
          E-mail: Clint.Robison@leclairryan.com
                  Vickie.Grasu@leclairryan.com


MCGOVERN LEGAL: Removed "Torsiello" Suit to N.J. District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled The Estate of Theresa
Torsiello by Vincent Torsiello, Executor v. McGovern Legal
Services, LLC, Case No. MID-L-2708-14, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03814-JAP-DEA to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven Aaron Kroll, Esq.
          CONNELL FOLEY LLP
          85 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 535-0500
          E-mail: skroll@connellfoley.com


MEDTRAK EDUCATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid in "Sturdy" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Colin S. Bruce denied a motion to certify class in
the case captioned DR. MARK W. STURDY d/b/a ROCHESTER VETERINARY
CLINIC on behalf of itself and a class, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRAK
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LLC, et al. Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-3350,
(C.D. Ill.).

Judge Bruce concluded that the Plaintiff's estimate of group
membership is speculative and not properly supported and neither
Plaintiff nor the record establish that there is an objective,
reasonable way to ascertain potential class members. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff has not met the numerosity requirement of Rule
23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the District Court's May 28, 2014 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/eEVWRqfrom Leagle.com.

Dr Mark W Sturdy, Plaintiff, represented by Dulijaza Julie Clark -
- jclark@edcombs.com -- EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC,
Michelle R Teggelaar -- mteggelaar@edcombs.com -- EDELMAN COMBS
LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC & Daniel A Edelman -- courtecl@edcombs.com
-- EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC.

Zoetis LLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Joy Schwartz --
rschwartz@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON, William Jason Rankin --
wjr@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM LLC & Robert James McCully --
rmccully@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON.

Medtrak Educational Services LLC, Defendant, represented by David
A Rolf -- darolf@sorlinglaw.com -- SORLING NORTHRUP.

Zoetis Inc, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Joy Schwartz, SHOOK
HARDY & BACON & William Jason Rankin, HEPLER BROOM LLC.

Zoetis Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert James McCully, SHOOK
HARDY & BACON.

Zoetis Products LLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Joy
Schwartz, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, William Jason Rankin, HEPLER BROOM
LLC & Robert James McCully, SHOOK HARDY & BACON.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Summary Judgment Appealed in Suit Over TCA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
over its use of the Total Control Account (TCA), are appealing the
grant of summary judgment to the company to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's
May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The putative class action lawsuits -- Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court
on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7,
2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed November 3, 2011 -- have been consolidated, raise breach of
contract claims arising from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the
court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Owens" Suit in Georgia Over TCA Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, filed April
17, 2014, is continuing in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, according to the company's May 15,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's use of the Total Control Account (TCA) as the
settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group
life insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks
disgorgement of profits that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Indemnity Claim from Sun Life in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is seeking indemnity from
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for sales practices claims
related to policies sold by Metropolitan Life and transferred to
Sun Life, according to Metropolitan Life's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking
a declaration that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company remains
liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual
life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company and that have been transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had
asked that the court require Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity
provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's Canadian operations entered into in June of
1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given
timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it
found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss,
granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary
judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to
withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through
arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company that a purported class action lawsuit was
filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
(Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices
claims regarding the same individual policies sold by Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life. An amended
class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May
2013, again without naming Metropolitan Life Insurance Company as
a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
(Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales
practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life.
Sun Life contends that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is
obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in
these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Trials in TCPA Violations Suits Set in August
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trials in lawsuits against Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, has been set
for August 2014, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla.,
January 10, 2013) and Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently
transferred to S.D. Fla.)

Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and a former MetLife financial
services representative, alleging that the defendants sent
unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). In
the C-Mart case, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a
class of approximately 36,000 persons in Missouri who, during the
period of August 7, 2012 through September 6, 2012, were allegedly
sent an unsolicited fax in violation of the TCPA. Trial is set for
August 2014. In the Cadenasso case, which has been transferred to
Florida and assigned to the same judge as the C-Mart case,
plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class of persons
(except for those in the C-Mart class) who were allegedly sent
millions of unsolicited faxes in violation of the TCPA. Trial has
also been set in Cadenasso for August 2014. In both cases,
plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages under the TCPA in
the amount of $500 for each violation and to have such damages
trebled.


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Crouch" Suit Joined in Engineered Wheat MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Crouch, et al. v. Monsanto
Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00126, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02285-KHV-
KMH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation titled In re:
MDL 2473 Monsanto Company Genetically-Engineered Wheat Litigation.

The litigation arises from the contamination of domestic
conventional wheat fields with unapproved genetically-engineered
wheat developed by Monsanto.  According to the complaints, the
existence of genetically-engineered wheat in domestic market
channels caused a decline in U.S. wheat prices.


NATROL INC: "Dao" Suit Included in Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of the class action lawsuit styled Dao v.
Natrol, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02433, from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).  The
Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01869-JFM
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit will be included in the multidistrict litigation known
as In Re: Natrol, Inc., Glucosamine/Chondroitin Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02528-JFM.

The Defendants distribute, market, and sell Natrol Glucosamine
Chondroitin supplements a line of Glucosamine and Chondroitin
based supplements that purportedly provides a variety of health
benefits focused on improving joint health, mobility, flexibility,
and lubrication.

In her complaint, Linda Dao alleges that the Defendants'
advertising claims are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to
deceive the public.  She contends that contrary to the Defendants'
claims, the Products have no efficacy at all, and that the
Products are ineffective in the improvement of joint health,
provide no benefits related to the reduction of pain in human
joints, and do not protect cartilage from breakdown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 347-3517
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com


NATROL INC: "Eisner" Suit Included in Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Eisner v. Natrol, Inc.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-05831, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).  The Maryland
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01871-JFM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit will be included in the multidistrict litigation known
as In Re: Natrol, Inc., Glucosamine/Chondroitin Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02528-JFM.

Natrol, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Chatsworth, California.  Natrol is a step-down, wholly owned
subsidiary of Plethico Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., a publicly-traded
pharmaceutical corporation based in Mumbai, India.  Natrol
operates in the herbal and nutraceutical sphere, predominantly in
the United States of America.  Natrol manufactures and sells a
portfolio of healthcare and wellness brands representing
nutritional supplements, functional herbal teas and sports
nutritional products.

One of Natrol's major products, which falsely purport to repair or
regrow cartilage and to improve joint health is Natrol's
Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM, Troy Eisner contends in his
complaint.  He alleges that Natrol's claims are scientifically
unsound, false and misleading because its products cannot help
repair, regenerate or rebuild cartilage or improve joint health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Robert J. Berg, Esq.
          DENLEA & CARTON LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 920-7400
          Telephone: (914) 761-1900
          E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com
                  rberg@denleacarton.com


NEVADA PROPERTY: CoStars Still Unable to Get Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Nevada Property 1 LLC in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for alleged
improper rounding off of time for hours worked have repeatedly
been denied certification, according to the company's May 15,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with
two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged
unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars' while on
Property for donning and doffing of the CoStars' required uniform,
alleged improper rounding of time for hours worked and various
other claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the
purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, and one
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
The discovery period as to liability has closed in both cases. A
motion to certify the class was filed in the Eighth Judicial
District Court for Clark County, Nevada in late-March 2014. A
motion to conditionally certify certain classes of employees was
filed in the federal court action, but that motion has been denied
in part and stayed in part. A recently filed renewed motion to
certify a subset of employees was denied by the court in the U.S.
District action. Substantial questions of law and fact remain
unresolved in both cases.

During the second quarter of 2013, as part of an ongoing
assessment of the company's wage and hour cases, the company
accrued an estimated loss contingency of $3.0 million (reported as
a corporate operating expense in the condensed consolidated
statement of operations beginning with the June 30, 2013 quarterly
reporting period). A portion of the loss contingency was utilized
in the October 2013 settlement of a third purported wage and hour
class action matter, with subsequent payment occurring during the
first quarter of 2014.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Faces Suit in Cal. for "Unlawful" Call Recording
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC is facing a lawsuit that is in the earliest
stages of proceedings, for alleged violation of the California
Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording of calls,
according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed during the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012 in Superior Court in the State of
California against the Company, alleging violation of the
California Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording
of calls. Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative, to strike the class allegations. On July 15,
2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an order denying these Company motions.

This matter is in the earliest stages of proceedings. Meaningful
discovery has not commenced, no depositions have occurred, and no
motions to certify a class or subclasses have been filed.

Substantial questions of law and fact are unresolved. Specific
additional factors applicable to this case that prevent the
Company from providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss or
range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether class
certification will be granted and the scope of any class or
subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages
claimed by the purported class are unspecified or indeterminate;
and (3) the outcome of any future settlement negotiations, should
they occur, as they may apply to limit the class or eliminate all
class claims. As a result, the Company cannot at this time
determine the potential impact of the lawsuit on the consolidated
financial position, cash flows, or results of operations of the
Company.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Provides Updates on Condominium Hotel Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC provides updates on a number of lawsuits and
arbitrations concerning the purchase and sale of condominium hotel
units located within the East and West Towers of the Property, in
its May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The thrust of the claims were virtually the same in every matter.
The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the project had
materially changed and that delays in the completion of the
Property constituted a material breach by the Company, thus
permitting the plaintiff/purchaser to rescind their contract and
receive a full refund of their earnest money deposit, plus
interest thereon. The Company was represented in each of these
matters by outside legal counsel.

On or about August 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Lenny Spangler v. Nevada
Property 1 LLC, et al., alleging, among other things, that former
class action settlements entered into by the Company with buyers
of condominium hotel units in the project were fraudulently
induced, and seeking to recover all amounts paid to or retained by
the Company in such settlements. During 2014, the plaintiff agreed
to dismiss the case in exchange for a waiver and release by the
Company of its claims for costs related to the lawsuit. A formal
order of dismissal was subsequently entered with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada.

At December 31, 2013, there were two condominium hotel units
remaining under contract at The Cosmopolitan (the "Okada Unit" and
the "Mastej Unit"). During the three months ended March 31, 2014,
the Company prevailed in its efforts to confirm and enforce prior
arbitration awards for each of the Okada Unit and the Mastej Unit.
As such, the applicable earnest money deposits were released to
the Company.

On or about March 3, 2014, a complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Donald Okada v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et
al., alleging, among other things, that former class action
settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium
hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced thus
permitting the plaintiff to recover the full earnest money deposit
and related attorney fees. This matter is in the earliest stages
of proceedings. Discovery has not commenced.

On or about April 1, 2014, for the Mastej Unit, a Notice of Appeal
was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court regarding the grant of the
Company's motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award.
This matter is in the earliest stages of proceedings.


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-3251, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Och-Ziff securities
between February 9, 2012 and April 25, 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 Och-Ziff securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 7, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://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.

Och-Ziff is a publicly owned investment management company that
was founded in 1994 and is based New York, New York with
additional offices in London, United Kingdom; Hong Kong; Tokyo,
Japan; Bangalore, India; and Beijing, China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that:  (i) the Company violated relevant anti-bribery
laws by accepting an investment from the Libyan Investment
Authority, a sovereign wealth fund; (ii) the Company loaned $234
million to help finance two ventures in the Democratic Republic of
Congo in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA");
(iii) beginning in 2011, the Company received subpoenas from the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the United States
Department of Justice ("DOJ") in connection with the transactions
mentioned above; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 3, 2014, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported that
the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") joined a widening
investigation of banks, private-equity firms and hedge funds,
including Och-Ziff, relating to the possible violation of anti-
bribery laws in their dealings with Libya's government-run
investment fund.  The article also stated that the criminal
investigation by the DOJ was proceeding alongside a civil probe by
the SEC that began in 2011.

On the news, Och-Ziff stock fell $0.87, or 6.7%, to close at
$12.08 on heavy volume.

On April 27, 2014, the WSJ published an article providing details
about the Och'Ziff investments in Africa under investigation by
the SEC and DOJ.  The article stated that the probe centered on
two loans totaling $234 million, to companies controlled by a
controversial mining executive, which helped finance two ventures
in the Democratic Republic of Congo involving properties that were
the subject of ownership disputes.

On this news, shares in Och-Ziff fell $1.28, or almost 10%, on
heavy trading volume, to close at $11.65 on April 28, 2014.

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.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


PAYTIME INC: Faces "Storm" Class Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel B. Storm, Holly P. White and Doris McMichael, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paytime, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01138-JEJ (M.D. Pa., June 12, 2014) arises from
alleged contract disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD.
          231 Melville Lane
          P.O. Box 367
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Telephone: (412) 749-7686
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Court Approves Air Cargo Cartel Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a A$38 million ($35 million) settlement of an
Australian class action suit against an air cargo cartel won court
approval on June 6, said the law firm representing the buyers of
international air freight services, who brought the suit.

The case, launched in 2007 by importers and exporters of products
to and from Australia, said that airlines colluded to fix fuel and
security surcharges on international air freight services, said
law firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.

Importers and exporters had sued airlines including Qantas Airways
Ltd, Lufthansa Cargo, Singapore Airlines Ltd, Cathay Pacific
Airways Ltd and British Airways for services provided between 2000
and 2007.

Although Air New Zealand was also targeted in the class action,
court approval of the settlement did not cover that airline, the
lawyers said.

The pact, without admission of liability by the airlines, was
first announced in April.

Air cargo carriers have faced hefty penalties from competition
authorities in Australia the European Commission and the United
States for price fixing.

The Australian class action was funded by Bentham IMF Ltd.


RCS CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Proposed in Summit Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alleged Summit Financial Services Group shareholders who are suing
RCS Capital Corporation over a planned merger moved for leave to
file an amended complaint under seal, according to RCS Capital's
May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Summit, its board of directors, the Company and a wholly owned
subsidiary formed by the Company in connection with the Summit
merger are named as defendants in two purported class action
lawsuits (now consolidated) filed by alleged Summit shareholders
on November 27, 2013 and December 12, 2013 in Palm Beach County,
Florida challenging the Summit merger.  These lawsuits allege,
among other things, that: (1) each member of Summit's board of
directors breached his fiduciary duties to Summit and its
shareholders in authorizing the Summit merger; (2) the Summit
merger does not maximize value to Summit shareholders; and (3) the
defendants aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of Summit's board of directors.
These shareholder lawsuits seek class action certification and
equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation of
the Summit merger on the agreed-upon terms. On May 9, 2014, the
plaintiff shareholders moved for leave to file an amended
complaint under seal. The amended complaint asserts claims similar
to those in the original complaint, adds allegations relating to
amendment of the Summit merger agreement on March 17, 2014, and
also challenges the adequacy of the disclosures in the
registration statement related to the issuance of shares of the
company's Class A common stock as consideration in the Summit
acquisition, the background of the transaction, the fairness
opinion issued to the Summit special committee, and Summit's
financial projections. The consolidated lawsuits seek class-action
certification, equitable relief, including an injunction against
consummation of the Summit acquisition on the agreed-upon terms,
and damages.


RED ROBIN: Moved "Smith" Suit to San Diego Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Smith, et al. v. Red Robin
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00008350-CU-OE-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-01432-JAH-BGS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Simon Lee Yang, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: syang@seyfarth.com


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Dismissal of Privacy Class Action Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that the
Ninth Circuit on June 6 rejected an attempt to revive a putative
class action alleging Redbox Automated Retail LLC illegally
records consumers' ZIP codes, finding the company's data
collection practices fall within an exception to California's
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.

Plaintiffs John Sinibaldi and Nicolle DiSimone had appealed the
2012 dismissal of their suit alleging Redbox violates the act by
requiring customers who obtain discs from the kiosks to provide
their ZIP codes.  But the appeals panel said the act exempts
transactions like that, where the credit card is being used as a
deposit to secure payment "in the event of default, loss, damage
or similar occurrence."

The plaintiffs had challenged the district court's holding,
contending that the act applies to Redbox kiosk transactions
because they are in-person, card-present transactions that present
less risk of fraud than online purchases.  But the appeals panel,
in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the dismissal on an alternative,
rental deposit exception, ground.

The panel majority said while no precedent exists for this
particular issue, it believes the California Supreme Court would
hold that the exception applies here.

"The credit card information permits Redbox to collect the
additional amount owed should the customer choose to keep the
movie or game for additional days or if it is never returned," the
panel said.  "In other words, the credit card is 'being used as a
deposit to secure payment in the event of default, loss, damage,
or other similar occurrence.'"

According to the opinion, the plaintiffs argued that a Redbox
transaction does not involve a "deposit," by defining the term to
mean "a prospective, contingent payment of money or value to a
seller of goods or services to secure against some potential
loss."

But the panel called that an "artificially narrow" definition of
using a credit card as a deposit to secure payment.  It said
vendors such as rental car companies, hotels or Redbox may use a
customer's credit card to secure payment in multiple ways.

The different methods might vary in their transaction costs, level
of security, and the amount of remaining credit balance available
to the customer, but the panel said in each instance the credit
card is being used as a deposit to secure payment in the event of
default, loss, damage or other similar occurrence.

"All the methods fall within the language of the statutory
exclusion, both logically and literally," the panel said.

It said there is no reason to think that the Legislature, in
enacting the statutory exception, limited it only to transactions
where money is actually drawn from the customer's credit card
account in advance by the retailer.

"While we disagree with the court's decision, we understand that
it was writing on a blank slate.  We appreciate the majority's
narrow ruling and their refusal to affirm the lower court's broad
exemption of automated kiosks from the Credit Card Act. It is
important to confirm that future technological advances do not
exempt companies from existing laws," DiSimone's attorney Caleb LH
Marker of Ridout Lyon & Ottoson LLP said on June 6.

Judges Alex Kozinski, Stephen Reinhardt and Richard R. Clifton sat
on the panel.

Mr. Sinibaldi is represented by Robin G. Workman --
robin@qualls-workman.com -- Daniel H. Qualls --
dan@qualls-workman.com -- and Aviva N. Roller --
aviva@qualls-workman.com -- of Qualls & Workman LLP.

Ms. DiSimone is represented by Christopher P. Ridout, Devon M.
Lyon and Caleb LH Marker of Ridout Lyon & Ottoson LLP.

Redbox is represented by Eric D. Miller -- EMiller@perkinscoie.com
-- of Perkins Coie LLP.

The case is John Sinibaldi et al. v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC,
case number 12-55234, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.


RESEARCH MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Dumped Patient Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Haake, writing for 41 Action News, reports that the
disposal of a still-unknown number of patient records in a
dumpster outside Research Medical Center last month could soon
become an even more costly mistake for physicians group Midwest
Women's Healthcare Specialists.

A Kansas City attorney filed a class action lawsuit against the
group on behalf of some of the women whose private information was
compromised.  The lawsuit filed in Jackson County on June 3
accuses MWHS of breaching its fiduciary duty to keep patient
records confidential, and seeks unspecified damages, including
"punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Defendant and
others from the same or similar conduct."

Attorney Maureen Brady filed the lawsuit, and in an interview on
June 6 appeared confident a jury would side with her clients,
should the case proceed that far.

"You have to think to yourself: What is your most intimate secret?
These women have charged their healthcare provider with their most
intimate secrets and that's lost, and it's lost forever," Ms.
Brady said.

Ms. Brady currently has another privacy-related suit pending
against Research Medical Center.

On May 19, as many as a few hundred patient records were placed in
a dumpster outside the MHWS practice at Research Medical Center,
and wind scattered them around the hospital's neighborhood.  Some
were recovered only days later, and it remains unclear if all the
documents have been found even now.

Midwest Women's Healthcare declined 41 Action News' request for an
interview, but spokesperson Ashlee Peterson responded to questions
about the lawsuit in an emailed statement.

"First and foremost, we sincerely apologize to Midwest Women's
Healthcare Specialist's patients who are affected by this
incident," the statement says.  "We care deeply about our patients
and their privacy and are working diligently to investigate and
remedy this situation."

The MWHS statement did not mention the lawsuit.

Last month, MWHS released a statement explaining that the records,
which it called "billing" records as opposed to "medical records"
were "mistakenly placed in a trash dumpster during a construction
project."

41 Action News obtained some 70 individual patient records from a
Good Samaritan.  Those records included names, addresses, social
security numbers and procedures performed on women on the day of
their appointments, spanning from late 2011 to early 2012.

MWHS has said they believe they have recovered the majority of the
documents lost that day, and that they have begun reaching out to
the women affected.  Some patients reached by 41 Action News said
they had been contacted by MWHS, but Brady said her clients had
not.

"Once they realized their mistake, they should have taken every
effort," she said on June 6.  "They should have moved mountains to
get that information back, and to mitigate the harm that they were
doing."

41 Action News returned some of the records we received to
individual patients, and the balance were returned to MWHS on May
23rd. Some of the women we spoke to said they have been
subsequently contacted by MWHS.

Ms. Brady's lawsuit names only two women as plaintiffs, but she
said on June 6 she expects that number to grow.

"We believe that there have been dozens, if not hundreds of other
patients that have similar type injuries," she said.


SABRE CORP: To Appeal Judgment in Suit v. Online Travel Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation intends to appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the final judgment made in a suit by
the City of San Antonio against Travelocity and other Online
Travel Agencys according to Sabre's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered a final judgment against
Travelocity and other OTAs,in a class action lawsuit filed by the
City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury
verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control" hotels for
purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury
verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged
by the OTAs are subject to city hotel occupancy taxes and that the
OTAs have a duty to assess, collect and remit these taxes. The
company disagrees with the jury's finding that it "control(s)"
hotels, and with the W.D.T.'s conclusions based on the jury
finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The company believes the Fifth Circuit's resolution of the San
Antonio appeal may be affected by a separate Texas state appellate
court decision in the company's favor. On October 26, 2011, the
Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court's
summary judgment ruling in favor of the OTAs in a case brought by
the City of Houston and the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority
on a similarly worded tax ordinance as the one at issue in the San
Antonio case. The Texas Supreme Court denied the City of Houston's
petition to review the case. The company believes this decision
should provide persuasive authority to the Fifth Circuit in its
review of the San Antonio case.

In late 2012, the Tax Appeal Court of the State of Hawaii granted
summary judgment in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs on the
issue of whether Hawaii's hotel occupancy tax applies to the
merchant revenue model. However, in January 2013, the same court
granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Hawaii and
against Travelocity and other OTAs on the issue of whether the
state's general excise tax, which is assessed on all business
activity in the state, applies to the merchant revenue model for
the period from 2002 to 2011.

The company expensed $1 million and $14 million in cost of revenue
for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively,
which represents the amount the company would owe to the State of
Hawaii, prior to appealing the Tax Appeal Court's ruling, in back
excise taxes, penalties and interest based on the court's
interpretation of the statute. In 2014, the company made a
negligible amount of payments and maintained an accrued liability
of $8 million as of March 31, 2014. Payment of such amount is not
an admission that the company believes it is subject to the taxes
in question.

Travelocity has appealed the Tax Appeal Court's determination that
the company is subject to general excise tax, as it believes the
decision is incorrect and inconsistent with the same court's prior
rulings. If any such taxes are in fact owed (which it disputes),
it believes the correct amount would be under $10 million. The
ultimate resolution of these contingencies may differ from the
liabilities recorded. To the extent the company's appeal is
successful in reducing or eliminating the assessed amounts, the
State of Hawaii would be required to refund such amounts, plus
interest. On May 20, 2013, the State of Hawaii issued an
additional general excise tax assessment for the calendar year
2012. Travelocity has appealed this recent assessment to the Tax
Appeal Court, and this assessment has been stayed pending a final
appellate decision on the original assessment.

On December 9, 2013, the State of Hawaii also issued assessments
of general excise tax for merchant rental car bookings facilitated
by Travelocity and other OTAs for the period 2001 to 2012 for
which the company recorded a $2 million reserve in the fourth
quarter of 2013. Travelocity intends to appeal the assessment to
the Tax Appeal Court and does not believe the excise tax is
applicable.

As of March 31, 2014, the company has a remaining reserve of $19
million, included in other accrued liabilities in the consolidated
balance sheet, for the potential resolution of issues identified
related to litigation involving hotel sales, occupancy or excise
taxes, which includes the $10 million liability for the remaining
payments to the State of Hawaii. As of December 31, 2013, the
reserve for litigation involving hotel sales, occupancy or excise
taxes was $18 million. The company's estimated liability is based
on the company's current best estimate but the ultimate resolution
of these issues may be greater or less than the amount recorded
and, if greater, could adversely affect the company's results of
operations.

In addition to the actions by the tax authorities, four consumer
class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and
other OTAs in which the plaintiffs allege that the company made
misrepresentations concerning the description of the fees received
in relation to facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, the
consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity and the other OTAs
provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of the
company's fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected. One
of these lawsuits was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court and
such dismissal was subsequently affirmed; one was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in Texas state court,
where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class action; and the last is pending in federal court,
but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state court
action. The company believes the notice the company provided was
appropriate.

In addition to the lawsuits, a number of state and local
governments have initiated inquiries, audits and other
administrative proceedings that could result in an assessment of
sales or occupancy taxes on fees. If the company does not to
prevail at the administrative level, those cases could lead to
formal litigation proceedings.

Pursuant to the company's Expedia SMA, the company continues to be
liable for fees, charges, costs and settlements relating to
litigation arising from hotels booked on the Travelocity platform
operated by Travelocity prior to the full implementation of the
Expedia SMA. However, fees, charges, costs and settlements
relating to litigation from hotels booked subsequent to the
Expedia SMA will be shared with Expedia according to the terms of
the Expedia SMA. Under the Expedia SMA, the company is also
required to guarantee Travelocity's indemnification obligations to
Expedia for any liabilities arising out of historical claims with
respect to this type of litigation.


SABRE CORP: Bid to Amend Online Hotel Bookers' Suit Opposed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit by a class of bookers of online hotel
reservations against Sabre Holdings, among others, have moved for
leave to file an amended complaint after the dismissal of their
complaints and the defendants have opposed this motion, according
to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On August 20, 2012, two individuals alleging to represent a
putative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed a
complaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several
other online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
federal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaint
alleges generally that the defendants conspired to enter into
illegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30
copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States.
In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The
proposed class period is January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013. On
June 15, 2013, the court granted Travelocity's motion to compel
arbitration of claims involving Travelocity bookings made on or
after February 4, 2010. While all claims from February 4, 2010
through May 1, 2013 are now excluded from the lawsuit and must be
arbitrated if pursued at all, the lawsuit still covers claims from
January 1, 2003 through February 3, 2010. Together with the other
defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a motion to dismiss. On
February 18, 2014, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs have moved
for leave to file an amended complaint and the defendants have
opposed this motion. The company is awaiting the court's ruling.


SECURITY CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Maya C. Cross, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Security Credit Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00122-
WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga., June 13, 2014) alleges violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          108 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 204
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com


SHENGDATECH INC: Opposes Third Amended Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
A third amended complaint, which the defendant is opposing, was
filed in In re ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation, according
to Shengdatech Liquidating Trust's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead
counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third
amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010,
against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former
officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the
"Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor,
KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged
misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public
statements made during the class period and asserts a claim
against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon.
While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount
to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery
against the Company under the Plan is limited to available
insurance coverage and proceeds.

The Company was served with the Third Amended Complaint on October
28, 2013. On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG
HK moved to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended
Complaint on the grounds, among others, that it failed to state
cognizable claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014, but
the Court has not yet ruled on the motions.

On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the
allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In
its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of
wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses.


TECHE HOLDING: Dismissed Together with IBERIABANK in "Solak" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia of the
State of Louisiana dismissed all claims by John Solak against
Teche Holding Company and IBERIABANK Corporation, according to
Teche's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In February 3, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned John Solak v. Teche Holding Company, IBERIABANK
Corporation, et al., Case No. 123884, was filed in the 16th
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia of the State of
Louisiana against IBERIABANK Corporation, Teche and members of
Teche's board of directors. That suit subsequently was amended to
assert, among other things, that the Teche directors breached
their fiduciary duties and/or violated Louisiana state law and
that IBERIABANK Corporation and Teche conspired with the directors
in those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

All defendants filed exceptions to the suit seeking dismissal.
Teche and IBERIABANK Corporation filed exceptions of no cause of
action and no right of action. The directors filed an exception of
no right of action. On April 15, 2014, the district court ruled in
favor of defendants, finding that plaintiff had no individual
right of action and dismissing all claims against Teche and
IBERIABANK Corporation. The court granted plaintiff seven days
within which he could amend the suit to state a derivative claim
and on April 22, 2014 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the individual directors of Teche and naming Teche as a
nominal defendant.  The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger.
Teche and the individual directors intend to vigorously defend
against the lawsuit.


THOMAS CLIME: Accused of Unlawfully Withholding Workers' Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selvin Elvir Reyes, 1513 Timber Ridge Lane, Suite 103,
Hyattsville, Maryland 20782; and Francisco Torrez, 1906 Amhert
Road, Apt. 203, Hyattsville, Maryland 20783, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated  v. Thomas Clime
Landscapes, LLC, 22610 Georgia Avenue, P.O. 66, Brookville,
Maryland 20833; and Thomas Clime, 22610 Georgia Avenue,
Brookville, Maryland 20833, Case No. 8:14-cv-01908 (D. Md.,
June 12, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' scheme to withhold
payment from the Plaintiffs for non-overtime and overtime hours is
unlawful and constitutes wage theft, and the regular deductions
made from what the Plaintiffs were owed amounts to a willful and
knowing violation of the Maryland and Federal wage and overtime
laws.

Thomas Clime Landscapes, LLC, is a Maryland limited liability
company headquartered in Brookville, Maryland.  The Company is
engaged primarily in landscaping services.  Thomas Clime is the
primary owner of Landscapes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael K. Amster, Esq.
          AMSTER LAW FIRM, LLC
          200-A Monroe Street, Suite 305
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (240) 428-1053
          Facsimile: (301) 424-8732
          E-mail: mamster@amsterfirm.com


TJX COMPANIES: Removed "Affen" Suit to New Jersey District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Affen v. The TJX
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. MID-02477-14, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03820-CCC-JBC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to collect unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry J. Gainey, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          95 Route 17 South, Suite 310
          Paramus, NJ 07652
          Telephone: (201) 225-9001
          Facsimile: (201) 225-9002
          E-mail: bgainey@gme-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael T. Grosso, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Newark Center, 8th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 848-4700
          Facsimile: (973) 643-5626
          E-mail: mgrosso@littler.com


TREMOR VIDEO: Plaintiffs in Suit Over IPO File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in a suit alleging misrepresentations by Tremor
Video, Inc. in connection with its IPO filed an amended complaint,
according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In November 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, the company's directors, and certain of the
company's executive officers. The lawsuit alleges certain
misrepresentations by the company in connection with the company's
IPO concerning the company's business and prospects.  The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages.  On February 7, 2014, the Court entered
an order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On April
22, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.


UNITED BANCORP: Inks MoU to Settle Old National Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A memorandum of understanding was entered to settle the suit Paul
Parshall v. United Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-39-CZ,
according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In connection with the pending merger of United Bancorp, Inc.
("United") with and into Old National Bancorp ("Old National"), on
January 17, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Michigan, Business
Division, by an individual purporting to be a shareholder of
United. The action is styled Paul Parshall v. United Bancorp,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-39-CZ. The complaint alleges that the
directors of United breached their fiduciary duties to United's
shareholders in connection with the merger by approving a
transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that
undervalues United and includes preclusive deal protection
provisions; and that United and Old National allegedly aided and
abetted the United directors in breaching their duties to United's
shareholders. The defendants, which include all of the directors
of United, United, United's subsidiary bank, United Bank & Trust,
Old National and Old National's subsidiary bank, Old National
Bank, deny the allegations in the complaint.

On May 13, 2014, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") setting forth their
agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The MOU, among
other things, provides that: (a) the defendants will amend the
proxy statement and prospectus included in Old National's Form S-4
Registration Statement (Registration No. 333-193868) to include
agreed upon supplemental disclosures; (b) the stipulation of
settlement will include an injunction against proceedings in
connection with the complaint and any additional complaints
concerning claims that will be covered by the stipulation of
settlement; (c) the stipulation of settlement will include a
release on behalf of the plaintiff, along with other members of
the class of United shareholders certified for purposes of the
stipulation of settlement, in favor of the defendants and their
related parties from any claims that arise from or are related to
the merger; (d) the plaintiff will have a 30-day period to conduct
confirmatory discovery to confirm the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the stipulation of settlement; and (e) the defendants
have agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses as
awarded by the court, subject to court approval of the stipulation
of settlement and the consummation of the merger.


UNITED STATES: "Barry" Suit Wins Conditional Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in TAMARA BARRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, NO. 13-457C are current and former
GS-1801 Immigration Officers (IOs) and GS-0132 Intelligence
Research Specialists (IRSs) with the United States Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) Office of Fraud Detection and National Security.
Until February 12, 2012, USCIS designated the plaintiffs'
positions as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, as amended by
the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 251-262.  In the
suit, the Plaintiffs seek backpay and liquidated damages under
Section 216(b) for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week
during the time that they were designated as FLSA exempt, prior to
February 12, 2012.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the USCIS
willfully violated the FLSA in designating them as exempt, thus
extending the statute of limitations under Section 255(a)3 from
two years to three years.

Currently pending before the court is the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a collective action under Section
216(b) of the FLSA and for authorization to mail notice to
potential class members. The government opposes the motion for
conditional certification, primarily on the ground that, because
the government no longer disputes plaintiffs' non-exempt status,
no common issues of law or fact unite the proposed class, and only
individualized inquiries remain for adjudication. The government
also finds fault with plaintiffs' proposed class definition and
class notice.

District Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the the United States Court of
Federal Claims grants the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification, adopts a modified class definition that addresses
the government's concerns, and approves the notice for
distribution to potential class members.

The Court adopts the following as the definition of the
conditional class:

All past or present employees of Defendant from three years prior
to the date of the current notice until the present (the "Claims
Period") who: (1) at any time during the Claims Period worked
within the United States; (2) encumbered at any time during the
Claims Period a GS-1801 Immigration Officer ("IO") or GS-0132
Intelligence Research Specialist ("IRS") position within the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services office of Fraud Detection and National Security; and (3)
had their FLSA exemption status converted from exempt to non-
exempt.

A copy of Judge Kaplan's opinion and order dated May 28, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/k2hgLvfrom Leagle.com.

TAMARA BARRY, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman --
jstatman@sniderlaw.com -- Snider and Associates, LLC.

REBECCA BUHR, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

DENNIS COLYER, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

TERRY DAMMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

JARED GRAUER, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

NEWTON HATTEN, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov
Statman, Snider and Associates, LLC.

ROSS HECKMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

DOUG LINTZ, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman, Snider
and Associates, LLC.

KYLE MABIE, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman, Snider
and Associates, LLC.

LISA PERKINS, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

JEREMY POTTER, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

KIMBERLA REDMON, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

BRYON TYREE, AND, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

ALAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Yaakov Statman,
Snider and Associates, LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Martin Mason Tomlinson, U.S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division.

Jacob Yaakov Statman, Snider and Associates, LLC, Baltimore, MD,
for plaintiffs.

Martin Mason Tomlinson, Civil Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.


UNITED STATES: HHS Sued Over Medicare Denial Appeals Process
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that a nonprofit
advocacy group on June 4 filed a proposed class action against the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries who allege the department's appeals boards failed to
meaningfully review decisions denying them benefits.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy claims in a lawsuit filed in
Connecticut federal court that thousands of state beneficiaries
are unable to receive a meaningful review of their case, receiving
denials of coverage that are essentially "rubber-stamped" at the
department's two appeals levels, known as redetermination and
reconsideration.

The complaint was not publicly available on June 6.  The group
claims that the denial rate at the redetermination has increased
as the department has implemented a new administrative review
process for traditional Medicare recipients.  It says the new
system was intended to make the review process more efficient but
beneficiaries aren't receiving a meaningful review of their
claims.

"Older people and people with disabilities are going without
necessary care because they're being wrongly denied coverage and
either drop out of the yearslong appeals process, waiting for a
hearing, or impoverish themselves to pay for care," said
Gill Deford, the center's litigation director.  "The sheer number
of beneficiaries who are forced to deal with this time-consuming,
meaningless appeals structure compelled us to take action to seek
meaningful reviews earlier in the appeals process."

Judith Stein, the executive director of the Center for Medicare
Advocacy, said that many members of the proposed class don't have
the time or money to take their claims to an administrative law
judge, the final step in the appeals process after the
redetermination and reconsideration level.

"'Rubber-stamping' appeals deprives a huge number of people a
legitimate review process and harms those who depend on Medicare
coverage for critical health care and to maintain their quality of
life," she said in a statement.

Outgoing HHS director Kathleen Sebelius was named in the complaint
in her official capacity.  Ms. Sebelius will soon be replaced by
Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who has led the Office of Management and
Budget -- the arm of the White House which oversees the federal
budget, including the president's annual budget request, and the
quality of agency programs, policies and procedures -- since April
2013.

Ms. Burwell was tapped by President Barack Obama to lead HHS in
April, after Ms. Sebelius' resignation, following the rocky
rollout of the Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges, the
centerpiece of the reform law.

The U.S. Senate on June 5 confirmed Ms. Burwell in a bipartisan
78-17 vote, with a host of Republicans joining Senate Democrats in
voting to confirm her to the HHS role.

The case is Hull et al v. Sebelius, case number 3:14-cv-00801, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.


UNITED STATES: Farmers Can't Intervene in Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
A group that represents black farmers left out of two
discrimination settlements with the U.S. Government cannot
intervene in similar class actions brought by female farmers and
Hispanic farmers, reports Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

The case is Rosemary Love, et al. v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture, Case No. 00-2502 (RBW),
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.


UNITEK GLOBAL: Seeks Final Approval of $1.6MM Stock Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
UniTek Global Services, Inc. is seeking final approval of a $1.6
million settlement reached in In Re UniTek Global Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action NO. 13-2119, according to the
company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

A consolidated class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The case, entitled In Re UniTek Global Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action NO. 13-2119, alleges that the Company
made misstatements and omissions regarding its business, its
financial condition and its internal controls and systems in
violation of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In October 2013,
the plaintiffs and the Company reached a preliminary agreement to
settle all claims for an amount of $1.6 million, including
attorneys' fees and expenses. In February 2014, the Court entered
an Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement, and the hearing to approve the final settlement is set
for June 2014. The Company believes that the settlement amount
will be covered by insurance and has accrued the $0.3 million
deductible.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: "Abdulhaqq" Suit Goes to Calif. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White remanded the case captioned
SHAKORA ABDULHAQQ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. URBAN OUTFITTERS
WHOLESALE, INC., D/B/A ANTHROPOLOGIE, a Pennsylvania corporation,
et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-03184 JSW, (N.D. Cal.) to the County
of San Francisco Superior Court.

Plaintiff Shakora Abdulhaqq filed the motion to remand.

Judge White granted the request saying the Court finds that Urban
Outfitters has not met its burden to demonstrate that the amount
in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 by a preponderance of the
evidence.

A copy of the District Court's May 28, 2014 is available at
http://is.gd/kiLX0Qfrom Leagle.com.

Shakora Abdulhaqq, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- The Aiwazian Law Firm, Arby
Aiwazian -- arby@lfjpc.com -- The Aiwazian Law Firm & Jill Jessica
Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Mercy Connor, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin
Aiwazian, The Aiwazian Law Firm, Arby Aiwazian, The Aiwazian Law
Firm & Jill Jessica Parker, Aiwazian Law Firm.

Urban Outfitters, an unknown business entity, Defendant,
represented by Cheryl Denise Orr -- Cheryl.Orr@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP & Thomas J Barton -- Thomas.Barton@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle Reath LLP.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: "Moore" Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White remanded the case captioned
ALEXANDER MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. URBAN OUTFITTERS
WHOLESALE, INC., D/B/A ANTHROPOLOGIE, a Pennsylvania corporation,
et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-02245 JSW, (N.D. Cal.) to the County
of San Francisco Superior Court.

Alexander Moore filed the motion to remand.

Judge White found that Urban Outfitters has not met its burden to
demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 by a
preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand

A copy of the District Court's May 28, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/cBVVxgfrom Leagle.com.

Alexander Moore, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Arnab Banerjee -- ABanerjee@InitiativeLegal.com -- Initiative
Legal Group APC, Melissa Grant --
melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez
-- Raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Alexandria
Marie Witte -- alexandria.witte@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC.

Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cheryl
Denise Orr, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Jaime Danielle Walter,
Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Thomas J Barton, Drinker Biddle Reath
LLP.


US BANK: Trial Court Judgment in "Duran" Suit Must be Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL DURAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant, NO. S200923, is
a wage and hour class action that proceeded through trial to
verdict.  Loan officers for U.S. Bank National Association (USB)
sued for unpaid overtime, claiming they had been misclassified as
exempt employees under the outside salesperson exemption.  This
exemption applies to employees who spend more than 50 percent of
the workday engaged in sales activities outside the office.

After certifying a class of 260 plaintiffs, the trial court
devised a plan to determine the extent of USB's liability to all
class members by extrapolating from a random sample. In the first
phase of trial, the court heard testimony about the work habits of
21 plaintiffs. USB was not permitted to introduce evidence about
the work habits of any plaintiff outside this sample.
Nevertheless, based on testimony from the small sample group, the
trial court found that the entire class had been misclassified.

After the second phase of trial, which focused on testimony from
statisticians, the court extrapolated the average amount of
overtime reported by the sample group to the class as a whole,
resulting in a verdict of approximately $15 million and an average
recovery of over $57,000 per person.

The Supreme Court of California in an opinion dated May 29, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/TcjgU1 from
Leagle.com, held that "The judgment must be reversed because the
trial court's flawed implementation of sampling prevented USB from
showing that some class members were exempt and entitled to no
recovery.  A trial plan that relies on statistical sampling must
be developed with expert input and must afford the defendant an
opportunity to impeach the model or otherwise show its liability
is reduced.  Statistical sampling may provide an appropriate means
of proving liability and damages in some wage and hour class
actions. However, the trial court's particular approach to
sampling here was profoundly flawed."

"On remand, the trial court must start anew by assessing whether
there is a trial plan that can properly address both common and
individual issues if the case were to proceed as a class action,"
added the Calif. Superme Court.

Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger, Carothers DiSante &
Freudenberger, Timothy M. Freudenberger, Alison L. Tsao and Kent
J. Sprinkle for Defendant and Appellant.

Horvitz & Levy, Jeremy B. Rosen and Robert H. Wright for Chamber
of Commerce of the United States of America and Retail Litigation
Center, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Appellant.

Fred J. Hiestand; Morrison & Foerster, Miriam A. Vogel, Janie F.
Schulman and M. Natalie Naugle for California Business Roundtable,
Civil Justice Association of California and California Bankers
Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Deborah J. La Fetra and Christina M. Martin for Pacific Legal
Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Altshuler Berzon, Michael Rubin; Jocelyn Larkin, Della Barnett and
Michael Caesar for Impact Fund, AARP, Asian Law Caucus, Asian
Pacific American Legal Center, Disability Rights Education &
Defense Fund, Disability Rights Legal Center, National Consumer
Law Center, Public Citizen, Inc., and Public Justice, P.C, as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Theane
Evangelis Kapur and Bradley J. Hamburger for National Association
of Security Companies, California Association of Licensed Security
Agencies, ABM Security Services Inc., AlliedBarton Security
Services, G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., and Securitas Security
Services USA, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Appellant.

Littler Mendelson, Allan G. King, Julie A. Dunne and Margaret Hart
Edwards for The Gallup Organization as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Defendant and Appellant.

Paul Hastings, Paul Grossman, Paul W. Cane, Jr., Sean D. Unger and
Rishi N. Sharma for California Employment Law Council and
Employers Group as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Appellant.

Shaw Valenza and D. Gregory Valenza for California Chamber of
Commerce as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Ellen Lake, Ellen Lake; Lewis, Feinberg, Lee,
Renaker & Jackson, Brad Seligman; Wynne Law Firm, Edward J. Wynne
and J.E.B. Pickett for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Kevin K. Green for Consumer
Attorneys of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs
and Respondents.

The Kralowec Law Group, Kimberly A. Kralowec; Bryan Schwartz Law,
Bryan J. Schwartz; Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer;
Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe and Steven G. Zieff for California
Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Plaintiffs and Respondents.


VOLTARI CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. Motricity Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against
Motricity, Inc. filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the
case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
according to Voltari Corporation's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of Motricity, Inc. ("Motricity") between June 18,
2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's IPO. Motricity, which
was the company's predecessor registrant, is now the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name to Voltari
Operating Corp. The defendants in the case were Motricity, certain
of the company's current and former directors and officers,
including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner,
James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn,
Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the
underwriters in Motricity's IPO, including J.P. Morgan Securities,
Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC
Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated,
Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The
complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of the company's former
and current officers who are named as defendants. The complaint
sought, inter alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's
costs and rescission. A second putative securities class action
complaint was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same
court, also related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. On November 7, 2011, the class actions were
consolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which added a claim
under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its allegations of
violations of the securities laws and extended the putative class
period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a second amended
complaint on July 11, 2012. On August 1, 2012, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted
on January 17, 2013. A third amended complaint was filed on April
17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint, which was granted by the Court on
October 1, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Receives $5.6MM From Antitrust Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
VOXX International Corporation received a sum of $5,643,000 in the
settlement of a suit relating to alleged price fixing of certain
thin film transistor liquid crystal display flat panels, according
to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Feb. 28,
2014.

The Company has been a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
several defendants relating to the alleged price fixing of certain
thin film transistor liquid crystal display flat panels and
certain products containing these panels purchased between the
years 1999 and 2006, and the violation of U.S. antitrust laws.
This class action suit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs and
in July 2013, the judge in the case ordered the distribution of
the settlement funds that had been ordered to be put aside by the
defendants. Voxx received a sum of $5,643,000 which has been
recorded in "Other Income (Expense)" in the Consolidated Statement
of Operations and Comprehensive Income.


WASABI II LLC: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Ex-Servers Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Cooke and Daniel Slotuik, On Behalf of themselves and Others
Similarly Situated v. Wasabi II, LLC., WME Capital LLC, Wai Cheong
Tang, and Johnny Chan individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-02293-DCN
(D.S.C., June 12, 2014) is an action for violations of the minimum
wage and unpaid overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs, who worked both as Servers and Food Runners for
the Defendants, allege that the Defendants engaged in a practice
of wage theft, whereby, the Defendants improperly took a portion
of the tips received by the Plaintiffs and used this money for the
Defendants' own purposes, including paying the wages of their
hourly employees, who did not receive tips.

Wasabi II, LLC and WME Capital LLC are South Carolina for-profit
corporations.  The Individual Defendants are owners and operators
of the Wasabi Restaurants.  The Defendants own and operate Wasabi
Restaurants located in Daniel Island, Summerville and Charleston,
South Carolina.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 849-1692
          Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


* Michael Lewis Firm Files Class Action v. 13 Stock Exchanges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Treanor, writing for The Guardian, reports that the American
lawyer who orchestrated a successful class action suit against the
tobacco industry 20 years ago has turned his sights on the stock
exchanges caught up in the controversy over high-frequency
trading.

HFT is the process by which professional traders are able to put
orders in to the stock market more quickly than the majority of
investors.  Putting in these earlier bets on the market, it is
alleged, allows professionals to make quick profits at the expense
of savers and investors in pension funds.

The practice is being tested in a class action suit filed in a New
York court last month by a number of US legal firms including
Michael Lewis, the lawyer who led a class action suit brought by
the state of Mississippi in 1994.

The team of lawyers he assembled at that time led to $368.5
billion (GBP220 billion) being paid out by 13 tobacco companies to
cover the cost of treating illnesses related to smoking in almost
40 US states.

In an interview in Weekend magazine, Mr. Lewis -- who is not
related to the author of the same name whose book Flash Boys
exposed high-frequency trading to the public -- describes his
court action as "a small skirmish against the larger backdrop of
the vast accumulation of wealth and political power".

The case in the Southern District of New York is filed
against 13 stock exchanges and subsidiaries on behalf of Harold
Lanier "individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated". "This is a case about broken promises," the 40-page
document begins.  It is signed by eight legal firms.

In the interview, Mr. Lewis says that the information being
provided by exchanges "was not timely or accurate, and wasn't
fairly distributed", and alleges that they were in breach of
contract.

"The illusory market -- the market that the investor sees when he
looks at his monitor -- is anywhere from 1,500 to 900 milliseconds
old. That doesn't sound like much, because the blink of an eye is
300 milliseconds.  But that's a long, long time in the world of
HFT."

The case was filed on May 22, and is one of what is expected to be
a large number of legal cases related to HFT.  The 13 exchanges
involved are yet to file a formal response in the court.  In
April, Providence, the capital of the US state of Rhode Island,
filed a case targeting a number of exchanges charged with fraud.


                             *********

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  * * *