CAR_Public/150113.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 9


                             Headlines

333 LAFAYETTE: Faces "Rosales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ADVANCED CALL: "Keokongchack" Class Action Dismissed
AGL INDUSTRIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
AMERICAN HONDA: Accord in "Gutierrez" Case Okayed, Suit Dismissed
AMERICAN REALTY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Action

AMERICAN WEST: Sued Over Inaccessible ATMs for Blind People
AMERLINK LTD: Bank. Court Won't Halt "Newton" & "Diorio" Actions
ANZ BANK: Investors Sue Over Margin Loan Losses
APPLE INC: Faces "Orshan" Suit Over Misleading Product Packaging
ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN'S: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Class Actions Over APL and Atlas Mergers
AUTO CLUB: Class Plaintiffs Directed to Defend Suit Continuance
BAC HOME: Court Stays Remand Order in "Fowler" Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Parties in Delaware Cases Enter Into MOU
BURCH EQUIPMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

C & C MEATS: Faces "Salas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CANON SAFETY: "McCarty" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CENTURION PROPERTY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHINA MOBILE: Miran Named Lead Plaintiff, Faruqi as Lead Counsel
CHINA MOON: Faces "Zheng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

CHOICE HOTEL: Judge Rules on Bids to Dismiss "Paternostro" Suit
CITIBANK NA: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccessible ATMs for Blind People
CITY BARN: "Fuentes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
COACH USA: Sightseers Have Until Jan. 18 to Claim Refund
COBALT INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas

COLUMBIA SUSSEX: Sued Over Illegal Use of Background Report
CONEXIS CARGO: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CSK AUTO: Parties in "Melgar" Suit Directed to Agree on Schedules
DANOS AND CUROLE: Faces "Bragg" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Priest" Suit Claims

DELAWARE: Housing Agency May Have to Refund Lot Fees
DIGNITY HEALTH: Sued for Withholding Employees' FICA Taxes
DUCK WALK: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 20 Hearing on Bid to Nix Class Suit
EASTERN REVENUE: Faces "Quatinetz" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA

EXCLUSIVE DETAILING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EXEL DIRECT: "Villalpando" Suit May Proceed as Class Action
FAMILY DOLLAR: Stockholders' Preliminary Injunction Bid Denied
FEDEX CORPORATION: Still a Defendant in Wage-and-Hour Cases
FEDEX CORPORATION: Independent Contractor Cases on Appeal

FEDEX CORPORATION: Defending Against Contractor-Model Cases
FIFTH THIRD: Faces "Kampfer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
FLORIDA: Two Counties to Begin Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL: Prisoners' Class Certification Bid Okayed
FORBES REGIONAL: Pa. Appellate Court Tosses "Cunningham" Appeal

GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Falsely Marketed Testofen Products, Action Says
GRACO CHILDREN: Loses Motion to Dismiss Long's 3rd Amended Suit
GREEN & CLEAN: "Equite" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GTA BUILDING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOLLYWOOD AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cal. Action Claims

INSTANT CHECKMATE: Sued in Cal. Over Deceptive Business Practices
INTERSTATE HOTELS: Sued Over Illegal Use of Background Report
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JP WHITE: Faces "Tang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KRUNG THEP: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Vasquez" Suit Claims

L-RAPHAEL FS: "Riedel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LITTLE ANGELOS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Coronel" Suit Says
LONG ISLAND BUSINESS: Faces "Hou" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MARECKI MASONRY: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says
MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Motion

MLM CUISINE: "Hassane" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MONEY STORE: Seeger Weiss Obtains $54-Mil. Class Action Verdict
MONTICELLO, MN: Court Authorizes Distribution of Settlement
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Narrows Claims in "Dent" Class Action
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued in Ill. Over Unsolicited Call Practices

PENNSYLVANIA: Foreign Cars R Us Case Can't Proceed as Class Suit
PORTOFINO GRILLE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PUBLIC STORAGE: "Urenia" Plaintiffs Directed to Amend Complaint
PVH CORPORATION: Bid to Intervene in "Chavez" Case Denied
REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS: Court Tosses Slebodnik et al. Suit

RITE AID: 2nd Cir. Denies Petition for Interlocutory Appeal
RITE AID: Defendant in Several Wage & Hour Suits in Calif.
RITE AID: Settles Pharmacists' Class Action for $9.7 Million
RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed Pending Decision
ROBERT HALF: Approval of Settlement in "Laffitte" Case Affirmed

ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Feb. 23 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SANOFI: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in New York
SONNY'S FRANCHISE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
SOUTH MIAMI PARTY: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ST. LOUIS, MO: Settles Two Suits Over Arrest Mistakes

SUPERVALU INC: Facing Consumer Goods Manufacturers' Action
SUPERVALU INC: Class Action Over C&S Deal Remanded to Dist. Court
SUPERVALU INC: Settlement Payments to Continue Until Feb. 2015
SUPERVALU INC: Criminal Intrusion Cases Sent to Minnesota Court
SUSHI CASTLE: "Dai" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

TAJ GROCERS: Faces "Quiroz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Marino" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TARGET CORP: Dist. Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Cases
TATITLEK SUPPORT: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TD AUTO: E.D. Wis. Judge Denies Motion for Class Certification

TEIKOKU PHARMA: Judge Narrows Claims in UFCW Local 1776 Suit
TEMPUR-SEALY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Moved to June 16
THREE RABBITS: Faces "Oliva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRAVEL SERVICES: Ill. Court Quashes Subpoena in "Charvat" Suit
TRENDS KITCHEN: Faces "Nava" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

U.S. BANK: D. Minn. Judge Narrows Claims in "Adedipe" Case
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Produce Executive Emails in Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Must Face "Wit" ERISA Suit, Calif. Judge Says

UNITED STATES: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Air Travel
UTZ QUALITY: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, Action Claims
VERSO PAPER: Maine Judge Dismisses Workers' Suit
WALL'S COFFEE: Faces "Rosas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WARB CORPORATION: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

WASH MASTERS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
YELP INC: Defendants Must File Dismissal Bid by February 6
ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS: Marsh and Jack Henry/FNBCT Deal Gets Final OK

* Changes in Law Led to New Class Action Filings in 2014
* Supreme Court Set to Take Up 3 Major Class Actions This Year


                            *********


333 LAFAYETTE: Faces "Rosales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Rosales, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 333 Lafayette LLC (d/b/a Pinche Taqueria), and Jeff
Chartier, Case No. 1:14-cv-10205 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican Restaurant located at 333
Lafayette Street, New York, New York 10012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ADVANCED CALL: "Keokongchack" Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the Eastern District of
California granted the parties' stipulation and request to dismiss
the case, DEVRA KEOKONGCHACK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED CALL CENTER
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants., Case No.
13CV1385 TLN (AC) (E.D. Cal.)

The plaintiff Devra Keokongchack and Defendant Advanced Call
Center Technologies, LLC want to dismiss the case with prejudice
since the parties are all covered by the class action settlement
in another case entitled Shelley Carl, et al. v. Advanced Call
Center Technologies, LLC in Sacramento County Superior Court with
case no. 34-2013-00148310; and Keokongchack opted to participate
in the Carl case settlement.

The Sacramento County Superior Court granted final approval of the
Carl Settlement on November 13, 2014.  As of the date of
stipulation, no class has been certified in the Keokongchack
action and no notice has been sent to the putative class members
and other than the requirement to notify the Court once the
Sacramento County Superior Court granted final approval of the
Carl Settlement, no other deadlines or hearings are set in this
matter.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Claire's stipulation and order dated
November 21, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/RiA9gIfrom
Leagle.com.

MICHAEL E. BREWER -- mbrewer@littler.com -- and MICHAEL G.
LEGGIERI -- mleggieri@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.,
Attorneys for Defendant, ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

MATTHEW RIGHETTI -- matt@righettilaw.com -- and JOHN GLUGOSKI --
at RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.; CHARLES A. JONES --
cosmo-89511@yahoo.com  -- at JONES LAW FIRM, Reno, NV, Attorneys
for Plaintiff, DEVRA KEOKONGCHACK.


AGL INDUSTRIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Zhirzhan, Pedro Avila and Fausto Contreras, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AGL Industries,
Inc., Dominick Lofaso, Frank Lofaso and Santo Lofaso, Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-07567 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a steel company located at 59-12
57th Street, Maspeth, NY 11378.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Accord in "Gutierrez" Case Okayed, Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jack Zouhary of the Central District of California,
Eastern Division, approves the parties' settlement and dismissed
the case, Heather Gutierrez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Honda North
America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:09 CV 1517 J7 (C.D.
Cal.)

Plaintiffs Heather Gutierrez and Connie Kaupa, on behalf of
themselves and a class of all other persons similarly situated,
and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (AHM) entered into a
Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release to fully and finally
resolve Plaintiffs' claims against AHM. The Court granted a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and Class Notice.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs
and Incentive Awards and a Motion for Final approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The court after careful consideration finally certified, solely
for settlement purposes and defined the Settlement Classes as:

The Injunctive Class: All Persons in the United States and the
District of Columbia who purchased or leased a new or used 2008
Accord Sedan manufactured before June 12, 2008.

Specifically excluded from the Injunctive Class are the following
Persons:

(i) Class Counsel; (ii) AHM; AHM's officers, directors and
employees; the officers, directors and employees of AHM's
affiliated companies; issuers of extended vehicle warranties; and
(iii) The judges who have presided over this Litigation.

The Deployment Class: All Persons in the United States and the
District of Columbia who purchased or leased: (1) a 2003 Honda
Accord Sedan or Coupe with Side Airbags for which the owner or
lessee complained to AHM or an Authorized Honda Dealer about a
Reimbursable Deployment of a Side Airbag and identified by VIN in
an Exhibit that is to be filed with this Court prior to the Notice
Date; (2) a 2004 Accord Sedan with Side Airbags manufactured
before April 8, 2004 for which the owner or lessee complained to
AHM or an Authorized Honda Dealer about a Reimbursable Deployment
of a Side Airbag and identified by VIN in an Exhibit that is to be
filed with this Court prior to the Notice Date; (3) a 2004 Accord
Coupe with Side Airbags for which the owner or lessee complained
to AHM or an Authorized Honda Dealer about a Reimbursable
Deployment of a Side Airbag and identified by VIN in an Exhibit
that is to be filed with this Court prior to the Notice Date; and
(4) a 2008 Accord Sedan manufactured before June 12, 2008 with
Side Airbags for which the owner or lessee complained to AHM or an
Authorized Honda Dealer about a Reimbursable Deployment of a Side
Airbag and identified by VIN in an Exhibit that is to be filed
with this Court prior to the Notice Date.

Specifically excluded from the Deployment Class are the following
Persons:

(i) Class Counsel ; (ii) AHM; AHM's officers, directors and
employees; the officers, directors and employees of AHM's
affiliated companies; issuers of extended vehicle warranties; and
(iii) The judges who have presided over this Litigation.

Solely for purposes of Settlement and based upon the conclusions
above, the Court appoints the following attorneys as Class
Counsel:

     Mike M. Arias, Esq.
     Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
     ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP
     6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90045
     Tel: 310-670-1600 Ext: 111
     Fax: 310-670-1231
     E-mail: marias@aogllp.com
             atorrijos@aogllp.com

          - and -

     Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
     WASSERMAN COMDEN CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, L.L.P.
     5567 Reseda Boulevard
     Tarzana, CA 91356
     Tel: (818) 705-6800
     E-mail: jesensten@wccelaw.com

          - and -

     Brian D. Chase, Esq.
     BISNAR CHASE
     One Newport Place
     1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Tel: (949) 752-2999
     Fax: (949) 752-2777
     E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com

The Court approves the Settlement and finds the Settlement is, in
all respects, fair, adequate, and reasonable, and directs the
Parties to effectuate the Settlement according to the terms
outlined in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds the compensation requested by plaintiffs is
reasonable, and awards $10,000 to Ms. Kaupa and $5,000 to Ms.
Gutierrez for acting as Class Representatives.

The Court finds the attorney fees are fair and reasonable, given
the results achieved, the complexities of the case and skill
required of counsel, the contingent nature of the fee, the
reaction of the Settlement Class, and the fact that the attorney
fees are being paid by AHM separate and apart from any relief to
the Settlement Class.

Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members have conclusively
compromised, settled, dismissed and released any and all Released
Claims against AHM and the Released Persons.

The case is dismissed on the merits with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Zouhary's final order and judgment dated November
20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/GCbr1Cfrom Leagle.com.

Heather Gutierrez and Connie Kaupa, Plaintiffs, represented by
Brian D Chase -- bchase@bisnarchase.com -- at Bisnar Chase;
Gregory B Scarlett -- gscarlett@wccelaw.com -- at Wasserman Comden
Casselman and Esensten LLP; Mark A Ozzello -- mozzello@aogllp.com
-- Mike M Arias -- marias@aogllp.com -- Alfredo Torrijos --
atorrijos@aogllp.com -- Arias Ozzello and Gignac LLP; and Jordan S
Esensten -- jesensten@esenstenlaw.com -- at Esensten Law

American Honda Motor Co Inc, Defendant, represented by Derek S
Whitefield -- dwhitefield@dykema.com -- Terri S Reiskin -- at
Dykema Gossett LLP;  Mark S Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com --
Kathleen P Lally -- kathleen.lally@lw.com -- at Latham & Watkins
LLP


AMERICAN REALTY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 2, 2015, a Current
Report on Form 8-K pursuant to a memorandum of understanding
regarding settlement of certain litigation relating to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended, the "Merger Agreement")
dated as of June 1, 2014 by and among Ventas, Inc. ("Ventas"),
Stripe Sub, LLC, Stripe OP, LP, American Realty Capital Healthcare
Trust, Inc. ("HCT") and American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust
Operating Partnership, L.P.

Between June 6, 2014 and July 9, 2014, ten putative class action
lawsuits asserting claims relating to HCT's disclosures in the
proxy statement filed with the SEC, some of which included
derivative claims, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland (collectively, the "Baltimore Litigation"): Romano
v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case
No. 24-C-14-003534 (June 6, 2014); Holzer v. American Realty
Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003553
(June 6, 2014); Brenner v. American Realty Capital Healthcare
Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003540 (June 9, 2014);
Hamill v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 24-C-14-003636 (June 11, 2014); Stanley v. American
Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-
003664 (June 12, 2014); Shine v. American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003707 (June 13,
2014); Uhl v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et
al., 24-C-14-003710 (June 13, 2014); Kuo v. American Realty
Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003765
(June 17, 2014); Flor v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust,
Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003817 (June 19, 2014); Abbasi v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No.
24-C-14004104 (July 9, 2014). On August 26, 2014, the Baltimore
Litigation was consolidated and is now styled: In re American
Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder and Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534 ("the Action").

On January 2, 2015, the parties to the Action agreed to a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims
asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, each action and all claims asserted therein will be
dismissed, subject to approval by each applicable court. The
proposed settlement terms require HCT to make certain additional
disclosures related to the merger, as set forth in this Current
Report on Form 8-K. The memorandum of understanding further
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding.


AMERICAN WEST: Sued Over Inaccessible ATMs for Blind People
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American West Bank, Case No. 3:14-cv-03041 (S.D. Cal.,
December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide ATMs that are accessible to sight-impaired individuals.

American West Bank operates a bank in California, Idaho, Oregon,
Utah, and Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq.
      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP
      2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com
              gwells@cwg-law.com


AMERLINK LTD: Bank. Court Won't Halt "Newton" & "Diorio" Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN M. BARTH, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SPOOR,
Defendant, Adv. Proc. No. 14-00145-8-RDD (E.D.N.C.), which is
related to the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case of AmerLink Ltd.,
Bankruptcy Judge Randy D. Doub ruled on:

    -- the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Richard Spoor,
founder of AmerLink, and who, at various times, was the CEO,
Treasurer, Chairman of the Board and majority shareholder of
AmerLink;

     -- the response of John M. Barth in opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss.  Mr. Barth's son, John Jr., became President and CEO
of AmerLink in 2006;

     -- the Motion for Injunctive Relief Barring Vexatious
Litigation and the Memorandum in Support of Motion for Injunctive
Relief filed by Barth.

The Complaint sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief
not only against Spoor in a state court action (Spoor v. Barth, 11
CVS 15178) but against two other classes of plaintiffs in Newton
(Newton v. Barth, 14 CVS 6788) and Diorio (Diorio Forest Products,
Inc. v. Barth 14 CVS 10215) to which Spoor is not a party.
However, those classes of plaintiffs were not joined in this
adversary proceeding.

In his December 19, 2014 Order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/o7QdL4from Leagle.com, Judge Doub held that any
judgment by the Court affecting the litigation in which these
classes are parties would impair or impede the classes' ability to
protect their interest. The Court cannot grant complete relief
among the existing parties in the adversary proceeding. Spoor does
not adequately represent the interests of the Newton and Diorio
classes, and is further not a plaintiff in either of those
proceedings.

"This Court finds that the parties in Newton and Diorio are
necessary parties and therefore this Court cannot enter a final
judgment affecting the parties' rights in their absence," Judge
Doub said.  "Therefore, the Motion for Injunctive Relief Barring
Vexatious Litigation is denied. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the
Defendant, Richard Spoor is granted. The adversary proceeding is
dismissed."

AmerLink filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr.
E.D.N.C. Case No. 09-01055-8-RDD) on February 11, 2009.  On
November 23, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
converting the Debtor's Chapter 11 case to a case under Chapter 7.
Steven L. Beaman was appointed Chapter 11 Trustee in the case, and
became the Chapter 7 trustee upon conversion of the case.


ANZ BANK: Investors Sue Over Margin Loan Losses
-----------------------------------------------
Leo Shanahan, writing for the Australian Business Review, reports
that ANZ Bank is being pursued by hundreds of investors who lost
tens of millions of dollars in margin loans they claim were
negligently provided by breaching of the Banking Code of Conduct
and the Trade Practices Act.

The group of about 600 investors lost the money on margin loans
provided by ANZ in a scheme structured by failed financial planner
Steve Navra before the financial crisis in a bid to drive
investment into his own managed fund.

On behalf of the group, plaintiff lawyers Shine are seeking
compensation through a mediated settlement or court action if
necessary, estimating that the losses through margin loans would
total $60 million.

The action has again shone the spotlight on the behavior of the
wealth management arms of the major banks in the lead-up to the
financial crisis.  Cases of fraud and misconduct inside the
Commonwealth Bank became the subject of a Senate inquiry and has
led to more than 4000 customers of its financial planning arm
asking for their financial advice to be reviewed.

Lead solicitor for the group, Sasha Ivanstoff, claims the alleged
practices by ANZ are a "mirror image" of the practices major banks
engaged in with financial planners in the lead-up to the Storm
Financial collapse.  They claim providing the loans was
unconscionable, a breach of the banking code of practice and a
breach of the TPA under the "linked credit provider" provision.

"These are pretty average families who have been talked into
mortgaging their houses and taking margin loans.  The provider of
the loans was ANZ and the financial adviser was Navra," he said.

"It's a mirror image of the Storm Financial case.  Navra had his
own fund that he was tipping into from borrowed money.

"All the Storm cases now have been settled on the basis that the
bank behind the investment should not have been lending in the way
it was."

The major sticking point for the group is that the bulk of the
claims date back to March 2008 and exceed the statute of
limitations on bringing a claim to court.  Mr. Ivanstoff is
calling on ANZ to follow the steps of the Commonwealth Bank and
other banks whose financial advisers or their subsidiaries were
caught out giving bad financial advice, and waive the statute of
limitations on the claims.

"We've written to the ANZ saying this is the outline of what's
happened.  We're asking you to do the right thing and not rely on
the limitation period," he said.

"The Commonwealth Bank has waived its limitation period back to
2003.  Macquarie Bank is in an enforceable undertaking with ASIC.
They have waived their limitation rights.  It is simply the right
thing to do and ANZ does not seem to want to do it."

A spokesman for ANZ told The Weekend Australian "we have received
Shine's request and no decision on next steps have been made".

As well as encouraging investors to sink cash into his own retail
fund, the now bankrupt Mr. Navra also led hundreds of investors
into the failed forestry managed investment scheme Great Southern.

Rebecca Dillon, a western Sydney mother of three, estimates she
has lost $1.8m in investments directly related to Mr. Navra's
financial advice.

This has included the refinancing of her home several times, the
ANZ margin loans, loans into Great Southern and a separate
investment in "claim warrants" in Navra Managed Funds provided by
the Royal Bank of Scotland (Mrs. Dillon is the lead plaintiff in
another class action being run against RBS on behalf of former
Navra clients).

In February 2007, Mrs Dillon invested $200,000 in Mr. Navra's
"blue chip investment fund" from funds drawn from the refinancing
of her home.

She was then advised to use the retail fund equity to invest
another $200,000 drawn from an ANZ margin loan.

At the time the loan was approved Mrs. Dillon was a casual PE
teacher at a local high school.  Her husband had an income of just
over $60,000.

"He (Mr Navra) said they were safe and that they guaranteed a
minimum 10 per cent on them. I wasn't working at the time, and we
questioned him on it, and he said they would pay for themselves,
saying the interest would capitalize," Mrs. Dillon told The
Weekend Australian.  "I thought that was a bit strange but it was
my first investment."

When they were told in early 2008 they were at risk of a margin
call, Mrs. Dillon claims Mr. Navra then advised them to pull the
money from the ANZ margin loan and reroute it into the RBS "claim
warrants".

"So we refinanced our homes to protect ourselves from that.  He
said you just need to ride out the storm, and it happens all the
time," she said.

"I did understand it was ANZ who were providing the margin loans.
I found a one-page document that had their name on it when they
doubled the money."

When the financial crisis hit later that year and Mr. Navra's
business and investments collapsed, the Dillon family's loans were
called in across the board.  Despite ASIC informing them that Mr.
Navra had given them inappropriate and negligent advice, insurers
have refused to pay and Mr. Navra has declared bankruptcy, meaning
they are left with a debt of $1.8 million.

Mrs. Dillon said recourse against ANZ would at least "give us the
opportunity of compensation so that we can at least save our
home".

"We didn't really understand why we didn't have to pay back these
loans," she said.  "Of course, I understand we do now."


APPLE INC: Faces "Orshan" Suit Over Misleading Product Packaging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Orshan and Christopher Endara, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-
05659 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), arises out of Apple's false
and misleading product packaging and promotional materials
regarding storage capacity of 8 GB and 16 GB iPhones, iPads and
iPods with iOS 8 operating system.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation headquartered
in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells
consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and
personal computers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael McShane, Esq.
      Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main St., Suite 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
              jmann@audetlaw.com

         - and -

      Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
      Matthew E. Miller, Esq.
      William H. Anderson, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
      507 C St., N.E.
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
              mmiller@cuneolaw.com
              wanderson@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
      BARON & HERSKOWITZ
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 670-0101
      Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
      E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com


ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN'S: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tish Corbine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Association for Women's Health Care, Ltd., Case
No. 1:14-cv-10471 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Association for Women's Health Care, Ltd. operates two medical
offices in Illinois that provide comprehensive medical services to
women.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575
      Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
      E-mail: cpsons@bormeslaw.com
              bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net


ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Class Actions Over APL and Atlas Mergers
------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 2
To FORM 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 7, 2015, that since the announcement on October 13, 2014
of the Atlas Merger and the APL Merger, Atlas Energy, APL and the
other parties to the mergers have been named as defendants in
putative stockholder class action complaints challenging the
transactions. Although New Atlas has not been named as a defendant
in these complaints, certain of our expected officers have been
named as defendants, and the litigation could delay or impede the
consummation of the separation and distribution.

The Company said, "As of January 7, 2015, we are aware that Atlas
Energy, Atlas Energy's general partner, Targa Resources, Trident
GP Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources created in
connection with the Atlas Merger), and the members of the Atlas
Energy board, including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New
Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman,
have been named as defendants in two putative stockholder class
action complaint challenging the Atlas Merger filed in the Court
of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases
are captioned: Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No.
GD-14-019658 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 22, 2013) and Jeffrey Ayers
v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020255 (Pa. Ct.
Comm. Pls. Nov. 3, 2014)."

"We are also aware that APL, APL's general partner, Atlas Energy,
Targa Resources, Targa Resources Partners, Targa Resource
Partners' general partner, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC (a
subsidiary of Targa Resources Partners created in connection with
the APL Merger), and the members of the APL board, including
Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New Atlas's expected Chief
Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, have been named as
defendants in five putative stockholder class action complaints
challenging the APL Merger, four filed in the Court of Common
Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and one filed in the
District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. These cases are
captioned: Michael Envin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al.,
Case No. GD-14-019245 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 17, 2013),
Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020108 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 31,
2014), Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. GD-14-020729 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Nov. 10, 2014), Irving
Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-
22208 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Dec. 5, 2014) and William B. Federman
Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P.,
et al., Case No. CJ-2014-04087 (Okla. D. Ct. Oct. 28, 2014).

"The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations by,
among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the
Atlas Energy and APL unitholders in, respectively, each of the
Atlas Energy Merger and the APL Merger, agreeing to certain terms
in each of the merger agreements that allegedly restrict the
defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable offer, and omitting
material information from the Proxy Statements. The lawsuits
further allege that those breaches were aided and abetted by some
combination of Atlas Energy, APL, Targa Resources, Targa Resources
Partners, or various affiliates of those entities named above. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, attorney's
fees, other expenses, and costs."


AUTO CLUB: Class Plaintiffs Directed to Defend Suit Continuance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George Caram Steeh of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, directed the
plaintiffs in the putative class action styled SUSAN BUSHWAY, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. THE AUTO CLUB GROUP, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 14-CV-11417 (E.D. Mich.), to show cause in writing on or
before Jan. 29, 2015, why their case should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.  A full-text copy of Judge Steeh's Decision
dated Jan. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ZwNXDsfrom
Leagle.com.

Susan Bushway, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino, Esq. --
amarino@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops,
Esq. -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, PC, Lance C.
Young, Esq., in One Towne Square, Michael H. Fabian, Esq. --
mfabian@fabiansklar.com -- Fabian, Sklar & King, and Patrick A.
King, Esq. -- pking@fabiansklar.com -- Fabian, Sklar & King, and
Jason J. Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- at Sommers
Schwartz, P.C..

Terry Bushway, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC, Lance C.
Young, One Towne Square, Michael H. Fabian, Fabian, Sklar, Patrick
A. King, Fabian, Sklar & Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz,
P.C..

Matthew Lacombe, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC, Lance C.
Young, One Towne Square, Michael H. Fabian, Fabian, Sklar, Patrick
A. King, Fabian, Sklar & Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz,
P.C..

Christine Leszczynski, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC,
Lance C. Young, One Towne Square, Michael H. Fabian, Fabian,
Sklar, Patrick A. King, Fabian, Sklar & Jason J. Thompson, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C..

The Auto Club Group, Defendant, represented by:

         Kevin M. Aoun, Esq.
         Morley Witus, Esq.
         BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, PLLC
         211 W Fort Street, 15th Floor
         Detroit, MI 48226-3202
         Tel: (313) 965-9725
         Fax: (313) 965-2493

Memberselect Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin M.
Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris,
Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC.

Auto Club Insurance Association, Defendant, represented by Kevin
M. Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris,
Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC.

Auto Club Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin M.
Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris,
Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC.

Auto Club Property-Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Kevin M. Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC &
Morley Witus, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC.

Auto Club Services, Defendant, represented by Kevin M. Aoun,
Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris, Sott,
Denn & Driker, PLLC.


BAC HOME: Court Stays Remand Order in "Fowler" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie L. White of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted a joint
motion for stay of a remand order pending an appeal from that
order in the lawsuit styled MIMI FOWLER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, L.P., KOZENY & MCCUBBIN, L.C., and KOZENY LENDERS
1-100, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-1127-RLW (E.D. Mo.).

In November 2014, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
remand of their Class Action Fairness Act action to state court.
The Defendants asked the Court to stay its remand order while they
pursue an appeal of the November 2014 ruling.

Judge White found that a stay is warranted.  Although the Court
remanded the action, the Defendants have demonstrated an adequate
likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal, Judge White
said.

Judge White added: "There were no Eighth Circuit cases directly
addressing the issue of whether Plaintiff satisfied the "no other
class action within three years" requirement of the local
controversy exception.  Based upon this lack of authority from
this Circuit, the Court concludes that Defendants adequately
demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to
support their motion to stay.  Second, the Court holds that
Defendants have demonstrated that they would be irreparably harmed
absent a stay based upon the burden of litigating the case in
state court and the Eighth Circuit, "as well as the potential of
inconsistent outcomes if the state court rules on any motions
while the case is pending before the Eighth Circuit."  Third, the
Court finds that Plaintiff would not be unduly harmed by the stay,
particularly because she also would not incur additional costs by
conducting simultaneous litigation.  Moreover, Plaintiff would not
be subject to a lengthy delay because of the expedited review
process under CAFA.  Finally, the Court holds that public interest
favors a stay because it would prevent duplicative litigation in
the state and federal courts and conserve judicial resources and
economy."

A full-text copy of Judge White's Jan. 6, 2015, memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/H4RAJhfrom Leagle.com.

Mimi Fowler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. --
andres@stlouislaw.com -- at GREEN JACOBSON, P.C.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
S. Russell, Esq. -- jsrussell@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP,
Michele R. Gardner, Esq. -- michele.gardner@bryancave.com -- BRYAN
CAVE LLP & Amy J. Thompson, Esq. -- athompson@bryancave.com -- at
BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., Defendant, represented by Ira L. Blank,
Esq. -- Iblank@TheEnterpriseLawGroup.com -- THE ENTERPRISE LAW
GROUP, LLC & Michele R. Gardner, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Kozeny Lenders 1-100, Defendant, represented by Michele R.
Gardner, BRYAN CAVE LLP.


BECTON DICKINSON: Parties in Delaware Cases Enter Into MOU
----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5,
2015, that the parties in the Delaware class actions entered into
a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
Delaware actions.

As previously announced, on October 5, 2014, Becton, Dickinson and
Company ("BD") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
CareFusion Corporation ("CareFusion") and Griffin Sub, Inc.
("Merger Corp"), a wholly owned subsidiary of BD, pursuant to
which BD would acquire CareFusion in a stock and cash transaction.
As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus dated
December 19, 2014 and forming a part of the registration statement
on Form S-4 filed with the SEC by BD and declared effective by the
SEC on December 17, 2014, five putative stockholder class action
lawsuits, which we refer to collectively as the Delaware actions,
were filed against CareFusion, its directors, BD and Merger Corp
in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the following captions:
Cindy Algase Gradl v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., C.A. No.
10214 (October 8, 2014), Judy Nadler v. CareFusion Corporation, et
al., C.A. No. 10239 (October 15, 2014), Helen Meinhardt v.
CareFusion Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10263 (October 21, 2014),
Irene Dixon v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10266
(October 21, 2014), and Dorothy E. Dorn v. CareFusion Corporation,
et al., C.A. No. 10292 (October 28, 2014). Also as previously
disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus, (i) two
putative class action complaints (captioned Michael J. Henriques
v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., No. 37-2014-00035379-CU-SL-CTL
and Washtenaw Cnty. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. CareFusion Corporation, et
al., No. 37-2014-00037010-CU-SL-CTL.) were filed on October 17 and
29, 2014 against CareFusion, its directors, BD and Merger Corp in
the California Superior Court of San Diego County, which, on
December 1, 2014, granted the Defendants' motion to stay those two
actions; and (ii) one putative class action complaint (captioned
Stuart J. Levinson v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., No.
114CV272631) was filed against the same defendants on October 30,
2014 in the California Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
which, on November 19, 2014, stayed all proceedings in that action
until the case management conference scheduled for March 6, 2015.
The complaints in these actions allege generally that the members
of the board of directors of CareFusion breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger by, among other things,
carrying out a process that the plaintiffs allege did not ensure
adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders. The
complaints further allege that CareFusion, BD and Merger Corp
aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in these actions seek, among
other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the
merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 31, 2014, the parties in the Delaware actions entered
into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of
the Delaware actions. If the proposed settlement is finally
approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, it will release all
claims in all actions, including the Delaware actions and
California actions, that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed merger or the merger
agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith
(excluding any demand for appraisal under Section 262 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware).

The memorandum of understanding provides that the defendants will
make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed
merger, which should be read in conjunction with the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus. Defendants agreed to the memorandum of
understanding solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and without admitting or denying that
further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law. The proposed settlement will not
affect the amount of the merger consideration that CareFusion
stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger or the timing
of the special meeting of CareFusion's stockholders, scheduled for
January 21, 2015 in San Diego, California, to, among other things,
consider and vote upon a proposal to adopt the Agreement and Plan
of Merger by and among BD, Merger Corp and CareFusion.


BURCH EQUIPMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agustina Velazquez and Omar Segundo Urbina a/k/a one person named
Roberto Carlos De Leon Ramos, Moises Segundo Urbina a/k/a Manuel
Lopez, and Luis Fernando Velazquez a/k/a Alfonso Reynoso Gonzalez
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons
v. Burch Equipment, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00241
(E.D.N.C., December 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Burch Equipment, L.L.C. produces and markets tobacco, sweet
potatoes and other agricultural products within and without North
Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Willis, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
      P.O. Box 1269
      Raleigh, NC 27602
      Telephone: (919) 821-9031
      Facsimile: (919) 821-1763
      E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


C & C MEATS: Faces "Salas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Salas, Angel Rodriguez and Edeudy Vargas Garcia,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. C & C
Meats Corp., Ernest P. Conde and Kimberly M. Conde, Case No. 1:14-
cv-10206 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a meat supply company located at
355 Food Center Drive, Bronx, New York 10474.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


CANON SAFETY: "McCarty" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vestal A. McCarty, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Canon Safety Services, Ltd. d/b/a Canon
Safety/RHI Group, Case No. 6:14-cv-00997 (E.D. Tex., December 30,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Canon Safety Services, Ltd. is a Texas-based oilfield service
company providing H2S Safety Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTURION PROPERTY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mario Andrade and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Centurion Property Management, L.L.C. d/b/a America
Service Industries, Case No. 1:14-cv-24902 (S.D. Fla., December
30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Centurion Property Management, L.L.C. is a full service property
management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHINA MOBILE: Miran Named Lead Plaintiff, Faruqi as Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimba M. Wood of the Southern District of New York
granted the motions in the case entitled DARRYL REITAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. CHINA MOBILE GAMES & ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LTD., KEN
JIAN XIAO, YING SHULING, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., JEFFRIES LLC, BREAN CAPITAL, LLC and
NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants. SOPHIA CHANG,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. CHINA MOBILE GAMES & ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LTD, KEN
JIAN XIAO, YING SHULING, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., JEFFRIES LLC, BREAN CAPITAL, LLC and
NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case Nos.
14-CV-4471 (KMW), 14-CV-4745 (KMW)(S.D.N.Y.)

China Mobile Games and Entertainment Group, Ltd (CMGE), is the
largest publisher and developer of mobile games in China.

Plaintiff Darryl Reitan sued "on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities, other than defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased CMGE's American Depository Shares
between September 20, 2012 and June 19, 2014."  Reitan alleges
that "Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that CMGE was engaged in a bribery scheme
within the Company's game publishing business. That CMGE was
engaged in undisclosed related party transactions, and that CMGE
lacked internal controls."

Following Reitan, Sophia Chang filed a lawsuit on behalf of the
same individuals.

Five parties filed motions seeking to be appointed as lead
plaintiff: (1) a group consisting of Zhen Dong Company Limited Sun
Bing, Tian Yu Ma, and Huang Shuainan (collectively "China Mobile
Investors Group" or "CMIG"); (2) OP Investment Management Limited
("OPI"); (3) Ashok Sagar; (4) Miran; and (5) Dormier. Miran and
Dormier seeks to consolidate the Reitan and Chang actions, and be
appointed as lead plaintiffs and their counsels as lead counsels
respectively.

Judge Wood granted the motion to consolidate the actions and
appoints Miran as lead plaintiff and Faruqi & Faruqi as lead
counsel for the consolidated class. Dormier's lead plaintiff
motion is denied.

A copy of Judge Wood's opinion and order dated November 20, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/iqGZkJfrom Leagle.com.

Darryl Reitan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Koon-Pon Chan --
kchan@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com
-- Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,
PA

ASHOK SAGAR, Movant, represented by Gregory M. Egleston --
gegleston@gme-law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston

Johnnie Dormier, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh --
glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP

OP Investment Management Ltd, Movant, represented by Phillip C.
Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA

Miran Segregated Portfolio Company Miran Long Short Equity
Segregated Portfolio, Movant, represented by Richard William
Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

The China Mobile Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeremy
Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP

China Mobile Games & Entertainment Group, LTD, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam
Thomas Humann, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Eric Scott Merin, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP &Leopoldo Joaquin Yanez, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Ken Jian Xiao and Ying Suisse Securities, Defendants, represented
by Andrew Brian Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Adam
Thomas Humann -- adam.humann@kirkland.com -- Eric Scott Merin --
eric.merin@kirkland.com -- Leopoldo Joaquin Yanez --
leopoldo.yanez@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Barclays Capital, Inc.,
Jeffries LLC, and Nomura Securities International, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Adam Selim Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com
-- Daniel Craig Lewis -- daniel.lewis@shearman.com -- Jeffrey D.
Hoschander -- jeff.hoschander@shearman.com -- at Shearman &
Sterling LLP.


CHINA MOON: Faces "Zheng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rongyi Zheng, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. China Moon Hospitality Corp. d/b/a China Moon, Jack Doe, and
Maggie Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-10240 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate China Moon restaurant located at
7 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHOICE HOTEL: Judge Rules on Bids to Dismiss "Paternostro" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA PATERNOSTRO, et al., v. CHOICE HOTEL
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORP., D/B/A/ CLARION INN AND SUITES, et
al., Section "L". Civil Action No. 13-0662 (E.D. La.), Plaintiffs
alleged the presence of Legionella and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the
causative agent of Legionnaires disease at the Clarion Inn and
Suites. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Choice Hotel
International was the franchisor of the hotel and defendant
Century Wilshire was the franchisee, owner, and operator of the
hotel.

Plaintiffs sued various insurers of Choice and Century Wilshire,
pursuant to the Louisiana Direct Action Statute. Both primary and
excess liability insurers have been made a part of this
litigation. Four primary commercial liability insurance policies
are subject to the litigation: (1) Merchants National Insurance
Company , in effect from June 27, 2011 to June 27, 2012; (2)
Century Surety Company, in effect from June 27, 2012 to June 27,
2013; (3) Scottsdale Insurance Company Policy -24999, in effect
from June 1, 2011 to June 1, 2012 ("First Scottsdale Policy"); and
(4) Scottsdale Insurance Company Policy -27996, in effect from
June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2013 ("Second Scottsdale Policy").

Each primary policy is further covered by various layers of excess
policies. The Merchants policy is covered, first, by an excess
policy of Allied World National Assurance Company ("First Allied
World Policy"), and second, by a higher layer excess policy of
Lexington Insurance Company. The Century Surety policy is covered
by an excess policy of Allied World National Assurance Company
("Second Allied World Policy"). The First Scottsdale Policy is
covered, first, by an excess policy of Ace Property & Casualty
Company; second, by a higher layer excess policy of American
Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company ("First American Guarantee
Policy"); and third, by two higher layer excess policies: Policy
of the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company ("First Ohio Casualty
Policy") and Policy of the National Surety Corporation ("First
National Surety Policy"). The Second Scottsdale Policy is covered,
first, by an excess policy of Allied World National Assurance
Company; second, by a higher layer excess policy of American
Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company ("Second American
Guarantee Policy"); third, by two higher layer excess policies:
Policy of the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company ("Second Ohio
Casualty Policy") and Policy of the National Surety Corporation
("Second National Surety Policy"); and fourth, by an additional
excess policy of AIG Specialty Insurance Company.

Century Wilshire removed the case on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. Thereafter the court consolidated the case with
several other related cases that made similar factual allegations.

In his November 14, 2014 decision available at http://is.gd/1NgfOT
from Leagle.com, District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern
District of Louisiana ruled that:

     (1) Allied World's motion to dismiss and strike is granted in
part insomuch as the First Allied Policy does not cover the
injuries that allegedly occurred during its Policy Period, and is
otherwise denied;

     (2) Choice's motion to dismiss is denied, its motion for
partial summary judgment on prescription as well as its motion for
partial summary judgment on class claims are also denied;

     (3) Century Wilshire's motion to dismiss is denied. The
motion for partial summary judgment on indemnity is continued
without date and the parties shall move to re-notice the motion
for submission when appropriate;

     (4) Allied World's motion to dismiss cross-claims is denied;

     (5) Scottsdale's motion to dismiss is denied and its motion
to strike is also likewise denied;

     (6) National Surety's motion to dismiss and strike is granted
in part insomuch as the First National Surety Policy does not
cover the injuries that allegedly occurred during its Policy
Period, and is otherwise denied;

     (7) Century Surety's motion for judgment on the pleadings and
to strike is denied;

     (8) ACE's motion to dismiss on grounds of prescription is
denied but its' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is
granted;

     (9) Merchant's motion to dismiss is denied;

    (10) Ohio Casualty's motion to dismiss is granted in part
insomuch as the First Ohio Casualty Policy does not cover the
injuries that allegedly occurred during its Policy Period, and is
otherwise denied;

    (11) Guarantee Policy does not cover the injuries that
allegedly occurred during its Policy Period, and is otherwise
denied;

    (12) American Guarantee's motion for judgment on the pleadings
is granted in part insomuch as the First American Guarantee Policy
does not cover the injuries that allegedly occurred during its
Policy Period, and is otherwise denied, and;

    (13) Lexington's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim is granted.

Angela Paternostro, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed,
Howard & Reed, D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Howard & Reed, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer,
Jonathan C. Pedersen, Howard & Reed, Kyle T. Del Hierro, Howard &
Reed, Rachel A. Sternlieb, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer & Ronnie Glynn Penton, Penton Law Firm

Mercedes Paternostro, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed,
Howard & Reed, D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Howard & Reed, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer,
Jonathan C. Pedersen, Howard & Reed, Kyle T. Del Hierro, Howard &
Reed, Rachel A. Sternlieb, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer & Ronnie Glynn Penton, Penton Law Firm

Robyn Ortego, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed, Howard &
Reed, D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Howard & Reed, Gerald Edward
Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer,
Jonathan C. Pedersen, Howard & Reed, Kyle T. Del Hierro, Howard &
Reed, Rachel A. Sternlieb, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer & Ronnie Glynn Penton, Penton Law Firm

Marie Hesser, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Lea, Jr.,
Paul A. Lea, Jr., APLC & Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed

Gwen Newberry, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Lea, Jr.,
Paul A. Lea, Jr., APLC & Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed

Robert Newberry, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Lea,
Jr., Paul A. Lea, Jr., APLC & Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed

Jason Beleto, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed,
Howard & Reed, D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Howard & Reed, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer,
Jonathan C. Pedersen, Howard & Reed, Kyle T. Del Hierro, Howard &
Reed & Ronnie Glynn Penton, Penton Law Firm

Century Wilshire, Inc., doing business as Clarion Inn and Suites,
Defendant, represented by Leigh Fontenot Groves, Donohue, Patrick
& Scott

Century Wilshire, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Heath
Savant, Donohue, Patrick & Scott &Thomas J. Cortazzo, Baldwin,
Haspel, Burke & Mayer, LLC

Century Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Celeste D.
Elliott, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Anne
Elizabeth Briard, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard

Choice Hotels International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Lottie Lynn Bash, Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell, Laura B
Graham, Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell & Michael J. O'Shee,
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell

Allied World National Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Judy Y. Barrasso, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver,
LLC, Sarah L. Rubin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver,
LLC & Steven W. Usdin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman &
Sarver, LLC

Lexington Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robert I.
Siegel, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Alistair Ward, Gieger,
Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Andrew A. Braun, Gieger, Laborde &
Laperouse, LLC, Elizabeth A. Chickering, Gieger, Laborde &
Laperouse, LLC & William A. Barousse, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse,
LLC

Scottsdale Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James K.
Ordeneaux, Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Elizabeth Attie
Babin Carville, Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP

American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Richard E. King, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr
& Smith, David Michael Moragas, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr
& Smith & Olivia Y. Truong, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr &
Smith

ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Maureen O'Connor Sullivan, Lewis, Brisbois,
Bisgaard & Smith, Janet Whitters Nowakowski, Lewis, Brisbois,
Bisgaard & Smith & Karen M. Dicke, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard &
Smith

National Surety Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sidney W.
Degan, III, Degan, Blanchard & Nash,Catherine N. Thigpen, Degan,
Blanchard & Nash, Julia Ann Dietz, Degan, Blanchard & Nash & Karl
Howard Schmid, Degan, Blanchard & Nash

Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Judy Y.
Barrasso, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, Sarah
L. Rubin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC &
Steven W. Usdin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC

Merchants National Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
John C. Turnage, Mayer, Smith & Roberts

AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robert
I. Siegel, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Alistair Ward,
Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Andrew A. Braun, Gieger, Laborde
& Laperouse, LLC, Elizabeth A. Chickering, Gieger, Laborde &
Laperouse, LLC & William A. Barousse, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse,
LLC


CITIBANK NA: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccessible ATMs for Blind People
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 3:14-cv-03042 (S.D. Cal.,
December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide ATMs that are accessible to sight-impaired individuals.

Citibank, N.A. is a subsidiary of Citigroup, the largest bank
holding company in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq.
      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP
      2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com
              gwells@cwg-law.com


CITY BARN: "Fuentes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Fuentes and Martin Alvarez, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members v. City Barn Group LLC,
Green Summit Group LLC, TM Management, LLC, Blue Radish 52, LLC,
Philip M. Corhan, Paul Millman, Todd Millman and Daniel Millman,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10211 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a retail food location doing web
only business through online vendors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


COACH USA: Sightseers Have Until Jan. 18 to Claim Refund
--------------------------------------------------------
George Hesselberg, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports
that Wisconsin visitors to New York City who toured the Big Apple
in a double-decker, open-topped bus are part of an estimated 4
million sightseers who were taken for more than that ride.

They were overcharged -- and they have until Jan. 18 to claim a
refund.

The refunds -- up to $20 per ticket -- were ordered in a $19
million class action price-fixing lawsuit settlement on behalf of
sightseers who took the popular "hop-on, hop-off" bus tours in
New York City from Feb. 1, 2009, through June 16, 2014.

A lawsuit filed in 2012 claimed that Coach USA and CitySights --
which controlled 99 percent of that particular tourist market --
conspired to form Twin America. The joining and planning of that
union goes back to 2008, and enabled them to fix ticket prices and
reduce competition, resulting in higher ticket prices, according
to the lawsuit.

The anti-trust class action lawsuit was settled with no wrongdoing
admitted.  Another lawsuit, filed by state and federal
prosecutors, is pending but was reported to be in line for a
settlement soon, too, according to Law360, an online legal news
website.

The class action suit alleged that the illegal monopoly allowed
the companies to fix prices as much as 17 percent above the prior
market rate, overcharging passengers by $5 or more.  A typical
ticket costs about $50 for a day pass.  Tourism officials estimate
more than 2 million sightseers ride the buses annually.

More information can be found online at www.TourBusSettlement.com
A claim can be filed online or by printing a form and mailing it.
A claim of three or more tickets requires proof of purchase.

Coach USA and CitySights ran open-topped, double-decker buses that
take tourists to more than 40 stops, including Times Square, the
Empire State Building and the World Trade Center site.

According to court documents, attorneys' fees of $6.27 million
represent about a third of the settlement fund.

The New York City tourist office said on Jan. 2 that of the 54.3
million visitors to the city in 2013, "domestic" visitors numbered
42.9 million.


COBALT INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Cobalt International Energy, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 14-cv-03488,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Cobalt securities between February 21, 2012 and
August 4, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cobalt securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 2, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Cobalt is an independent, oil-focused exploration and production
company with operations offshore Angola and Gabon in West Africa.
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 conducted certain business activities in its Angolan
operations in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and
(2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 5, 2014, Cobalt disclosed in a filing with the SEC Form
8-K that it had received a notice from the Securities and Exchange
Commission indicating the agency will bring an enforcement action
against the Company over its Angolan operations.

On the news, shares in Cobalt fell $1.75 per share, or 10.96%, to
close at $14.22 on August 5, 2014 on extremely heavy trading
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.


COLUMBIA SUSSEX: Sued Over Illegal Use of Background Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Toral, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Columbia Sussex Corporation, a foreign corporation
doing business in California, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
2:14-cv-09933 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to disclose intent to use a background
report in their decision to hire, promote, reassign, or terminate
employees.

Columbia Sussex Corporation is a Kentucky corporation that owns
and operates hotels.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devin H. Fok, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN H. FOK
      PO Box 7165
      Alhambra, CA 98102-7165
      Telephone: (310) 430-9933
      Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
      E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com


CONEXIS CARGO: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Moya, Fidel Valdes, and Jhonyer Marin v. Conexis Cargo,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Nestor Raschia,
individually and as Trustee of the Assets of Conexis Cargo, LLC, a
dissolved Florida company, Case No. 1:14-cv-24901 (S.D. Fla.,
December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an air cargo transport company in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pelayo M. Duran, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, PA
      4640 NW 7th Street
      Miami, FL 33126
      Telephone: (305) 266-9780
      Facsimile: 269-8311
      E-mail: Assistant@pelayoduran.com

         - and -

      Roderick Victor Hannah, Esq.
      RODERICK V. HANNAH, Esq., P.A.
      1250 South Pine Island Road, Suite 375
      Plantation, FL 33324-4454
      Telephone: (954) 362-3800
      Facsimile: (954) 362-3779
      E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com


CSK AUTO: Parties in "Melgar" Suit Directed to Agree on Schedules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California directed the parties in the
putative class action lawsuit styled OSMIN MELGAR, Plaintiff, v.
CSK AUTO, INC., Defendant, NO. C-13-3769 EMC (N.D. Calif.), to
meet and confer and arrive at an agreement on the following: (1) A
schedule for the revised Belaire notice that will be distributed
only to the Retail Service Specialists; (2) A schedule for the
dissemination and return of the Plaintiff's survey; and (3) a
briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's class certification motion.

The parties are directed to file a stipulation that addresses
these three schedules no later than January 14, 2015 at 5:00pm.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's order dated Jan. 6, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/cC1hhRfrom Leagle.com.

Osmin Melgar, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Malk, Michael
Malk, ESQ., APC.

CSK Auto, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Michael Peterson,
Esq. -- peterson@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP,
Edwin Mendelson Boniske, Esq. -- boniske@higgslaw.com -- Higgs
Fletcher and Mack LLP & Jason Conroy Ross, Esq. --
rossj@higgslaw.com -- at Higgs Fletcher Mack.


DANOS AND CUROLE: Faces "Bragg" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Bragg, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, L.L.C., a Louisiana Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-02976 (E.D. La., December 30,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, L.L.C. is a worldwide
oilfield service company providing quality service in the areas of
construction, fabrication, production personnel, painting and
blasting and a wide range of highly skilled consultants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Lynn LoCoco, Esq.
      Joseph Anthony LoCoco, Esq.
      LOCOCO & LOCOCO, PA
      10243 Central Ave., P. O. Box 6014
      D'Iberville, MS 39540
      Telephone: (228) 392-3799
      Facsimile: (228) 392-3890
      E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com
              joe.lococo@lococolaw.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Priest" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawna Priest and Christopher Burrows, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc., and GMRI, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02761 (S.D. Ohio, December
30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a nationwide restaurant chain of
over 460 steakhouses operated in 35 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Seth Lesser, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Michael Reed, Esq.
      KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone:  (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
              fran@klafterolsen.com
              michael.reed@klafterolsen.com


DELAWARE: Housing Agency May Have to Refund Lot Fees
----------------------------------------------------
James Fisher, writing for The News Journal, reports that a Freedom
of Information Act violation nine years ago might end up being a
$400,000 mistake for the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation
Authority.

The Authority may have to give back fees it collected from
manufactured housing landlords and tenants, a judge ruled, because
the fund's leadership made a hasty decision, in secret, not to
revise the fees.

Vice Chancellor John W. Noble raised the possibility of the refund
in a Dec. 31 opinion on a lawsuit pitting a Smyrna manufactured
home park, Ridgewood Manor, against the DMHRA.  Ridgewood Manor
filed the suit in May 2013, making the case that the Relocation
Authority had been collecting the fee without proper legal
authority for years.

If the company wins class-action status for its complaint, Noble's
ruling means as much as $400,000 of the $6.5 million in the DMHRA
trust fund might be ordered given back as refunds, said Mitch
Crane, chairman of the DMHRA board.  He was not a member of the
board in 2006.

"That's why we've been fighting it so much," Mr. Crane said.  "The
Relocation Authority, through the Department of Justice, has
challenged every single section of their lawsuit."

The DMHRA, created by the Legislature in 2004, was from the start
allowed to impose a $3 fee on each manufactured home lot in the
state.  That was meant to build up a fund to help homeowners --
who own the structures they live in, but pay rent on the land
they're placed on -- defray the cost of moving if their parks are
sold for redevelopment.

The Authority's establishing statute ordered its board to "adopt
an adjusted assessment on or before Jan. 31, 2006."  If the board
didn't do that, the statute said, "the board shall eliminate the
fee in its entirety."

As the lawsuit shows, the DMHRA's secretary emailed the board
members on the afternoon of Jan. 31, 2006, asking them to "respond
as a vote wether [sic] you approve the reinstatement of the fee."

The nine unpaid members of the government-appointed board, without
holding a public meeting and without public notice that they would
take action on the statewide fee, one by one sent in "yes"
replies.  The Relocation Authority carried on charging the $3-a-
lot fee.

Ridgewood Manor alleged that decision-making process was so flawed
-- in violation of open-meetings laws, and done without any
"meaningful analysis" of whether continuing to charge $3 made
sense -- that the fees the Authority collected from it after 2006
were "continuing, unlawful collections," according to the Dec. 31
order.

Mr. Noble ruled there was no doubt DMHRA violated public records
laws in voting through email with no public notice of the decision
it was about to make, and no minutes kept or published of any
meeting it held to take the vote.

Above and beyond that, Mr. Noble said, the board's reply-all
method of deciding to keep the fee at $3 failed to "effectively
act to adopt an adjusted assessment" by its 2006 deadline.

"There was no meaningful opportunity for the members of the Board
to exchange opinions on the specific topic of whether each
'approve[d] the reinstatement of the fee' prior to the individual
votes," Mr. Noble wrote.

Mr. Noble's ruling, though, said the defendants can't ask for
refunds of fees they paid before they filed their lawsuit on May
6, 2013. Only the fees collected between that date and April 2014
are potentially recoverable, Mr. Noble said.

"The court recognized what our client has claimed all along: The
Authority has been unlawfully collecting millions in dollars in
fees," said John Paradee, the attorney representing Ridgewood
Manor.  "The remedy is still in question."

Some key questions in the lawsuit are still unresolved.  While
Ridgewood Manor is seeking to get class-action status for its suit
-- potentially making it apply to every manufactured home landlord
in the state -- both sides agreed to ask the judge to put that
question aside for now.

Mr. Noble's ruling said he wanted to hear more from Ridgewood
Manor and DMHRA on whether the Authority's limited immunity from
lawsuits, written into its charter by the General Assembly, would
protect it from this complaint.

Attorneys with the Department of Justice who represent DMHRA in
court did not respond to messages seeking comment.


DIGNITY HEALTH: Sued for Withholding Employees' FICA Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Joseph Rodriguez, M.D., Patrick Fredenberg, M.D., James
Edward Gerace, Jr, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Dignity Health, a California corporation,
St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, a subsidiary of Dignity
Health, Case No. 3:14-cv-05661 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants unlawfully withholding Federal
Insurance Contribution Act tax from employees' earnings and by
failing to timely pursue FICA refund claims.

The Defendants own and operate healthcare facilities in
California, Arizona, and Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

         - and -

      Michael C. McKay, Esq.
      Patrick J. Van Zanen, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
      8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Telephone: (480) 428-0143
      Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
      E-mail: mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
              pvanzanen@schneiderwallace.com


DUCK WALK: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jairo Carrato Ramirez, and Angel Bamaca Sales, on behalf of
themselves and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. Duck Walk Inc., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a Duck
Walk, and Worrachai Nusphayoon, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-
10510 (N.D. Ill., December 31, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Duck Walk restaurant in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 West Jackson Boulevard, #1137
      Chicago, IL 60604-3207
      Telephone: (312) 322-1100
      E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
              n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 20 Hearing on Bid to Nix Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motions to dismiss the complaint in the
putative class action lawsuit styled In re DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION relating to all actions, CASE
NO. 3:13-CV-02796-CRB (N.D. Calif.), is continued to February 20,
2015 at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to a stipulation agreed to by the
parties in the case.

A full-text copy of the stipulation approved by Judge Charles R.
Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, on Jan. 7, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/fJIbg8from Leagle.com.

Patrick D. Robbins, Esq. -- probbins@shearman.com -- and Emily V.
Griffen, Esq. -- egriffen@shearman.com -- at SHEARMAN & STERLING
LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Symphony Capital Partners, L.P.,
Symphony Capital GP, L.P., Symphony GP, LLC, and Symphony
Strategic Partners, LLC.

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, Emily V. Griffen, Attorneys for
Defendants Symphony Capital Partners, L.P., Symphony Capital GP,
L.P., Symphony GP, LLC, and Symphony Strategic Partners, LLC.

COOLEY LLP, Jeffrey M. Kaban, Esq. -- jkaban@cooley.com --
Attorneys for Defendants Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Dino
Dina, J. Tyler Martin and Mark Kessel.

FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. --
agonnelli@faruqilaw.com -- Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Khaled
Khalafallah.


EASTERN REVENUE: Faces "Quatinetz" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Quatinetz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Eastern Revenue, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-10254
(S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Eastern Revenue, Inc. is a debt collection agency located at 998
Old Eagle School Rd. Suite 1204 in Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC
      216 W. 104th St., #129
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212)760-2400
      Facsimile: (917)512-6132
      E-mail: swexleresq@gmail.com


EXCLUSIVE DETAILING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Hernandez v. Exclusive Detailing, Inc., and Michael Agolia,
Case No. 2:14-cv-08094 (D.N.J., December 30, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the automobile washing and detailing
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      Building 2, Suite 220, 168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


EXEL DIRECT: "Villalpando" Suit May Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the case DANIEL VILLALPANDO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXEL DIRECT
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-04137-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are drivers for Defendants Exel Direct Inc., DPWN
Holdings (USA), Inc. and Deutsche Post Beteiligungen Holding GmbH.
Plaintiffs assert wage and hour claims under California law based
on the allegation that Exel has misclassified its drivers as
independent contractors.

Exel is a federally authorized interstate motor carrier that
provides transportation services to a variety of customers,
including retailers. Prospective drivers must be personally
interviewed by an Exel representative to determine the drivers'
qualification, attitude and motivation. Upon hiring, Exel drivers
must sign the Independent Truckman's Agreement (ITA) and the
Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA).

Exel requires its drivers to operate under certain procedures and
mechanisms to ensure that Exel's obligations to its customers are
being carried out in the expected fashion. Exel's site managers
provide direction and oversight of the drivers, to help Exel meet
whatever service metrics are in the contracts with the customers
and thereby prevent Exel from incurring financial penalties.

Magistrate Judge Spero granted the Plaintiffs' motion, and ruled
that the class consists of:

"All individuals who have personally provided delivery services
for Defendant Exel Direct in California while being classified by
Exel Direct as independent contractors, at any time beginning June
14, 2008 until resolution of this action. Any individual who has
signed the Independent Truckman's Agreement with Exel Direct but
has provided delivery services exclusively through the use of
hired second drivers and who has never personally made deliveries
for Exel is excluded from the Class."

A copy of Magistrate Judge Spero's order dated November 20, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/k1dYDvfrom Leagle.com

Daniel Villalpando, Plaintiff, represented by Guy Burton Wallace
-- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Todd Michael Schneider --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- and Joshua Geoffrey Konecky --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com  -- at Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP.

Tafiti Shekur, Plaintiff, represented by Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP; and Robert Ira Spiro -- ira@spirolawcorp.com
-- and Denise Lissette Diaz -- at Spiro Law Corp.

Exel Direct Inc., Defendant, represented by Angela S. Cash --
acash@scopelitis.com -- Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. --
cmcnatt@scopelitis.com -- Andrew J Butcher --
abutcher@scopelitis.com -- James H. Hanson --
jhanson@scopelitis.com -- and Ryan Wayne Wright --
rwright@scopelitis.com -- at Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feay, LLP

Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson also represents defendants DHL
Express (USA), Inc., DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. and Deutsche Post
Beteiligungen Holding GmbH.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Stockholders' Preliminary Injunction Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, CONSOL.
C.A. NO. 9985-CB involves a proposed merger between two of the
three major players in the small-box discount retail market where
the third major player has surfaced as a competing bidder. Given
the concentrated nature of this market, a critical issue to the
viability of a proposed combination of any of these companies is
obtaining antitrust approval from the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC).

On July 27, 2014, Family Dollar Stores, Inc. ("Family" or the
"Company") and Dollar Tree, Inc. ("Tree") agreed to a merger
transaction (the "Merger") in which Tree proposes to acquire
Family for a combination of cash and Tree stock. As of the date of
the merger agreement, the proposed Merger was valued at $74.50 per
share of Family stock, for aggregate consideration of
approximately $8.5 billion. Due to the subsequent increase in
Tree's stock price, the proposal is now worth over $76 per share.
A vote of Family's stockholders to consider the proposed Merger
was scheduled for December 23, 2014.  FTC approval of the deal is
considered to be a formality because Tree has agreed to divest as
many of its approximately 4,900 retail stores as necessary to
receive antitrust approval.

After Family and Tree agreed to the Merger, Dollar General, Inc.
("General"), the third major small-box discount retailer, made a
bid to acquire Family for $78.50 per share in cash, which included
a commitment to divest up to 700 of General's more than 11,300
retail stores to obtain antitrust approval. General later
increased its bid to $80 per share in cash and a commitment to
divest up to 1,500 of its stores. After Family refused to engage
in discussions with General in the face of this bid, General went
directly to Family's stockholders by commencing a tender offer to
acquire their shares for $80 per share in cash. General's tender
offer cannot close at this time, however, because it has not
received antitrust approval.

In this action, stockholders of Family seek to preliminarily
enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed Merger until: (1) the
Family board of directors (the "Board") "has properly engaged"
with General and "made a good faith effort to achieve a value-
maximizing transaction" and (2) until Family makes a laundry list
of corrective disclosures in its proxy statement. Plaintiffs
challenge the sale process in several respects, but their core
claim is that the Board breached its fiduciary duty to maximize
the value of Family when it declined to engage in negotiations
with General after it made its $80 offer.

In a memorandum opinion dated December 19, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/qsLlvOfrom Leagle.com, the Court of
Chancery of Delaware concluded that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on any of their
claims. Regarding Plaintiffs' core claim, the record shows that
the Board was motivated to maximize Family's value and acted
reasonably within the constraints of the fiduciary out provision
in the merger agreement when it decided not to engage in
negotiations with General because of the antitrust risks
associated with that proposal. Of particular significance, the
Board had been specifically advised that General's $80 offer had
only an approximately 40% chance of obtaining antitrust approval,
and further determined that the level of divestitures General had
proposed (1,500 stores) was so far below the level necessary to
sufficiently address the antitrust risk of a Family/General
combination that it was not prudent or appropriate to open
negotiations with General.

The Delaware Chancery Court further concluded that Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate the existence of irreparable harm or that
the balance of the equities favors the relief they seek. Nothing
prevents General, which has been undeterred from bidding to
acquire Family since the Company agreed to the Merger, from making
an improved offer to address the antitrust risks associated with a
Family/General combination if it truly wants to acquire Family. On
the other hand, entry of a preliminary injunction would deprive
Family's stockholders of the opportunity to decide for themselves
whether to approve a transaction that offers them a significant
premium for their shares and apparent deal certainty.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is
denied.

Seth D. Rigrodsky -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Brian D. Long -- bdl@rl-
legal.com -- Gina M. Serra -- gms@rl-legal.com -- and Jeremy J.
Riley -- jjr@rl-legal.com -- of RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Peter B. Andrews --
pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- and Craig J. Springer --
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- of ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware; Donald J. Enright -- denright@zlk.com -- and
Elizabeth K. Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- of LEVI & KORSINSKY,
LLP, Washington, DC; Kent A. Bronson -- kbronson@milberg.com --
and Gloria Kui Melwani -- gmelwani@milberg.com -- of MILBERG LLP,
New York, New York; Counsel for Plaintiffs.

William M. Lafferty -- wlafferty@mnat.com -- John P. DiTomo --
jditomo@mnat.com -- and Lauren K. Neal -- lneal@mnat.com -- of
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;
Mitchell A. Lowenthal -- mlowenthal@cgsh.com -- Meredith Kotler --
mkotler@cgsh.com -- and Matthew Gurgel -- mgurgel@cgsh.com -- of
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON, LLP, New York, New York; Counsel
for Defendants Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Mark R. Bernstein,
Pamela L. Davies, Sharon Allred Decker, Edward C. Dolby, Glenn A.
Eisenberg, Edward P. Garden, Howard R. Levine, George R. Mahoney,
Jr., James G. Martin, Harvey Morgan, Dale C. Pond.

Gregory P. Williams -- williams@rlf.com -- A. Jacob Werrett --
werrett@rlf.com -- J. Scott Pritchard -- pritchard@rlf.com -- and
Sarah A. Clark -- sclark@rlf.com -- of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; William Savitt -- WDSavitt@wlrk.com --
Andrew J.H. Cheung -- AJHCheung@wlrk.com -- and A.J. Martinez --
AJMartinez@wlrk.com -- of WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, New
York, New York; Counsel for Defendants Dollar Tree, Inc. and Dime
Merger Sub, Inc.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Still a Defendant in Wage-and-Hour Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 6, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in a number of
lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-
hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among
other things, that they were forced to work "off the clock," were
not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other
benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, or both.

"We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible
with respect to any of these matters," the Company said.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Independent Contractor Cases on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 6, 2015, that FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-
action lawsuits (including 26 that have been certified as class
actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other
administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent
contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.

On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee).

"In sum, the court has now ruled on our summary judgment motions
and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20
of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified
as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases
were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states," the Company
said.

"The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases.
The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January
2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a
determination with respect to the correctness of the district
court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the
Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument on
November 5, 2013. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court.

"The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three
of those cases are now on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, and one is on appeal with the Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. The other four remain pending in their
respective district courts, but three of these four matters have
been settled for immaterial amounts. The courts have granted final
approval of two of the three settlements, while the other
settlement remains subject to court approval.

"While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground
by the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that
had been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, we
believe that it significantly improves the likelihood that our
independent contractor model will be upheld. Adverse
determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent
contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain
of our owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of
certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and
result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for
FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the independent
contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in certain
jurisdictions.

"We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly
classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not
an employer of the drivers of the company's independent
contractors. While it is reasonably possible that potential loss
in some of these lawsuits or such changes to the independent
contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be
material, we cannot yet determine the amount or reasonable range
of potential loss. A number of factors contribute to this. The
number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits continues to change, with
some being dismissed and others being added and, as to new
plaintiffs, discovery is still ongoing. In addition, the parties
have conducted only very limited discovery into damages, which
could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff. Further, the
range of potential loss could be impacted considerably by future
rulings on the merits of certain claims and FedEx Ground's various
defenses, and on evidentiary issues. In any event, we do not
believe that a material loss is probable in these matters."


FEDEX CORPORATION: Defending Against Contractor-Model Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 6, 2015, that the Company is defending contractor-model
cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict
litigation, two of which have been certified as class actions.
These certified class actions were settled for immaterial amounts
in the first quarter of 2014 and have received final court
approval. The other cases are in varying stages of litigation, and
the Company does not expect to incur a material loss in any of
these matters.


FIFTH THIRD: Faces "Kampfer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Kampfer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fifth Third Bank, Fifth Third Financial Corporation,
and Fifth Third Bancorp, Case No. 3:14-cv-02849 (N.D. Ohio,
December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a single
workweek.

The Defendants are financial services companies that provide
banking and related products and services to clients through its
1,308 full service banking centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER
      Ste. 350, Two International Drive
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com
              slesser@klafterolsen.com

          - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
      Susan H. Stern, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
      Ste. 404, 1515 South Federal Highway
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
              sstern@shavitzlaw.com


FLORIDA: Two Counties to Begin Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Rossman, writing for Tallahassee Democrat, reports that Leon
County Clerk of Court Bob Inzer and Wakulla County clerk Brent
Thurmond confirmed on Jan. 2 that they would begin issuing the
licenses at the start of business on Jan. 6, the day after a
federal stay on the licenses ends. Efforts to reach Gadsden County
Clerk of Court Nicholas Thomas and Jefferson County clerk Kirk
Reams were unsuccessful on Jan. 2.

Messrs. Inzer and Thurmond are one of many clerks across the state
responding to a ruling made on Jan. 1 by U.S. District Judge
Robert Hinkle.  It was a clarification of a ruling he made in
August in favor of a Washington County couple who sued for the
right to wed.  In that ruling, Judge Hinkle ordered the clerk to
issue the couple a marriage license but also ruled that the
state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitution.

Initially, Greenberg Traurig, who represents the Florida
Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, and clerks across
the state were unsure whether Judge Hinkle's order only applied to
Washington County or the whole state.

Court clerks were advised by Greenberg Traurig not to issue
licenses until it was clarified by Judge Hinkle.  Following the
Jan. 1 ruling, the firm advised clerks to follow Hinkle's guidance
and begin issuing licenses.

"Judge Hinkle's order states that any clerk refusing to issue a
license could be subject to civil damages and liability for the
plaintiffs' fees and costs," said Hilarie Bass, co-president of
Greenberg Traurig.  "Greenberg Traurig has advised the Florida
Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers that clerks should
follow the judge's ruling for all marriage license applications or
face the consequences identified by Judge Hinkle."

Judge Hinkle had also placed a stay on the order through Jan. 5.
Attorney General Pam Bondi attempted to extend the stay, but she
was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning the stay was
expected to end after Jan. 5.

But Judge Hinkle stopped short of ordering the state's clerks to
start issuing licenses on Jan. 6.  However, he said clerks have a
legal duty to do so and could face lawsuits if they don't.

Couples in both counties can fill out their applications beginning
at 8:00 a.m. Leon couples can apply at the Leon County Clerk of
Court office on South Monroe Street and at the clerk's Northeast
Branch in the Keiser University Building on Metropolitan
Boulevard.  Wakulla couples can go to the Wakulla County Clerk of
Court on Crawfordville Highway.

Same-sex couples will have to fill out the normal one-page form,
which requires information from a bride and groom.  The gender
specific information on the form will be changed as soon as the
proper state authorities give guidance, Mr. Inzer said.


FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL: Prisoners' Class Certification Bid Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Norman K. Moon of the Western District of Virginia,
Charlottesville Division granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case of CYNTHIA B. SCOTT, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-
00036

The plaintiffs are all prisoners residing at Fluvanna Correctional
Center for Women, a facility of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Corrections. Plaintiffs brought the action against
defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that
defendants violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the
Eight Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Plaintiffs assert that FCCW fails to provide adequate medical care
and that Defendants are deliberately indifferent to this failure.

Plaintiffs allege that FCCW inmates have suffered and continue to
suffer the consequences of a host of serious, systematic failures
in medical care, and that these failures have placed the
Plaintiffs and other inmates who access FCCW medical care at risk
of serious harm, deterioration in their health, and even death.
Plaintiffs further allege that the deficiencies in medical care
have caused serious harms and fatalities in the past.

Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment and preliminary and
permanent injunctions ordering FCCW to provide adequate medical
care to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated women residing
at FCCW.

Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class
consisting of themselves and all other women who currently reside
or will in the future reside at FCCW and who have sought, are
currently seeking, or will seek adequate, appropriate medical care
for serious medical needs, as contemplated by the Eighth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.

Judge Moon granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
proposed class of plaintiffs consists of approximately 1,200
female prisoners whose health concerns are allegedly subject to a
flawed prison healthcare system. The case concerns allegations of
a common course of conduct by Defendants reflecting deliberate
indifference to the prisoners' serious medical needs. As a result,
the principal factual and legal questions are common to the entire
class, and the injuries that the named Plaintiffs claim to have
suffered are typical of those suffered by the other women in the
class.

A copy of Judge Moon's memorandum opinion dated November 20, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/76nnKafrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Amy Elizabeth Walters, Esq.
     Erin Margaret Trodden, Esq.
     Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Esq.
     Kimberly Anne Rolla, Esq.
     Mary Catherine Bauer, Esq.
     Mary Frances Charlton, Esq.
     Abigail Turner, Esq.
     Angela A. Ciolfi, Esq.
     Brenda Erin Castaneda, Esq.
     LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
     1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A
     Charlottesville, VA 22903
     Telephone: (434) 977-0553
     Facsimile: (434) 977-0558

          - and -

     Deborah Maxine Golden, Esq.
     WASHINGTON LAWYERS COMMITTEE
     11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: 202-319-1000
     Facsimile: 202-319-1010
     E-mail: WLC@washlaw.org

          - and -

     Theodore Augustus Howard, Esq.
     WILEY REIN LLP
     1776 K Street NW
     Washington, DC  20006
     Tel: 202-719-7120
     E-mail: thoward@wileyrein.com

Defendants are represented by:

     John Michael Parsons, Esq.
     James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Esq.
     Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Esq.
     OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
     900 East Main Street
     Richmond, VA, 23219
     Telephone: (804) 786-0046
     Facsimile: (804) 786-4239


FORBES REGIONAL: Pa. Appellate Court Tosses "Cunningham" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John L. Musmanno of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
affirmed the judgment of the lower court in the appellate case
DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. FORBES REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND WEST
PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, Appellees, Case No. 1961 WDA 2013
(Pa. Super. Ct.)

Haluska v. Forbes Regional and West Penn Allegheny Health System,
GD-05-009134, was a lawsuit instituted in the trial court as a
class action on behalf of persons who underwent a colonoscopy at
Forbes Regional during the period between October 28, 2004 and
February 26, 2005. Cunningham was one of these persons.

In his deposition testimony, Cunningham acknowledged that he
sought damages for the mental anguish caused by his belief that he
might have contracted a blood-borne illness as a result of the
Hospital's actions. Based upon this testimony, the Hospital filed
a Motion In Limine to exclude any testimony regarding mental
anguish, which resulted from the fear of contracting a blood-borne
illness. On September 5, 2013, the trial court granted the
Hospital's Motion, relying on case law holding that a person may
not raise a claim for fear of contracting a disease that the
person never contracted. The trial court's Order directed that, at
trial, the class action plaintiffs shall not (1) raise any claims
for mental anguish from the fear of contracting any disease; and
(2) offer any testimony that would be relevant only to a claim of
mental anguish from the fear of contracting a disease.

The trial court severed the claims of Cunningham from the
remaining Haluska litigation.  Following a bench trial, the trial
court entered a verdict against Cunningham and in favor of the
Hospital. Cunningham filed Post-Trial Motions, which the trial
court denied. The trial court entered judgment against Cunningham
and in favor of the Hospital. Cunningham appealed.

Judge Musmanno affirmed the decision of the lower court,
expressing that as the record reflects, as a matter of law,
Cunningham failed to establish the requisite causal nexus between
the Hospital's negligence and his claimed injuries. By his
Complaint and his deposition testimony, Cunningham avers that the
Hospital's negligence in cleaning and disinfecting the
colonoscope, potentially exposing him to blood-borne illnesses,
caused his mental anguish. Cunningham has not averred or
demonstrated actual exposure to AIDS, or another blood-borne
illness, and such exposure cannot be inferred from the allegations
in the Complaint, or Cunningham's deposition testimony.

A copy of Judge Musmanno's decision dated November 21, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/6ouciEfrom Leagle.com.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania panel consists of Judges
Christine L. Donohue, Cheryl Lynn Allen and John L. Musmanno.


GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Falsely Marketed Testofen Products, Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ryan, Marco Garza, Michael Aguero, Odell Cowans, Brett
Erion, Russ Ruhnke, Thomas Korves, Luis Flores, Steven Berger,
Eligio Torres, and Robert Baker, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Gencor Nutrients, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:14-cv-05682 (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2014), arises out of
the Defendants' false and misleading advertisement and product
packaging of their nutritional supplement containing Testofen, an
extract of the herb fenugreek, that it has been clinically proven
to increase free testosterone levels.

Gencor Nutrients, Inc. is a manufacturer of Testofen, a
standardized fenugreek extract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barry Himmelstein, Esq.
      HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK
      2000 Powell St., Suite 1605
      Emeryville, CA 94608-1861
      Telephone: (510) 450-0782
      Facsimile: (510) 924-0403
      E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com


GRACO CHILDREN: Loses Motion to Dismiss Long's 3rd Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato denied defendants' motion to dismiss
and deferred the motion to strike class allegations in SETH LONG,
Plaintiff, v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 13-CV-01257-JD, (N.D. Cal.).

This putative class action for deceptive practices and other
consumer claims arises out of the sale and distribution of car
seats for infants and children with defective harness buckles.
Although initiated in 2013, the case is still in the pleading
stage after partial dismissal of the first amended complaint with
leave to amend.  Plaintiff Seth Long is now on a third amended
complaint (TAC), which defendants Graco Children's Products Inc.
and Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (collectively "Graco") moved to dismiss
on jurisdiction grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1). Graco does not challenge the substance of Long's
consumer claims. Instead, Graco argued that a pre-suit offer of a
full refund to plaintiff and a post-suit national recall of seats
with the defective buckles defeat subject matter jurisdiction in
this action. Graco also moved to strike the class allegations in
the TAC. Graco contended that the proposed class is overbroad and
not reasonably ascertainable.

The Court denied the motions without prejudice in favor of
deciding these issues in the class certification context rather
than at this stage of the case.

A copy of the ruling issued on December 17, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/MGm5LAfrom Leagle.com.

Seth Long, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Robert
Kenneth Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Cody Robert Padgett -- Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com
-- Capstone Law, APC, Mark Samuel Greenstone --
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Tarek
H. Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Lawyers,
APC.

Graco Children's Products Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N.
Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi
Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP,
John Alexander Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Joseph J.
Krasovec, III -- jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP &
Yakov Paul Wiegmann -- ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin
LLP.

Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N. Unruh,
Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin LLP, Joseph J.
Krasovec, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Graco Children's Products Inc., plaintiff, represented by Rocky N.
Unruh, Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin LLP, John
Alexander Vogt, Jones Day, Joseph J. Krasovec, III, Schiff Hardin
LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann, Schiff Hardin LLP.

Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., plaintiff, represented by Rocky N. Unruh,
Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin LLP, Joseph J.
Krasovec, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

AmSafe Commercial Products, Inc., defendant, represented by
Nathaniel Peardon Garrett -- ngarrett@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
Ann Theresa Rossum -- atrossum@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, John
Alexander Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Richard
Joseph Bedell, Jr. -- rjbedell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

AmSafe Partners, Inc., defendant, represented by Nathaniel Peardon
Garrett, Jones Day, Ann Theresa Rossum, Jones Day, John Alexander
Vogt, Jones Day & Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr., Jones Day.

AmSafe, Inc., defendant, represented by Nathaniel Peardon Garrett,
Jones Day, Ann Theresa Rossum, Jones Day, John Alexander Vogt,
Jones Day & Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr., Jones Day.


GREEN & CLEAN: "Equite" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anibal Equite, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Green & Clean Property Solution, Inc., a foreign
profit corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00746 (M.D. Fla., December
30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Green & Clean Property Solution, Inc. owns and operates a cleaning
service company in Lee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile:  (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


GTA BUILDING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Margarito Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. GTA Building Services, Inc., and Kenneth
Numerowski, Case No. 1:14-cv-10445 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


HOLLYWOOD AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cal. Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peyman Zandifaez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hollywood Agency, LLC, d/b/a Hollywood
Auditions, Case No. 8:14-cv-02057 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2014),
seeks to redress the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
phone calls to the cellular telephones with the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system and pre-recorded voice in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Hollywood Agency, LLC is a casting service that helps models and
actors find auditions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


INSTANT CHECKMATE: Sued in Cal. Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milo Illich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Instant Checkmate, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 3:14-cv-03026 (S.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), to redress the
Defendant's deceptive practices of deceiving thousands of
consumers throughout the United States into paying $22.86 or more
for subscriptions to access reports that do not contain what was
promised.

Instant Checkmate, Inc. owns and operates the web site,
www.instantcheckmate.com, which offers consumers the ability to
obtain background reports to learn the truth about the history of
your family and friends.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel M. Lasser, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      1934 Divisadero Street
      San Francisco, CA 94115
      Telephone: (415) 994-9930
      Facsimile: (4150 776-8047
      E-mail: slasser@edelson.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Courtney Booth,Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone:  (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile:  (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              cbooth@edelson.com


INTERSTATE HOTELS: Sued Over Illegal Use of Background Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Toral, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
09922 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to disclose intent to use a background
report in their decision to hire, promote, reassign, or terminate
employees.

Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that
owns and operates hotels throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devin H. Fok, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN H. FOK
      PO Box 7165
      Alhambra, CA 98102-7165
      Telephone: (310) 430-9933
      Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
      E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Evans, Antonio Ruiz, Dale Herlan, Gaston Custer and Jillian
Steinman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01095
(W.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Johnson Controls, Inc. provides installations and service to
electrical and control systems for public and private projects
throughout New York and Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


JP WHITE: Faces "Tang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jun Tang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. JP White Plains, Inc. d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10239 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

JP White Plains, Inc. owns and operates Haiku Asian Bistro at 149
Mamaroneck Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PPLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342


KRUNG THEP: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Vasquez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad Vasquez and Miguel Godiness, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Krung Thep Rain Inc. (d/b/a Rain
Thai), Sansanee Fricke, and Phikul Kumdang, Case No. 1:14-cv-10245
(S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at 220
East 53rd Street, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


L-RAPHAEL FS: "Riedel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Riedel and Li Wei Jin, on behalf of themselves, and others
similarly situated v. L-Raphael FS NYC, Inc., Ronit Raphael,
Kimberley Matheson Shedrick and Monica Elbanowska, Case No. 1:14-
cv-10212 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover  unpaid
overtime premium, unpaid compensation due to time shaving,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a luxury spa located within the
Four Seasons New York Hotel at 57 East 57th Street, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


LITTLE ANGELOS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Coronel" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Coronel, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Little Angelos Pizza, Inc., and Angelo
Pagni, Case No. 1:14-cv-10439 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: 312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


LONG ISLAND BUSINESS: Faces "Hou" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bofeng Hou, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Long Island Business Institute, Inc. and Monica Foote, Case No.
1:14-cv-07587 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Long Island Business Institute, Inc. is a 2-year, for-profit
college of business and career college, offering certificate and
associate degree programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARECKI MASONRY: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Lopez, Raul Lopez, and Alfredo Guerra, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees v. Marecki Masonry,
Inc., and Marek Micek, Case No. 1:14-cv-10509 (N.D. Ill., December
31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a construction business doing
business within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2015, that a
state court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction in a putative shareholder class action complaint.

As previously disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") by Medtronic, Inc. ("Medtronic") on November 21, 2014
(the "definitive proxy statement"), a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed on July 2, 2014, in the District Court,
Fourth Judicial District, of Hennepin County, Minnesota (the
"State Court"), by a purported shareholder of Medtronic under the
caption Merenstein v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 27-CV-14-11452, and
on August 21, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in that same court by a purported shareholder of
Medtronic under the caption Steiner v. Richard H. Anderson, et
al., 27-CV-14-14420, which actions were later consolidated
together with all cases subsequently filed or transferred into
State Court into a single action under the caption In re
Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-14-11452.

On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint challenging
certain transactions to be taken by Medtronic in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Covidien plc ("Covidien") by
Medtronic, and on October 10, 2014, the defendants moved to
dismiss such complaint.

On December 5, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated State
Court action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking
to, among other things, enjoin the defendants from effectuating
the acquisition in the absence of additional disclosure prior to
the Medtronic shareholder vote. On December 30, 2014, a hearing
was held in the State Court on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 2,
2015, the State Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion.


MLM CUISINE: "Hassane" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Chafik Hassane and Masud Ahad, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. MLM Cuisine, LLC, d/b/a
Mike's Bistro, Michael Gershkovich, and Leib Gershkovich, Case No.
1:14-cv-10225 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief,
costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Jewish Kosher restaurant and
private-event catering and banquet business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


MONEY STORE: Seeger Weiss Obtains $54-Mil. Class Action Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for the plaintiff in a class action case against the Money
Store, led by Seeger Weiss LLP partner Moshe Horne with co-counsel
Paul Grobman and Sharma and DeYoung firms, were able to secure a
very rare $54 million verdict.  The lawsuit, heard by Judge Koeltl
in the Southern District of New York, was filed by Joseph Mazzei,
who was charged monthly late fees after his mortgage went into
default.  This breach of contract involving post acceleration late
fees dates back to 2001, when homeowners first acted to recoup
$629 million for overcharges and interest.

Seeger Weiss LLP -- http://www.seegerweiss.com-- is a trial law
firm specializing in class action litigation on behalf of
consumers, investors and injured persons.  The firm, with offices
in New York, Philadelphia and New Jersey, represents plaintiffs in
a variety of practice areas, including qui tam, pharmaceutical
injury, securities and investment fraud, consumer protection,
environmental and asbestos exposures, personal injury and medical
malpractice, product defect, antitrust, and commercial disputes.


MONTICELLO, MN: Court Authorizes Distribution of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donovan W. Frank of the District of Minnesota
authorized the distribution of the distributable settlement amount
in the case entitled William Dean, individually, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of
Monticello, Minnesota, Defendant, Civil Case No. 14-376 (DWF/JSM)
(D. Minn.)

Judge Frank approved the proposed settlement of $5,746,719.12 in
cash from the City as fair and reasonable. In its final approval
order, Judge Frank approved the payment of $1.34 million in
attorneys' fees to Schiff Hardin LLP and Oppenheimer Wolff &
Donnelly LLP, and the payment of an estimated $128,414.97 in
litigation expenses as fair and reasonable.

The court had directed the parties to consummate the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and Plan Allocation and after submitting all
the necessary documents and thorough deliberation, the court:

     (1) ordered the City to make the Settlement Payment of
$5,746,719.12 in cash or by certified check or wire transfer to
U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) as escrowee, on or
before 02/11/2015;

     (2) ordered the U.S. Bank immediately upon receipt of the
Settlement Payment, pay $1,434,519.11 from the Settlement Payment
to Schiff Hardin LLP, as follows: (a) $1,374,036.24 for the legal
fees and expenses incurred by Class Counsel in prosecuting and
settling this action; and (b) $60,482.87 for the fees and expenses
incurred by ALCS in connection with giving notice to the Class,
processing the proofs of claim, preparing the tax returns for the
Settlement Fund and other services, and for the fees and expenses
incurred by U.S. Bank in connection with the disbursement of the
legal fees, litigation expenses and payments to holders of
Approved Claims, and the establishment and disbursement of the
Reserve Fund;

     (3) ordered U.S. Bank set aside $46,719.12 from the
Settlement Payment for the establishment of a reserve fund to
address any claim by a Class Member that such person was either
entitled to a distribution from the Settlement and did not receive
one, or received an incorrect amount;

     (4) ordered the U.S. Bank promptly pay $4,265,480.89 in the
aggregate as distributions to the holders of the Approved Claims,
as follows: (i) $1,057,800.00 to be paid to Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, to be paid to the beneficial owners of the
Bonds as of a record date to be determined by the Trustee
immediately prior to the date of distribution in an amount equal
to 4% of the par amount of Bonds held by such Holder, and (ii)
$3,207,680.89 in the aggregate by check directly to holders of the
Approved Claims and;

     (5) all checks for distribution directly to the holders of
Approved Claims shall bear the notation "CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND
SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180 DAYS AFTER DISTRIBUTION DATE." ALCS
and U.S. Bank are authorized to take appropriate action to locate
and/or contact any holder of an Approved Claim who has not cashed
his, her or its check within said time.

A copy of Judge Frank's order dated November 14, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/IlB3f7from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Narrows Claims in "Dent" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DENT, JEREMY NEWBERRY, ROY GREEN, J.D. HILL, KEITH VAN
HORNE, RON STONE, RON PRITCHARD, JAMES McMAHON, MARCELLUS WILEY,
and JONATHAN REX HADNOT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, a New
York unincorporated association, Defendant, NO. C 14-02324 WHA,
(N.D. Cal.) is a putative class action alleging improper
administration of pain medications to professional football
players.  Defendant has filed two sets of motions to dismiss the
operative complaint, based on (1) preemption under Section 301 of
the Labor Management Relations Act; and (2) the statute of
limitations and improper pleading.

"In ruling against the novel claims asserted herein, this order
does not minimize the underlying societal issue," District Judge
William Alsup wrote in his December 17, 2014 order, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/6eJpOpfrom Leagle.com.  "In
such a rough-and-tumble sport as professional football, player
injuries loom as a serious and inevitable evil. Proper care of
these injuries is likewise a paramount need. The main point of
this order is that the league has addressed these serious concerns
in a serious way -- by imposing duties on the clubs via collective
bargaining and placing a long line of health-and-safety duties on
the team owners themselves. These benefits may not have been
perfect but they have been uniform across all clubs and not left
to the vagaries of state common law. They are backed up by the
enforcement power of the union itself and the players' right to
enforce these benefits. Given the regime in place after decades of
collective bargaining over the scope of these duties, it would be
impossible to fashion and to apply new and supplemental state
common law duties on the league without taking into account the
adequacy and scope of the CBA duties already set in place. That
being so, plaintiffs' common law claims are preempted by Section
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The motion to
dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims based on preemption grounds
under Section 301 is granted. The NFL's other motion to dismiss is
denied as moot."

Plaintiffs were given until December 30, 2014, to file a motion
for leave to amend their claims, noticed on the normal 35-day
calendar. A proposed amended complaint must be appended to any
such motion, Judge Alsup said. Plaintiffs must plead their best
case. Any such motion should clearly explain how the amended
complaint cures the deficiencies identified herein, and should
include as an exhibit a redlined or highlighted version
identifying all changes. If counsel prefer to stand on the present
pleading for appeal purposes, judgment will be entered, the case
will be closed, and an appeal may proceed, he added.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued in Ill. Over Unsolicited Call Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Wright, Carole Stewart and Michael Doyle, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-10457
(N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited debt collection and other phone
calls to the cellular and landline telephones of consumers
nationwide without consent and with the use of an automatic
telephone dialing system and pre-recorded voice in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC is a mortgage lender and servicer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      J. Dominic Larry, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 589-6380
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              nlarry@edelson.com

         - and -

      Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
      Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
      PARADIS LAW GROUP, PLLC
      570 Seventh Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 986-4500
      Facsimile: (212) 986-4501

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Brant C. Martin, Esq.
      WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP
      100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 500
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone:  (817) 332-7788
      Facsimile: (817) 332-7789

          - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone:  (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

         - and -

      Michael P. Sousa, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. SOUSA, APC
      3232 Governor Dr., Suite A
      San Diego, CA 92122
      Telephone: (858) 453-6122, ext. 15
      Facsimile: (858) 453-2155
      E-mail: sousam@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

      Matthew G. English, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW G. ENGLISH
      941 Orange Ave. #344
      Coronado, CA 92118
      Telephone:  619.944.8568
      E-mail: mgelaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 303
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 299-2901
      Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
      E-mail: doug@djcampion.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Foreign Cars R Us Case Can't Proceed as Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge C. Conner of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
remanded the case of JOHN E. STULL and FOREIGN CARS R US PLUS,
Plaintiffs, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRs,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-1469 (M.D. Pa.).

Upon recommendation of the report of Magistrate Judge Susan E.
Schwab, recommending the court to deny the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and dismiss plaintiff Foreign Cars R Us Plus
because Foreign Cars is a fictitious entity which cannot represent
itself.

Judge Conner adopted Magistrate Judge Schwab's report in its
entirety, denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
dismissed Foreign Cars R Us Plus for failure to obtain counsel.
The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Schwab for further
proceedings

A copy of Judge Conner's order dated November 21, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/fFj0pbfrom Leagle.com.

John E. Stull, Plaintiff, Pro Se

The State of Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional & Occupational
Affairs, Defendant, represented by:

     Jonathan D Koltash
     Office of the Attorney General
     Litigation Section
     Strawberry Square
     Harrisburg, PA 17120
     Telephone: 717-787-3391


PORTOFINO GRILLE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Ramirez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Portofino Grille, Inc. (d/b/a Lunetta Pizza &
Restaurant), and Laurence Cresci, Case No. 1:14-cv-10510 (N.D.
Ill., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at
1162 First Avenue, New York, New York 10065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 West Jackson Boulevard, #1137
      Chicago, IL 60604-3207
      Telephone: (312) 322-1100
      E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
              n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Urenia" Plaintiffs Directed to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted a motion to strike in
its entirety the second amended complaint (SAC) filed in the class
action lawsuit captioned VICTORIA URENIA, an individual; SOLEDAD
CORONA, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. PUBLIC STORAGE, a real
estate investment trust; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a governmental
entity; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MICHAEL ANZ, Defendants, CASE NO.
CV 13-01934 DDP (AJWX) (C.D. Calif.), and directed the Plaintiffs
to file a Third Amended Complaint omitting references to facts
pertaining only to the Dismissed Plaintiffs and their individual
claims.  This includes references to the behavior of former
defendant Mike Anz, unless the allegation is specifically relevant
to some claim against the remaining Defendants, Judge Preferson
said.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit against the City of
Los Angeles, Bank of America, and Public Storage alleging civil
rights violations and unfair business practices stemming from
foreclosure and property seizure practices.  Initially, the suit
was being prosecuted by Dismissed Plaintiffs Urenia and Corona.
In the First Amended Complaint, Dismissed Plaintiff Hughes and
current Plaintiffs Javier and Brenda Hernandez were added to the
action.  On September 29, 2014, the Court dismissed Urenia,
Corona, and Hughes from the action and allowed Lenore Albert to
withdraw as their attorney.  Ms. Albert remains as counsel for the
Hernandezes.  On November 21, 2014, the remaining Plaintiffs filed
a Second Amended Complaint, renaming the Dismissed Plaintiffs
"third parties," but retaining specific factual allegations
relating to the Dismissed Plaintiffs, as well as those relating to
Defendant Michael Anz, who was only personally implicated in
allegations regarding Urenia and Coronoa and was therefore
dismissed as well.

A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's order dated Jan. 6, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/o4yGvNfrom Leagle.com.

Roes, Plaintiff, represented by:

         Lenore L Albert, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF LENORE L ALBERT
         7755 Center Avenue, Suite #1100
         Huntington Beach, CA 92647
         Tel: (714) 372-2264
         Fax: (419) 831-3376

Javier Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Lenore L Albert, Law
Offices of Lenore L Albert.

Brenda Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Lenore L Albert, Law
Offices of Lenore L Albert.

Public Storage, Defendant, represented by Mathew M Wrenshall, Esq.
-- mwrenshall@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Peter J Kennedy,
Esq. -- pkennedy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Tuan Van Uong,
Esq. -- tuong@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP.

City of Los Angeles, Defendant, represented by Cory M Brente,
Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney & Elizabeth L Greenwood,
Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney.

Bank of America NA, Defendant, represented by Mathew M Wrenshall,
Reed Smith LLP, Peter J Kennedy, Reed Smith LLP & Tuan Van Uong,
Reed Smith LLP.


PVH CORPORATION: Bid to Intervene in "Chavez" Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California
denied the proposed intervenors' motion to intervene in the case
entitled JESSIE CHAVEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PVH CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, TOMMY HILFIGER RETAIL, LLC, and PVH RETAIL
STORES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-01797 LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Chavez's putative class action asserts that PVH
Corporation, Tommy Hilfiger Retail, LLC, and PVH Retail Stores
violated provisions of the California Labor Code and Government
Code based on Defendants' alleged pattern and practice of issuing
ATM cards as payment of wages and other wrongful acts directed
solely at Plaintiff.  In Plaintiff's original Complaint, she
alleged violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202,
203, and 226. After removal, Plaintiff filed her First Amended
Complaint alleging the same labor code violations and additional
violations of California Labor Code Section 2698 and California
Government Code Sections 12940 et seq. and 12945.

On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint,
which is the operative complaint in the case. The Second Amended
Complaint added additional claims for alleged violations of
California Labor Code Section 204 and California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200.

On August 18, 2014, Proposed Intervenors Jodi Scott-George and
Melissa Wiggs filed a notice of pendency of other action in the
case.  The following day, they filed their motion to intervene.

On September 15, 2014, Jeffrey Lapan and Ashwin Chandra filed a
joinder to Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene.

Both plaintiff and defendants filed their respective oppositions.

On October 30, 2014, Dakkar Hunter, an objector to a settlement
agreement, filed a joinder to Proposed Intervenors' motion to
intervene. The next day, Danah Lapan also filed a joinder to the
motion to intervene.

Judge Koh held that the Proposed Intervenors have failed to meet
the less restrictive timeliness requirement under Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
Rule 24(a), as such they cannot meet the stricter timeliness
requirement under Rube 24(b). As Proposed Intervenors have failed
to meet an essential "threshold requirement" of permissive
intervention under Rule 24(b), the Court denied Proposed
Intervenors request to intervene in the action.


A copy of Judge Koh's order dated November 20, 2014 is available
at http://is.gd/fIviFdfrom Leagle.com.

Jessie Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang -- at Diversity
Law Group, P.C.; and William Lucas Marder --
bill@polarislawgroup.com  -- at Polaris Law Group, LLP

PVH Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dean Hansell --
dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com  -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Asheley
Greshaune Dean - at Hogan and Hartson LLP; and Rachel A Patta --
rachel.patta@hoganlovells.com  -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP

PVH Retail Stores, LLC and Tommy Hilfiger Retail, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Dean Hansell -- dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- at
Hogan Lovells US LLP

Melissa Wiggs and Jodi Scott-George, Movants, represented by
Ronald H Bae -- rbae@aequitaslawgroup.com -- Joseph Cho --
jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com -- Olivia D Scharrer --
oscharrer@aequitaslawgroup.com  -- at Aequitas Law Group

Jeffrey Lapan and Ashwin Chandra, Interested Parties, represented
by Edward Joseph Wynne -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com  -- at Wynne Law
Firm


REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS: Court Tosses Slebodnik et al. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freeda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey
granted a motion to dismiss the case, MICHAEL SLEBODNIK, DAVID
YOUSHOCK, AND CLAUDIA METCALF, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE
PUTATIVE CLASS, Plaintiffs, v. THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY,
Defendant, CIV. ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-03772 (FLW) (D.N.J.)

The Reynolds and Reynolds Company is a national automobile dealer
support company that designs, manufactures, markets, advertises,
and sells dealership software, business forms and supplies, and
importantly, license plate frames.

Plaintiffs Michael Slebodnik, David Youshock and Claudia Metcalf
have purchased or leased their vehicles from the New Jersey based
Flemington Car and Truck Company Family of Dealerships. They
alleged that the Flemington Dealerships installed a Reynolds'
front and rear license plate frame made by Reynolds on Plaintiffs'
vehicles. Youshock and Metcalf were each issued a citation for
"unclear plates" by municipal police officers.

Plaintiffs filed their two-count complaint in the Hunterdon County
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. In Count I, plaintiffs
assert that defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
("NJCFA"). In Count II, plaintiffs assert that defendant breached
its implied warranty of merchantability.

Defendant removed the putative class action to the District Court
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Plaintiffs did not
object to the removal. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and in
the alternative, the motion to strike all class allegations.
Defendant argues that plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the
NJCFA and New Jersey's implied warranty of merchantability. In the
motion to strike, Defendant, alternatively, argues that Plaintiffs
cannot allege a permissible nationwide class.

Judge Wolfson granted defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the
motion to strike as being moot.  Judge Wolfson held that the
Plaintiffs neither state a claim for a violation of the NJCFA nor
a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

A copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated November 20, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/nrKRYRfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the punitive classes,
represented by:

     William J. Metcalf, Esq.
     WILLIAM J. METCALF, LLC
     14 Commerce Street, Suite 105
     Flemington, NJ, 08822
     Telephone: (908) 782-0479
     Facsimile: (908) 782-1176

THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
ALFRED J. LECHNER, JR. -- jlechner@whitecase.com -- at WHITE &
CASE LLP


RITE AID: 2nd Cir. Denies Petition for Interlocutory Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the Company's petition for
an interlocutory appeal related to the class action lawsuit,
Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state
and federal claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.

On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability
only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion
for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims.
The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.
The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied
in September 2014.

Once approved by the Court, notice of the Rule 23 class
certification as to liability only will be sent to approximately
1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York.
At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


RITE AID: Defendant in Several Wage & Hour Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is
currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits
filed in state Courts in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining
primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed meals and
rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure
to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). These suits
purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The
Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the
lawsuits and the allegations that the cases should be certified as
class or representative actions.


RITE AID: Settles Pharmacists' Class Action for $9.7 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that with respect to
cases involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and
Scherwin v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County
Superior Court and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in
Sacramento County Superior Court), during the period ended March
1, 2014, the Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to
these matters. The Company and the attorneys representing the
putative class of pharmacists have agreed to a class wide
settlement of the case of $9.7 million subject to final Court
approval. The parties are in the process of obtaining Court
approval.


RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed Pending Decision
------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the employee
seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County
Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed its
motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November
2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which
appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for
review of the appellate court's decision with the California
Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014.

Proceedings in the Hall case are stayed pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court in two similar cases. With respect to the
California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the
Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome
of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to said lawsuits.


ROBERT HALF: Approval of Settlement in "Laffitte" Case Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, affirmed the decision of the trial court in the appellate
case entitled, MARK LAFFITTE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC. et al., Defendants and
Respondents, DAVID BRENNAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, No. B249253
(Cal. App.).

Mark Laffite filed a complaint against the defendants for wage and
hour class action suit, alleging misclassification of staffing
professionals as exempt and failure to pay statutorily mandated
wages, failure to provide adequate meal periods (premium wages),
failure to provide rest periods, failure to furnish timely and
accurate wage statements, and "waiting time" penalties. The
complaint also alleged unfair business practices in violation of
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

The parties participated in mediation. After a second session of
the mediation, Laffitte and the class representatives in two other
class actions against Robert Half involving similar claims and
allegations reached a settlement of the three class actions

The parties, except David Brennan, settled the class action suit
for $19 million. Brenan, a member of the class objected to the
settlement relying in part on rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Brennan made the following objections: (1) the
attorneys' fee request was excessive; (2) "[m]oney to charity
should not be a part of the Court's attorneys' fee award
calculation"; (3) information necessary for class members to
intelligently object to or comment on the proposed settlement was
missing from the notice and the pleadings; (4) the clear sailing
provision warranted the appointment of a class guardian; (5) the
notice to the class was deceptive regarding the responsibility for
payment of attorneys' fees; (6) class counsel and counsel for
Robert Half had not filed a report, as required by the amended
settlement agreement; (7) the notice did not disclose that
unclaimed funds would be donated to a charity of the Robert Half
defendants' choice; and (8) certain other provisions of the
settlement were improper.

The class representatives also filed a motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and class representative enhancements. The motion requested
$6,333,333.33 in attorneys' fees for class counsel, $127,304.08 in
costs, $79,000 in settlement administrator expenses, and $80,000
in class representative enhancement payments.

The trial court granted final approval of class action settlement
and awarded $6,333,333.33 in attorneys' fees, $127,304.08 in
costs, $79,000 in settlement administrator expenses, and $80,000
in class representative enhancement payments. Brennan timely filed
a notice of appeal.

The Court affirmed the trial court's final judgment in a decision
dated November 21, 2014, available at http://bit.ly/14LavOOfrom
Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff and Appellant:

     Lawrence W. Schonbrun, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE W. SCHONBRUN
     86 Eucalyptus Rd.
     Berkeley, CA 94705
     Telephone: (510) 547-8070
     Facsimile: (510) 923-0627

For Plaintiffs and Respondents:

     Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
     Gregg Lander, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
     5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1460
     Los Angeles, CA 90036-5614
     Telephone: (323) 549-9100
     Facsimile: (323) 549-0101

For Defendants and Respondents:

     Judith M. Kline, Esq.
     M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq.
     PAUL HASTINGS
     515 S Flower St 25FL
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
     Telephone: (213) 683-6000
     Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
     E-mail: judykline@paulhastings.com

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District for Division
VII panel consists of Acting Presiding Laurie D. Zelon and
Justices Fred Woods and Segal.


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Feb. 23 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky on Jan. 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of investors who purchased shares
of Roka Bioscience, Inc. securities between July 17, 2014 and
November 6, 2014.

For more information, visit:

            http://zlk.9nl.com/roka-bioscience-roka

The complaint alleges that Roka's initial public offering
documents failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties about
the decline in demand for its Atlas instruments.

On November 6, 2014, Roka announced a net loss of $0.64 per share
in the third quarter of 2014.  The Company also acknowledged it
had not placed any Atlas instruments in that quarter.

If you suffered a loss in Roka you have until February 23, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/roka-bioscience-roka

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation
involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the
nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits.


SANOFI: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Sanofi and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-9624, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Sanofi
securities between February 7, 2013 and December 3, 2014,
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sanofi securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 2, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Sanofi is a global pharmaceutical company that researches,
develops and manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals and
vaccines.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sanofi was making improper
payments to healthcare professionals in connection with the sale
of pharmaceutical products in violation of federal law; (2) Sanofi
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, Sanofi's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 6, 2014, the Company's media relations department
issued a statement announcing that the Company was investigating
allegations related to improper payments to healthcare workers.

On October 29, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed
a Form 6-K with the SEC, announcing that its Board of Directors
had decided to terminate Christopher A. Viehbacher from his
position as Chief Executive Officer of Sanofi.  As a result of
this news, shares of Sanofi fell as much as $2.85 or almost 6%, in
unusually heavy volume, to close at $45.22 on October 29, 2014.

On December 3, 2014, it was reported by Bloomberg and other media
outlets that a whistleblower lawsuit against Sanofi has been filed
in New Jersey by former Sanofi paralegal Diane Ponte.  The suit
alleges that Christopher Viehbacher, the recently ousted CEO of
Sanofi, and other executives at the Company conducted a scheme in
violation of federal law to funnel tens of millions of dollars in
kickbacks and other incentives to get the company's diabetes drugs
prescribed and sold.  The lawsuit also claims that Viehbacher was
fired by the company's board in October "in part, because
Defendant Viehbacher was involved in the aforesaid illegal and/or
fraudulent activity," which allegedly went on "over the course of
many years."  Lastly, the suit alleges that Ponte was fired as a
result of whistleblowing activity in retaliation for bringing the
scheme to light.  These allegations come two years after the drug
company reached an agreement with the Justice Department and
several states to pay $109 million to settle claims that it
engaged in kickbacks by giving doctors free samples of an
arthritis drug as a means of encouraging them to buy and prescribe
the medication.

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.


SONNY'S FRANCHISE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen F. Albee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sonny's Franchise Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-01538
(M.D. Fla., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently, knowingly and willfully sending commercial text
messages to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and putative
Class Members for non-emergency purposes using an automatic
telephone-dialing system without their prior express consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Sonny's Franchise Company operates a chain of restaurants under
the name Sonny's Real Pit Bar-B-Q.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
      E-mail: jcohen@forthepeople.com
              jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


SOUTH MIAMI PARTY: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Asdrubal Rafael Ramos and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. South Miami Party Rental, Inc., Rubby S.
Manotas, Jose V. Vidal Manotas, Case No. 1:14-cv-24914 (S.D. Fla.,
December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a full service party rental company
in South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ST. LOUIS, MO: Settles Two Suits Over Arrest Mistakes
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
city officials here have settled two lawsuits filed by those who
said they had been held in jail because of officials' mistakes.

Checks arrived Dec. 31 for Cedric Wright, of St. Louis, and
Shannon Renee McNeal, of unincorporated St. Louis County, lawyer
James Hacking III said on Jan. 2.

Various city agencies paid a total of $18,750 to Mr. Wright and
$5,000 to Ms. McNeal.  Both settlements style it as a "compromise"
and say there is no admission of legal liability by the agencies.

The cases represent the third and fourth civil settlements
involving those who were mistakenly jailed since the Post-Dispatch
first began reporting on the issue.

Mrs. Wright and Ms. McNeal were among those profiled in a 2013
Post-Dispatch investigation that found, using only a partial
measure, that roughly 100 people had been mistakenly arrested in
St. Louis in recent years and collectively spent at least 2,000
days in jail.

Officials disputed some of the newspaper's findings without
providing any supporting documentation and said the mistakes
represented a tiny fraction of the arrests each year.

City Counselor Winston Calvert said on Jan. 2 that St. Louis had
"an accurate and effective system of suspect identification."

"Mistakes are exceedingly rare," an emailed statement from Calvert
said.  "The system has grown even stronger over the five years
since these two cases occurred.  The City denied liability and
believe the city would not have been found liable in these two
cases.  But, we are satisfied because these small settlements are
an efficient use of tax dollars, and we are glad the other parties
are satisfied with the settlements."

Mr. Wright was arrested for stealing beer and a bag of chips in
August 2011 but was also jailed on charges for another man,
Corey Leonard.  Although a judge recognized the error and released
him on one of Mr. Leonard's cases, a sheriff's deputy returned him
to jail on two other Mr. Leonard cases.  Mr. Wright spent more
than eight weeks there before being released.

In August, a federal judge tossed out the bulk of Mr. Wright's
lawsuit, saying that no "reasonable" police officer would know
that failing to check Wright's fingerprints against Leonard's or
investigate further "would violate the Fourth Amendment."  U.S.
District Court Judge Audrey Fleissig also said that while it was a
"close question" whether the police board should be dismissed from
the suit, she decided that there was no evidence of a "widespread
pattern of similar unconstitutional misconduct" by police or
"deliberate indifference" by the board.

Mr. Hacking and a former associate, Jennifer Shoulberg,
unsuccessfully sought class-action status in Mr. Wright's case,
claiming to have found 82 mistaken arrests resulting in 1,397 days
in jail from 2007 through mid-2013.

Shannon Renee McNeal was arrested by Ferguson police in 2009 on a
warrant for a Shannon Raquel McNeal -- a woman roughly 15 years
younger who had died months before the mistaken arrest.

A deputy clerk in St. Louis triggered the error by selecting the
wrong Shannon McNeal on a computer menu in 2007 when setting up
the criminal file, the newspaper's investigation found.

Authorities in Ferguson and St. Louis failed to catch the error --
until Ms. McNeal's mother hired a lawyer to sort out the mess.
Ms. McNeal spent more than a day in custody, lost her job as a
Metro bus driver for months and also lost her apartment and her
car.

Mr. Hacking said that Ms. McNeal's case was weakened by the
relatively small amount of time she spent behind bars -- and an
old appeals court case that essentially established a minimum
number of days for police to "sort things out."

In March 2013, officials paid $21,666.66 to settle a lawsuit filed
by Dwayne A. Jackson, including $5,000 from the jail's medical
provider, Mr. Hacking said.  Mr. Jackson spent about three months
in jail on charges against a different man with the same name.

In February, police and City Hall agreed to pay $62,500 to settle
a federal lawsuit filed by Travis S. Jones an unemployed man on
disability.  Mr. Jones was mistakenly jailed for more than two
months, despite police and jailers' discovering the mistake within
nine days of his arrest.

Still pending is a lawsuit on behalf of Jeffery A. Smith, who says
that although a judge ordered officials to compare his
fingerprints to those of the real defendant in the case, the
judge's order was never carried out.

Hacking said that there had been "no real explanation as to why it
happened."


SUPERVALU INC: Facing Consumer Goods Manufacturers' Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. continues to defend a class action complaint by
consumer goods manufacturers, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2014.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The
Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all
proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Class Action Over C&S Deal Remanded to Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that the class action
complaint related to a 2003 transaction between the Company and
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. is now remanded to the District Court
for further proceedings to be determined by the District Court.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions.

On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit
for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied
the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District
Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court
ordered mandatory mediation which was not successful in resolving
the matter.

On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision
denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers
located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery
products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September
13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider
whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from
the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center.

On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company's petition
for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the
summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder.
The case is now remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings to be determined by the District Court.


SUPERVALU INC: Settlement Payments to Continue Until Feb. 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that payments to class
members in a class action settlement began in mid-November 2014
and are expected to continue until February 2015.

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-
Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent
current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week
method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the
District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby
employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a
week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for
overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful
or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method
of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday
pay and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District
Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the
issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW.

In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's
motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice
is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state
laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case.

The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two
additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly
before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed
by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW
was a legal practice in Connecticut.

In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano)
filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania
state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the
Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary
damages and attorneys' fees.

On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the
matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the
Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to
settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and
settlement administration costs. The court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014 and final approval on
July 30, 2014. Payments to class members began in mid-November
2014 and are expected to continue until February 2015.

The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 million
before tax ($3 million after-tax) in the second quarter of fiscal
2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter.
The Company funded $5 million into a qualified settlement fund on
February 28, 2014.


SUPERVALU INC: Criminal Intrusion Cases Sent to Minnesota Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the Criminal Intrusion cases
transferred to the District Court in Minnesota.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into
its computer network announced by the Company on August 14, 2014
and September 29, 2014 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). Kenneth Hanff,
et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota alleging breach of contract,
deceptive trade practices, negligence and invasion of privacy.
Steve McPeak, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
alleging violations of the Federal Stored Communications Act and
Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and negligence. Gary
Mertz, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. and AB Acquisition LLC, was filed
in the United States District Court of Minnesota alleging
negligence, violations of consumer protection laws and bailment.
Alyssa Rocke, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC., AB Acquisition LLC, and
New Albertson's, Inc. d/b/a Jewel-Osco was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging
negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, violations of consumer protection acts, invasion of
privacy, breach of confidentiality and assumpsit. Plaintiffs in
each action seek the recovery of an unspecified amount of damages.

On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order
transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On
December 16, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the cases transferred to the District Court in Minnesota.


SUSHI CASTLE: "Dai" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ru Bin Dai, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Sushi Castle Inc., d/b/a Sushi Castle, Ya
Chen, John Lin, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-
10227 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 36 Mill
Road, Eastchester, NY 10709.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAJ GROCERS: Faces "Quiroz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Javier Quiroz, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. Taj Grocers Inc., Taj Grocers of Plano, LLC,
Bhupendra Shah and Ritesh B. Shah, Case No. 3:14-cv-04553 (N.D.
Tex., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Indian grocery store in Dallas
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      J. H. ZIDELL, PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Marino" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Marino, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01756
(W.D. Pa., December 30, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles
contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts
of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com


TARGET CORP: Dist. Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss consumer plaintiffs' first amended
consolidated class action complaint in the consumer cases in In
re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL NO. 14-2522 (PAM/JJK), (D. Minn.).

This case arises out of one of the largest breaches of payment-
card security in United States retail history: over a period of
more than three weeks during the 2013 holiday shopping season,
computer hackers stole credit- and debit-card information and
other personal information for approximately 110 million customers
of Target's retail stores. Plaintiffs are a putative class of
consumers who used their credit or debit cards at Target stores
during the period of the security breach, and whose personal
financial information was compromised as a result of the breach.
Indeed, many of the 114 named Plaintiffs allege that they actually
incurred unauthorized charges; lost access to their accounts;
and/or were forced to pay sums such as late fees, card-replacement
fees, and credit monitoring costs because the hackers misused
their personal financial information.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all
federal litigation into this case, which is divided into two
tracks: one for cases brought by financial institutions and one
for cases brought by consumers.

According to Judge Magnuson's December 18, 2014 memorandum and
order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/nPJrwXfrom
Leagle.com, the majority of Plaintiffs' claims survive Target's
Motion. Specifically:

1. Plaintiffs' claims under the Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the
Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act in Count I are dismissed
with prejudice. In addition, Plaintiffs may not maintain a class
action as to their claims under the consumer-protection statutes
in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah.

2. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Count II data-breach notice
statutory claims under Florida, Oklahoma, and Utah law, and their
claims under Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Texas law are
dismissed with prejudice.

3. Plaintiffs' Count III negligence claims under Alaska,
California, Illinois, Iowa, and Massachusetts law are barred by
the economic loss rule and are dismissed with prejudice.

4. Count V, alleging breach of contract, is dismissed without
prejudice. Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of the Order to
file an Amended Complaint sufficiently alleging the required
elements of their breach-of-contract claim, should they wish to do
so.

5. Count VI, alleging bailment, is dismissed with prejudice.

6. Count VII, alleging unjust enrichment, is granted as to
Plaintiffs' "overcharge" theory and denied as to Plaintiffs'
"would not have shopped" theory.

Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Charles S
Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, Felipe J Arroyo -- farroyo@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins
Arroyo LLP, Karl L Cambronne -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
-- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Vincent J Esades --
vesades@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Brian C
Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, Bryan L Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com --
Chestnut Cambronne, PA, James J Pizzirusso --
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Jennifer J Sosa --
jsosa@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP.

Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
R Walsh -- walshlawfirm@comcast.net -- Walsh Law Firm, E Michelle
Drake -- drake@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Garrett D
Blanchfield, Jr -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt
Wendorf & Blanchfield, Karen Hanson Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com
-- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Amanda R Cefalu --
arc@andersonhelgen.com -- Anderson, Helgen, Davis & Nissen, LLC &
Jennifer J Sosa -- jsosa@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal --
Douglas.Meal@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael A Ponto --
michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J
Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
David F McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
David Frank McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Fred B Burnside -- fredburnside@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE, Harold J McElhinny -- hmcelhinny@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Jack W Londen -- jlonden@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Michael John Agoglia -- magoglia@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster, Michelle L Visser --
Michelle.Visser@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP, Nancy R Thomas
-- nthomas@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Patrick J. Kenny
-- pkenny@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,
Rebekah Kaufman -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Robert G. Flanders,Jr, Jr. -- rflanders@hinckleyallen.com --
Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Samuel James Boone Lunier --
slunier@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Sterling Arthur
Brennan -- sbrennan@mabr.com -- MASHOFF BRENNAN.

Target.com, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray
LLP, Michael John Agoglia, Morrison & Foerster, Michael A Ponto,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, David F McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harold J
McElhinny, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jack W Londen, Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Target Corporation of Minnesota, Defendant, represented by Douglas
H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael A Ponto, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP,
Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Seth A. Schmeeckle --
sschmeeckle@lawla.com -- Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard.

Target Corporation of Minnesota, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray
LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy J Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

Target.com, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray
LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Rebekah Kaufman,
Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.


TATITLEK SUPPORT: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mortaza Mohammad Noorzay, Mohammad Omar Khamosh, Mohammad Ayub
Noorzay, Mina Ghafoorzai, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc., an Alaska
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-09923 (C.D. Cal., December 30,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper
overtime compensation.

Tatitlek Support Services, Inc. provides the United States Marine
Corps in Twentynine Palms, California, with personnel to interact
with Marine Corps troops in realistic pre-deployment training
exercises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
      Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
      Howard K. Alperin, Esq.
      BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE, P.C.
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1750
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 622-4222
      Facsimile: (213) 622-1656
      E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com
              dpepperman@blechercollins.com
              halperin@blechercollins.com

         - and -

      Lawrence J. Hanna, Esq.
      Daphne M. Stegman, Esq.
      Mirren L. Stegman-Wise, Esq.
      FULLERTON & HANNA, LLP
      6311 Columbus Avenue
      Van Nuys, CA 91411
      Telephone: (818) 902-1454
      Facsimile: (818) 901-0472
      E-mail: fullertonhanna@sbcglobal.net


TD AUTO: E.D. Wis. Judge Denies Motion for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the Eastern District of
Wisconsin denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
case AMANDA BALSCHMITER, Plaintiff, v. TD AUTO FINANCE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-1186-JPS (E.D. Wis.)

Plaintiff's boyfriend Viktor Loshek purchased a used car. TD Auto
Finance LLC or TDAF serviced Loshek's loan on which he was the
only signatory on the loan. Loshek went into default and plaintiff
Amanda Balschmiter called TDAF on Loshek's behalf to make payments
on the loan. After making calls to TDAF, plaintiff began to
receive autodialed debt-collection calls from TDAF regarding
Loshek's loan. Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint
against TDAF, alleging that, as a non-customer of TDAF, the auto-
dialed debt-collection calls TDAF placed to her cell phone and,
presumably, to the cell phones of other noncustomers violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.
Section 227.

The plaintiff requests for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or certifying the
equitable portion of the case under Rule 23(b)(2) and the damages
portion of the case under Rule 23(b)(3). The plaintiff requests in
the alternative if certification under Rule 23(b) is
inappropriate, that an issues class be certified under Rule
23(c)(4).

TDAF filed a brief in opposition, in which plaintiff filed a reply
to TDAF's brief in opposition and her objections to the expert
testimony of Dr. Debra J. Aron. Dr. Aron's testimony, in summary,
asserts that the plaintiff's procedure for ascertaining class
members would lead to substantial errors of both over-inclusion
and exclusion that could significantly exceed the number of
correctly-identified class members according to Plaintiff's theory
of liability.

Judge Stadtmueller denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification, reasoning that the putative class is not
ascertainable and the individual issues of consent would
predominate over issues common to the class. Further, because
prior express consent is an individualized issue unfit for
classwide resolution, certification under Rule 23(c)(4) must be
denied as well.  The plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony
of Dr. Aron is also denied.

A copy of Judge Stadtmueller's order dated November 20, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/BmbqKvfrom Leagle.com.

Amanda Balschmiter, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M Hutchinson
-- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Douglas I Cuthbertson --
dcuthbertson@lchb.com -- and Jonathan D Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com
-- Nicole D Reynolds -- at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP;
Lester A Pines -- Tamara B Packard -- at Cullen Weston Pines &
Bach LLP; and Matthew R Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- and
Michael J Boyle, Jr -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- at Meyer Wilson
Co LPA

TD Auto Finance LLC, Defendant, represented by David S Reidy --
dreidy@reedsmith.com -- and Andrew Amoroso --
aamoroso@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP; and Joshua J Brady --
jbrady@gpjlaw.com  -- at Galanis Pollack Jacobs & Johnson SC.


TEIKOKU PHARMA: Judge Narrows Claims in UFCW Local 1776 Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California denied in part and granted in part defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL
1776 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TEIKOKU PHARMA USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-MD-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Endo is a Delaware corporation that markets and sells Lidoderm
throughout the United States. Teikoku Seiyaku Co. is a Japanese
company that manufactures Lidoderm for Endo pursuant to a
Manufacturing and Supply Agreement. It owns one of the patents for
Lidoderm that Watson allegedly infringed. Teikoku Pharma USA is a
California corporation that is wholly owned by Teikoku Seiyaku
Co., and is the holder of the New Drug Application for Lidoderm.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was a Nevada corporation that
marketed, produced, and distributed generic pharmaceutical
products, including Lidoderm, starting in September 15, 2013.

The plaintiffs allegedly purchased generic and brand-name Lidoderm
at supracompetitive prices. They are grouped into three categories
based on their claims and relationship to the defendants; the
direct purchaser plaintiffs ("DPPs"), entities that purchased
Lidoderm directly from the defendants; the end-purchaser
plaintiffs ("EPPs"), employee health and welfare benefit plans,
municipal corporations, employee unions, and two individuals who
purchased Lidoderm from third parties; and the Government
Employees Health Association ("GEHA"), a not-for-profit
corporation that provides health and dental plans to federal
employees and retirees and their families that, like the EPPs,
purchased Lidoderm from third parties.

The DPPs bring two claims for violations of Section 1 and three
claims for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2.  The EPPs and GEHA assert a total of 10
claims for violations of state antitrust laws, state consumer
protection laws, and common law unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs allege that when Endo and Teikoku agreed to drop their
ongoing patent litigation against Watson, they offered
consideration of $96 million in free product and deferred
competition with Watson's generic product worth $170 million in
exchange for Watson's agreement to delay introduction of its
generic drug. As a result of this settlement, plaintiffs were
allegedly unable to purchase the cheaper generic version of
Lidoderm.

Defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss. The central
issue in defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss is whether
plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded that the settlement involved
large and unjustified reverse payments that caused antitrust
injury under the rule of reason analysis described in F.T.C. v.
Actavis, Inc., 133 S.Ct 2223.

Judge Orrick, in his order dated November 17, 2014, which is
available at http://is.gd/vD8MElfrom Leagle.com, held that:

     (1) Defendants' motion to dismiss the DPPs' Section 1 Sherman
Act claims is denied as to claim one and granted with prejudice as
to claim two. The motion to dismiss the DPPs' Section 2 Sherman
Act claims is granted with leave to amend;

     (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss the EPP and GEHA claims
regarding monopoly are dismissed with leave to amend. Defendants'
motion to dismiss the EPP state law claims for states where they
have not alleged a sufficient connection (Alaska, District of
Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) is
granted with leave to amend. The EPP state law antitrust claims
under the laws of Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico,
and Rhode Island are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion
to dismiss the EPP state law antitrust claims based on
insufficient allegations is denied;

     (3) Defendants' motion to dismiss the EPP unjust enrichment
claims under Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming is granted and those claims are
dismissed with prejudice;

     (4) The motion to dismiss the EPP unjust enrichment claims
for the remaining states is denied without prejudice and;

     (5) The motion to dismiss GEHA's claims as to states other
than Missouri is granted with leave to amend. GEHA's consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims under Missouri law are
dismissed with prejudice.

A further Case Management Conference was set for January 6, 2015.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP,J.
Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey
L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane
Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff,
Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law
Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson,
P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva,
Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth
Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr.,
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold
Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State
Attorney General's Office,Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf,
P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P.
Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Karen M. Leser-
Grenon, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Krishna Brian
Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law
LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross
LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman
Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler,
Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph
B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs
LLP, Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP,Stephen C.
Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard &
Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H.
London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,Daniel C. Girard,
Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P.
Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law & Ryan James
McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Steven Roller, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Marie Friedman,
Krause Kalfayan Benink and Slavens LLP, Andrew Michael Purdy,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP,
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Ralph
B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens & Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance
Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented byChristina H Sharp, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz
LLP & Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP.

NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J.
Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey
L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane
Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff,
Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law
Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson,
P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva,
Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm,Elizabeth
Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr.,
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold
Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State
Attorney General's Office,Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf,
P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P.
Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian
Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law
LLC,Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross
LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman
Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler,
Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph
B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells
& Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D.
Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP,William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift &
Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., On Behalf of Itself and all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Russell
Kohn, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Archana Tamoshunas, Taus, Cebulash &
Landau, LLP, Caitlin Goldwater Coslett, Berger Montague PC, DAVID
F. SORENSEN, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., ELIZABETH SILVA, FARUQI &
FARUQI LLP, Joseph T. Lukens, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, SARAH
SCHALMAN-BERGEN, BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

DROGUERIA BETANCES, INC., On Behalf of Itself and all others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E Gerstein,
Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, Elena K Chan, Garwin Gerstein
Fisher, Erin R Leger, Smith Segura Raphael LLP, Jonathan Gerstein,
Garwin Gerstein etal, Joseph Opper, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP,
Keith J Verrier, Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Noah H
Silverman, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, Peter Russell Kohn,
Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, David Coleman Raphael, Jr., Smith Segura
Raphael, LLP, Ephraim R. Gerstein, GARWIN GERSTEIN FISHER LLP,
Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Gregory S.
Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector
Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills
& Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff
and Asher LLC,Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP,
David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig
Williams & Davidson, Derek Yeats Brandt, Simmons Browder Gianaris
Angelides Barnerd LLC, Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan,Douglas
R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard
Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R.
Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz
LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's
Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University
of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith
Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning,
Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael M.
Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P.
Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Mitchell M. Breit, Hanly Conroy
Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP,Natalie Finkelman Bennett,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan
Axler LLC,Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B.
Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Sarah S. Burns, Simmons Hanly
Conroy, Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C.
Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard &
Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H.
London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Roofers Local 96 Health and Welfare Fund, on their behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Jeffrey L.
Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane
Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Vincent J. Esades, Heins
Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and Welfare
Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David Richard Woodward, Heins
Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman &
Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson,
P.L.C., Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Minnesota Cement Masons Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson,
P.L.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff &
Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Painters District Council No.30 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by William J. O'Brien, Attorney at Law, Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC.

PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by STEWART L. COHEN, COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER
LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP,
MICHAEL COREN, COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH, Michael D. Donovan,
Donovan Searles, LLC & Noah I. Axler, Donovan Searles and Axler.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 22 HEALTH &
WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith
Narine, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 115 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by MINDEE J. REUBEN, WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Robert
Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

IRENE KAMPANIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert William Sink, Law
Offices of Robert W. Sink, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP,
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C. &
William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC.

Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation Engineers
Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Frank R. Schirripa, Hach Rose Schirripa &
Cheverie, LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J.
Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, James
Gerard Stranch, III, Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, James Gerard
Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey L. Kodroff,
Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Meghan Boone, Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michael A. Rose, Hach Rose
Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP,Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills &
Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and
Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP,
David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig
Williams & Davidson,Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R.
Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard
Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R.
Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz
LLP,John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office,
Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San
Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine,
Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller
Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman,
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton,
Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC,
Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause
Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP,
Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen,
Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC
&William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, Gregory S.
Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector
Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills
& Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff
and Asher LLC,Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP,
David Baylis Franco, The Dugan Law Firm, APLC, David W. Mitchell,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson,
Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan
Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett
D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A.
Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law
Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou,
New York State Attorney General's Office,Joseph C Kohn, Kohn,
Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law,
Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller,
Miller Law LLC,Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman
& Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie
Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah
I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan &
Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan
James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly,
Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz &
Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP,William E.
Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner
London & Millen LLC.

TWIN CITY IRON WORKERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C.,
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Cesar Castillo, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Steinfeld,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Bradley Demuth, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
Brent William Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Charles F. Barrett, Charles
Barrett, P.C.,Juan R. Rivera Font, Juan R. Rivera Font LLC, Linda
P. Nussbaum, Supreme Court, State of New York,Thomas M. Sobol,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

American Sales Company, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byDavid S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John Radice, Radice Law Firm,
Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Charles F.
Barrett, Charles Barrett, P.C..

Government Employees Health Association, Inc, Plaintiff,
represented by Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio, Barbara J.
Hart, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC, David S. Nalven, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Noelle Ruggiero, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen
and Hart P.C., Peter St. Phillip, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen and Hart
P.C. & Uriel Rabinovitz, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen and Hart PC.
Iron Workers District Council of New England Welfare Fund, on
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards,
Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff,
Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner,
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein
Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of
Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and
Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew
Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Christina H Sharp, Girard
Gibbs LLP,Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson,
Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan
Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett
D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A.
Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law
Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou,
New York State Attorney General's Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn,
Swift and Graf, P.C.,Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law,
Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller,
Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP,
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan,Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink &
Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen
E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman,
Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP,
William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed
Kanner London & Millen LLC.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and
Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented byBrian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP,
David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Gregory S.
Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Heidi M Silton, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and
Toll PLLC,Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff &
Willis,P.C., Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Kristen
G. Marttila, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Renae Diane Steiner,
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert William Sink, Law Offices of
Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and
Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew
Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, David W. Mitchell, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson,
Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan
Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett
D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A.
Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law
Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou,
New York State Attorney General's Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn,
Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law,
Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller,
Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP,
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
LLP,Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink &
Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen
E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman,
Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP,
William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC, William H. London, Freed
Kanner London & Millen LLC & Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented byBrian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP,
Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards,
Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff,
Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner,
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein
Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of
Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and
Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew
Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, David W. Mitchell, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson,
Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan
Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett
D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A.
Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law
Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou,
New York State Attorney General's Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn,
Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law,
Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller,
Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP,
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink &
Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen
E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman,
Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP,
William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC, William H. London, Freed
Kanner London & Millen LLC & Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S.
Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,Joseph Anthony Meckes, Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Nathan Lane, III, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP,Noriyuki Shimoda, Squire Patton Boggs US LLP, Amy L. Brown,
Squire Sanders, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven C.
Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.
Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by David S.
Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,Joseph Anthony Meckes, Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Nathan Lane, III, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP,Noriyuki Shimoda, Squire Patton Boggs US LLP, Amy L. Brown,
Squire Sanders, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven C.
Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brigid M.
Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC,
Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, John A. Tarantino, Adler
Pollock & Sheehan P.C., David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, Emily H. Wood, Arnold & Porter LLP,Jonathan L. Stern, Arnold
& Porter LLP, MAHNU V. DAVAR, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Ryan Z. Watts,
Arnold and Porter LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher and Flom LLP.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by James
Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B.
Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP
& Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.

Watson Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Patrick
Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B. Asimow,
Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP &
Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.
Actavis Plc., Defendant, represented by James Patrick Schaefer,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold &
Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Karen
Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP & Steven C.
Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.

Anda, Inc, Defendant, represented by James Patrick Schaefer,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP,Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold &
Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Karen
Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP & Steven C.
Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.

ANDA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by James
Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B.
Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP
& Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.

Valmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by James
Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B.
Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP
& Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.

All Parties, Miscellaneous, represented by Daniel C. Girard,
Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.


TEMPUR-SEALY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Moved to June 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on an amended joint stipulation
and order to modify the October 20, 2014 scheduling order in the
case, MICHAEL DODSON, ALVIN TODD, and HENRY and MARY THOMPSON, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., formerly known as
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. and TEMPUR-PEDIC NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

The parties' court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Qu999qfrom Leagle.com, modified certain
deadlines in the case.

The Stipulation, among others, provide that:

     -- the deadline to file a motion for class certification is
moved from February 16, 2015 to June 16, 2015;

     -- the deadline to file opposition to the motion for class
certification is moved from April 6, 2015 to August 6, 2015;

     -- the class certification hearing is moved from July 2,
2015, to November 2, 2015.

CALL & JENSEN Mark L. Eisenhut, Matthew R. Orr, Aaron L. Renfro, A
Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, CA.

RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A. Douglas B. Brown, Esq., Daniel J.
Gerber, Esq., Darren McCartney, Esq., Samantha C. Duke, Esq.,
Orlando, FL, Attorneys for Defendants Tempur-Sealy International,
Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and
Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC.

ALLEN STEWART, P.C. Allen M. Stewart, Esq., Steve B. Jensen, Esq.,
Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq., Dallas, Texas.

AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP, Michael McShane, Esq., Jonas P. Mann, Esq.,
Dana M. Isaac, Esq. San Francisco, CA.

THE SIMON LAW FIRM, PC., John G. Simon, Esq., Ryan Keane, Esq.,
St. Louis, MO.

SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, L.L.P. Gary K. Shipman, Esq., William G. Wright,
Esq., Angelique Adams, Esq., Wilmingron, NC, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class.


THREE RABBITS: Faces "Oliva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elieser Cuba Oliva, Carlos L. Marquez and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. The Three Rabbits, Inc. d/b/a
Los Tres Conejitos, Inc., Ernesto J. Tarre, Cristina E. Sosa, Case
No. 1:14-cv-24913 (S.D. Fla., December 30, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Los Tres Conejitos bakery in Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAVEL SERVICES: Ill. Court Quashes Subpoena in "Charvat" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary M. Rowland of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied for lack
of standing a motion for protective order and to quash subpoena
filed in the class action lawsuit styled PHILIP CHARVAT, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAVEL
SERVICES, et al., Defendants, NO. 12 CV 5746 (N.D. Ill.).

The Court on its own motion quashes the subpoena issued to non-
party AB Data Group, requesting various documents and a deposition
related to the administration of the class action settlement in
Desai v. ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 11 CV 1925 (N.D. Ill.
filed Mar. 21, 2011).  Desai was a Telephone Consumer Protection
Act class action in which Philip Charvat, serving as a named
Plaintiff, was represented by the same counsel representing him in
the present action.

Judge Rowland found that because the requested information is
available from public sources, the Subpoena imposes an undue
burden on nonparty AB Data Group.  Judge Rowland directed the
Plaintiff to provide language for a proposed stipulation to the
Defendants regarding Desai v. ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 11
CV 1925 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 21, 2011) as follows: (1) the final
number of valid claims filed; (2) the amount paid per claim; (3)
the amount paid to Named Plaintiffs; and (4) the total amount paid
to Class Counsel.  The Plaintiff is also directed to provide a
copy of the Desai Claim Form to the Defendants.  The Plaintiff
shall provide the proposed stipulation and the Claim Form to the
Defendants by January 16, 2015.

A full-text copy of Judge Rowland's Jan. 5, 2015, memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/OK6CTQfrom
Leagle.com.

Philip Charvat, Plaintiff, represented by:

       Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq.
       BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
       155 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 9020
       Chicago, IL 60601
       Tel: (312) 729-5288
       Fax: (312) 729-5289

          -- and --

       Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
       BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
       727 Atlantic Avenue
       Boston, MA 02111
       Tel: (617) 738-7080

          -- and --

       Matthew P McCue, Esq.
       LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
       1 South Avenue, Third Floor
       Natick, MA 01760
       Tel: (508) 655-1415
       Fax: (508) 319-3077

Travel Services, Defendant, Pro Se.

Carnival Corporation & PLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Scott Becker, Esq. -- jbecker@smbtrials.com -- Swanson Martin &
Bell, LLP, Darren Brett Watts, Esq. -- dwatts@smbtrials.com --
Swanson, Martin & Bell, Joseph Paul Kincaid, Esq. --
jkincaid@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell, and Joshua Erik
Bidzinski, Esq. -- jbidzinski@smbtrials.com -- at Swanson, Martin
& Bell, Llp.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Elliot
Scott Wiczer, Esq. -- ewiczer@fflegal.com -- Foreman Friedman, PA,
Jeffrey Eric Foreman, Esq. -- jforeman@fflegal.com -- Foreman
Friedman, PA, John M Sheldon, Esq., Wiczer & Sheldon, LLC &
Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq. -- cmacivor@fflegal.com -- Foreman
Friedman, PA.

Elizabeth Valente, Defendant, represented by Michael James Zink,
Michael J. Zink.

Resort Marketing Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
James Zink, Michael J. Zink.

NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., Defendant, represented by Elliot Scott Wiczer,
Foreman Friedman, PA, Jeffrey Eric Foreman, Foreman Friedman, PA,
John M Sheldon, Wiczer & Sheldon, LLC & Catherine J. MacIvor,
Foreman Friedman, PA.

Resort Marketing Group, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Michael James Zink, Michael J. Zink.

Philip Charvat, Counter Defendant, represented by Alexander Holmes
Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick Law,
P.C., Matthew P McCue, Law Office of Matthew P. McCue & Matthew
Mccue, Law Office Of Matthew Mccue.


TRENDS KITCHEN: Faces "Nava" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Nava, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly
situated v. Trends Kitchen & Bath, Inc., and Mark Mercado, Case
No. 1:14-cv-10447 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of home remodeling and
commercial renovations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


U.S. BANK: D. Minn. Judge Narrows Claims in "Adedipe" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the District Court of Minnesota
ruled on the motions filed in the case Adetayo Adedipe et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Bank, National Association et al., Defendants,
No. 13-CV-2687 (JNE/JJK) (D. Minn.).

The Plaintiffs are former employees of U.S. Bank and vested
participants in the U.S. Bancorp pension plan. They sued U.S.
Bancorp, U.S. Bank, National Association and Nuveen Asset
Management LLC, alleging in their consolidated amended complaint,
that the plan's fiduciaries breached their fiduciary obligation
and caused the plan to engage in prohibited transactions. They are
pursuing the action through the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act or ERISA under the provisions governing fiduciary
responsibility that are codified at 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104, 1005,
and 1006.

Defendant Nuveen filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint while U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint or for partial summary judgment. The Defendants
argue that the consolidated amended complaint should be dismissed
in its entirety on various grounds, including that the plaintiffs
lack standing to bring this suit, their ERISA claims are time-
barred or have been released, and their pleading otherwise fails
to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure and motion for leave to file reply in support of motion
for relief.

Judge Ericksen granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss while denying plaintiff's motion for relief
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Relief under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(d).

A copy of Judge Ericksen's order dated November 21, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/vZOWf8from Leagle.com.

Adetayo Adedipe, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce
F Rinaldi, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, June Pineda
Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Karen L Handorf, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Mary J. Bortscheller, Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC, Michelle C Yau, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC,
Brian C Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Patricia A Bloodgood,
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Carolyn G Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP

Sherry Smith, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce F
Rinaldi, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, June Pineda
Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Karen L Handorf, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michelle C Yau, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL, PLLC, Patricia A Bloodgood, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Carolyn G
Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP

James J. Thole, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce
F Rinaldi, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, June Pineda
Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Karen L Handorf, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michelle C Yau, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL, PLLC, Patricia A Bloodgood, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Carolyn G
Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP

Marlene Jackson, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce
F Rinaldi, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, June Pineda
Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Karen L Handorf, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michelle C Yau, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL, PLLC, Patricia A Bloodgood, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Carolyn G
Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP

U.S. Bank, National Association, individually and as successor in
interest to FAF Advisors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP &
Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Nuveen Asset Management LLC, as successor in interest to FAF
Advisors, Inc., Defendant, represented byAaron D Van Oort, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Amanda S Amert, Jenner & Block, Brienne M
Letourneau, Jenner & Block, Craig C Martin, Jenner & Block & Elsa
M Bullard, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

Richard K. Davis, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Douglas M Baker, Jr, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Y. Marc Belton, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln
Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Peter H. Coors, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln
Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Joel W. Johnson, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln
Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Olivia F. Kirtley, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

O'Dell M. Owens, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln
Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Craig D. Schnuck, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Arthur D. Collins, Jr., Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Victoria Buyniski Gluckman, Defendant, represented by Stephen P
Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Jerry W. Levin, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln
Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP

David B. O'Maley, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Patrick T. Stokes, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Richard G. Reiten, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Warren R. Staley, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

U.S. Bancorp, Defendant, represented by Andrew J Holly, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP & Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Kaplan, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
Uber is facing a class action over spam texts.

James Lathrop used to look forward to getting text messages --
until Uber got his cellphone number.  The San Francisco-based
ride-sharing company has allegedly bombarded him with at least 19
texts in the past two months, urging him to sign up as a driver.

Fed up, he joined a lawsuit aimed at stopping the incessant texts.
The suit, filed Dec. 31 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco,
is one of many claims lodged recently against a wide variety of
businesses that have been allegedly pelting consumers with
unsolicited texts in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

"A lot of businesses are abusing text messages as a way of direct
marketing," said Hassan A. Zavareei, the lawyer representing four
named plaintiffs from three states in the spam-text case against
Uber, including Mr. Lathrop of Gresham, Oregon.  "It has become a
real nuisance."

A class action could force the company to compensate any consumer
who received the text messages even if they were not named as
plaintiffs, potentially increasing company costs.

The company, which offers an alternative to taxicab services by
allowing people to provide rides for a fee in their personal
vehicles, has also been on the hot seat lately for other reasons.

The Uber suit was filed by the Washington, D.C.-based firm of
Tycko & Zavareei.  It seeks $500 for each negligent violation over
the past four years, $1,500 for each knowing violation, punitive
damages and an injunction prohibiting Uber from sending texts via
the use of an automatic dialer or without recipients' prior
express consent.  The suit claims that the four plaintiffs and
unnamed members of the as-yet uncertified class suffered more than
$5 million in damages.  It will be up to a judge to allow the suit
to proceed as a class action.

According to the lawsuit, the ride-hailing company has been
aggressively seeking new drivers as it rapidly expands.  Founded
in 2009, Uber provides services in more than 200 cities in 45
countries.

"With millions of riders and ever-increasing demand for more rides
in even more cities," Uber's website states, according to the
lawsuit, "we are always working hard to recruit new drivers onto
the platform."

The texts have prompted complaints to the FCC, including from
someone who claimed Uber texted them at 1:44 a.m. and 4:10 a.m.

Mr. Lathrop was initially interested in becoming an Uber driver,
but stopped applying after he realized his car did not meet the
company's requirements.  At that point, however, the company had
his personal information and continued relentlessly to try to sign
him up, according to the lawsuit.

Another plaintiff, Julie McKinney of Lees Summit, Missouri, has
never been an Uber member, driver or user, but the lawsuit alleges
that in December she received at least three text messages from
the company about working as a driver.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Produce Executive Emails in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that
a California federal judge on Dec. 31 denied a motion by Uber
Technologies Inc. to withhold tens of thousands of emails from its
CEO and other top-level executives for the ride-sharing company in
a putative class action that alleges it misled customers by
pocketing part of a 20 percent gratuity fee.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen said producing emails from
chief executive Travis Kalanick and vice president of operations
Ryan Graves would not be "unduly burdensome" for the company,
backing a Nov. 26 order by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge
Donna M. Ryu.

"The court finds that Judge Ryu's decision is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law," Judge Chen said in the ruling.
"That Judge Ryu's order may require Defendant to review
approximately 21,000 documents does not represent an improper
burden given the potential role of defendant's CEO and Vice
President of Operations in defendant's challenged conduct."

An attorney for the plaintiff told Law360 that he is happy with
the judge's ruling.

"Uber was representing to consumers that it would charge them an
additional 20 percent of the metered fare as a gratuity for the
driver when, in fact, it was keeping a portion of that as a hidden
fee," said Jacie C. Zolna of Myron M. Cherry and Associates.
"Uber ceased this practice shortly after the lawsuit was filed.
The emails that were ordered to be turned over should shed light
on that decision, as well as the reasoning for Uber's decision not
to disclose the fee in the first place."

The ruling is just the latest setback for Uber, which is facing
various legal actions in several states regarding its gratuity
fees, airport surcharges and screening of drivers.

Customer Caren Ehret sued Uber in January 2014, claiming that she
used the company's mobile app to hire a car in Chicago in
September 2012 and was charged the mandatory 20 percent tip on top
of the cost of the metered fare.  She believed that the money
would go to the driver, but that turned out not to be the case,
her complaint said.

"Instead, Uber keeps a substantial portion of this additional
charge for itself as its own additional revenue and profit on each
ride arranged and paid for by consumers, including plaintiff and
the class," she said.

In September, Judge Chen dismissed Ms. Ehret's allegation that
Uber breached its contract with passengers, but let stand her
claims that the ride-share company violated California's unfair
competition law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, according to
court documents.

Magistrate Judge Ryu's November ruling also applies to emails for
Uber's general manager in Chicago, Andrew MacDonald.  The emails
in question span from April 2011 to June 2013.  Uber's motion for
relief from the nondispositive pretrial order of the magistrate
judge was denied in its entirety by Judge Chen on Dec. 31.

Plaintiffs are represented by Hall Adams III --
Hall@adamslegal.net -- of Law Offices of Hall Adams LLC, Jacie
Campbell Zolna and Myron Milton Cherry -- mcherry@cherry-law.com
-- of Myron M. Cherry and Associates, and Michael Francis Ram --
mram@rocklawcal.com -- and Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com --
of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Uber is represented by Amit B. Patel --
amitbpatel@quinnemanuel.com -- Arthur M. Roberts --
arthurroberts@quinnemanuel.com -- and Stephen A. Swedlow --
stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP.

The case is Caren Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc., case number
3:14-cv-00113, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kerry Reardon, James Lathrop, Julie McKinney, and
Jonathan Grindell, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
05678 (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's illegal actions of sending text messages to the
Plaintiffs on their cellular telephones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a nationwide passenger transportation
service that connects riders and drivers through a cellular
telephone application.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Must Face "Wit" ERISA Suit, Calif. Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the Northern District of
California denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case entitled
DAVID WIT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02346-JCS (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs and their family members were insured by employee-
sponsored health insurance plans governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). That each of these Plans
covers, among other things, treatment for mental illness and
substance use disorders, including residential care.

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against United Behavioral
Health (UBH), alleging that UBH has wrongfully denied their claims
and improperly limited the scope of their insurance coverage for
mental health and substance abuse-related residential treatment.

Plaintiffs claims that UBH committed a (i) Violation of Fiduciary
Obligations pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(1)(B); (ii) Improper Denial of Benefits pursuant
to ERISA Section 502 (a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B);
(iii) Equitable Relief pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(A), seeking equitable relief only to the
extent that the Court finds that the injunctive relief sought to
remedy, on claims 1 and 2, are unavailable pursuant to ERISA
Section 502(a)(1)(B),] 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) and; (iv)
Other Appropriate Equitable Relief pursuant to ERISA Section
502(a)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(B), seeking equitable
relief only to the extent that the Court finds that the injunctive
relief sought to remedy on claims 1 and 2 are unavailable pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B).

A copy of Judge Spero's order dated November 20, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/dNM5oufrom Leagle.com.

David Wit, Natasha Wit and Brian Muir, Plaintiffs, represented by
Meiram Bendat -- info@psych-appeal.com -- at Psych-Appeal Inc.;
Andrew Caridas -- acaridas@zuckerman.com -- Caroline E Reynolds --
creynolds@zuckerman.com -- D. Brian Hufford --
dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Jason S. Cowart --
jcowart@zuckerman.com -- at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP; Anthony F. Maul
-- AFMAUL@MAULFIRM.COM -- at The Maul Firm P.C.

Brandt Pfeifer, Lori Flanzraich and Cecilia Holdnak, Plaintiffs,
represented by D. Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com  --
Andrew Caridas -- acaridas@zuckerman.com -- Caroline E Reynolds
-- creynolds@zuckerman.com -- at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP; --
AFMAUL@MAULFIRM.COM - at The Maul Firm P.C.; Meiram Bendat --
info@psych-appeal.com -- at Psych-Appeal Inc.

United Behavioral Health, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Flynn - cflynn@crowell.com -- Jennifer Salzman Romano --
jromano@crowell.com -- Nathaniel Philip Bualat --
nbualat@crowell.com -- at Crowell & Moring LLP


UNITED STATES: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Air Travel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a 50-page complaint, Gerald Dix purported to bring a class
action on behalf of all airline passengers who (since
September 11, 2001) flew on, or were dissuaded from flying on,
commercial airlines because of the actions of the defendants (a
scattered collection of government employees, cities, and private
entities).

His claims assert violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c).  He alleges, for example, a vast, nationwide
conspiracy to rig the security equipment used at airports to
screen passengers so that the equipment falsely detects a
forbidden object and gives federal agents an opportunity to grope
passengers.  He also asserts that the Department of Justice and
FBI have conspired to enable terrorists to kill Americans.  He
uses racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and other offensive
language to inflame his allegations.  The district court
characterized the complaint as frivolous and dismissed Dix's
lawsuit.

Dix appealed the dismissal of a similar frivolous suit just months
ago.  In that earlier lawsuit, Dix sued on behalf of a putative
class of Metra commuters during the NATO Summit in Chicago, as
well all persons who flew on, or were dissuaded from flying on,
commercial airplanes since September 11, 2001.  Invoking his
trademark offensive language, and just as he does in the current
suit, he accused defendants of supporting jihadist attacks against
America.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal.

On appeal, Dix largely reiterates his gripes with the defendants,
but he develops no reasoned basis for disturbing the district
court's ruling that his allegations are frivolous.  The Seventh
Circuit found that the complaint indeed reflects paranoid and
delusional fears and is frivolous.  Thus, the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court.  Because Dix has
filed two frivolous appeals within the last few months, the
Seventh Circuit warned him that further frivolous appeals may
result in sanctions.

The appeals case is GERALD DIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN
TSA AGENT #1, et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-3015 (7th
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's order dated
Jan. 7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/udpy5Qfrom Leagle.com.


UTZ QUALITY: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Difrancesco and Angela Mizzoni, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-14744 (D. Mass.,
December 30, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive,
false, and misleading advertisement of its various snack foods
that the Products are all natural, when in fact they contain
unnatural genetically-modified ingredients.

UTZ Quality Foods, Inc. manufactures, markets, and distributes
various snack foods to consumers in Massachusetts and throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: emirabella@gnemlaw.com


VERSO PAPER: Maine Judge Dismisses Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------
No earlier than January 16, 2015, Verso Paper Corp. and Verso
Paper LLC (Verso) anticipate selling the Bucksport, Maine Paper
Mill to AIM Development USA, LLC and in anticipation of the sale,
Verso ceased paper mill operations in Bucksport.

Former or soon to be former Verso employees of the Bucksport Paper
Mill and their union have sued the Company, seeking a declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief against Verso concerning their
right to timely payment of severance pay and final wages,
including accrued 2015 vacation pay, in accordance with time
frames they say are established under state law.

In a January 6 Order available at http://bit.ly/1xY8P0Yfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. dismisses the
Plaintiffs' claims for severance pay because Maine law precludes
them from proceeding once the state of Maine Director of Bureau of
Labor Standards brought suit in state court against the
Defendants.  The Court also dismisses Plaintiffs' claims for
vacation pay because state rather than federal court, is a better
venue for adjudicating that claim.  The Court also dismisses
Plaintiffs' motion for attachment and trustee process because the
motion is related to enforcement of their severance and vacation
pay claims only, and dismisses the United Steelworkers' motion for
joinder as it relates to Plaintiffs' severance and vacation pay
claims because its motion is now moot.

The case is, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL LODGE, Plaintiffs, v. VERSO PAPER CORP.,
et al., Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-00530-JAW (D. Maine).


WALL'S COFFEE: Faces "Rosas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rosas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wall's Coffee Shop Inc. d/b/a Hollywood Diner, George
Bouzalas and Dionisios Kaloudis, Case No. 1:14-cv-10222 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 574 Avenue
of The Americas, New York, NY 10011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


WARB CORPORATION: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Cortes and Luis J. Ventura, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Jose Rosado and Warb Corporation
d/b/a La Vega Grocery, Case No. 1:14-cv-07562 (E.D.N.Y., December
30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate La Vega Grocery store located at
880 Glenmore Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Gastman, Esq.
      BORRELLI AND ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com


WASH MASTERS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Reyes Cruz, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216
(b) v. Wash Masters Management, L.L.C., Wash Masters, L.P., Fayez
Rezk, and Ali Sharaf, Case No. 3:14-cv-04569 (N.D. Tex., December
31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


YELP INC: Defendants Must File Dismissal Bid by February 6
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shawn A. Williams of the Northern District of
California approved the stipulation made by the parties in the
case JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:14-CV-03547-JST (N.D. Cal.).

On August 6, 2014, plaintiff Joseph Curry filed a putative class
action complaint against defendants Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman,
Robert J. Krolik and Geoffrey Donaker for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 25, 2014, plaintiff Mary Adams filed a similar putative
class action complaint in a separate action against defendants,
asserting the same or substantially similar violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 17, 2014, the Court entered an Order (1) Consolidating
Cases (2) Appointing Lead Plaintiff (3) Appointing lead counsel,
which consolidated the two complaints, appointed City of Miami
Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust as lead
plaintiff and appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead
counsel. The parties have met and conferred and asked the court to
approve these terms:

     (1) Plaintiffs shall file their consolidated amended
complaint on or before January 5, 2015;

     (2) Defendants shall file and serve their motion to dismiss
on or before February 6, 2015;

     (3) Plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on or before March 6, 2015;

     (4) Defendants shall file and serve their reply in support of
their motion to dismiss on or before March 20, 2015.

Judge Williams approved the parties' stipulation.  A copy of his
order dated November 21, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/vhN4Vp
from Leagle.com.

Shawn Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- and Kenneth J. Black --
kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- at ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP SHAWN,
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

Stephen H. Cyphen -- scypen@cypen.com -- at CYPEN & CYPEN,
Additional Counsel for Plaintiff

Gilbert R. Serota -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- at ARNOLD &
PORTER LLP, Attorney for Defendants Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman,
Robert J. Krolik and Geoffrey Donaker


ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS: Marsh and Jack Henry/FNBCT Deal Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER KRISTI MARSH and EVANS, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ZAAZOOM
SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-05226-WHO,
(N.D. Cal.) came for a hearing on December 17, 2014, before the
Honorable William H. Orrick upon the motion of Plaintiff Amber
Kristi Marsh and the Class she represents, for final approval of
the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release last signed by a
party on August 5, 2014.  Defendants Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.
(Jack Henry) and First National Bank of Central Texas (FNBCT) did
not oppose.

In an order signed by District Judge William H. Orrick, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/Qbv9iLfrom Leagle.com, the
granted final approval of the Agreement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate in all respects to the Class Members pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and orders the parties to
consummate the settlement in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.

The Court approved the payment of reasonable Settlement
Administration Costs to the Settlement Administrator, KCC Class
Action Services (KCC), not to exceed $28,832. In the event that
the Settlement Administrator's reasonable costs of administering
the Settlement exceed $28,832, the Settlement Administrator will
file a declaration with the Court explaining the basis for the
costs above $28,832 and seeking approval for payment of the
additional reasonable Settlement Administration Costs out of the
amount remaining from the Net Settlement Amount.

The Court approved an award of attorneys' fees of $28,750 and
costs and expenses of $607.95 to Class Counsel, which will be paid
from, and not in addition to, the Settlement Fund.

The Court approved an award to Named Plaintiff Amber Kristi Marsh,
on account of her service to the Class, in the amount of $1,000,
which will be paid from, and not in addition to, the Settlement
Fund.

The Court approved the payment of any unclaimed settlement
proceeds to be remitted under the cy pres doctrine to the
Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University
of California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall).

The Court dismissed the Action as against FNBCT and Jack Henry
only.

Amber Kristi Marsh, Plaintiff, represented by Denis M. Delja --
dmdelja@aogllp.com -- Arias Ozello Gignac LLP, Jeffrey Michael
Rosenfeld -- jeff@KRInternetLaw.com -- Kronenberger Rosenfeld,
LLP, Karl Stephen Kronenberger -- karl@KRInternetLaw.com --
Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP & Mike M Arias -- marias@aogllp.com --
Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP.

Stacie Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Denis M. Delja, Arias
Ozello Gignac LLP, Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld, Kronenberger
Rosenfeld, LLP, Karl Stephen Kronenberger, Kronenberger Rosenfeld,
LLP & Mike M Arias, Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP.

First National Bank of Central Texas, Defendant, represented by
Richard Martin Williams -- rwilliams@grayduffylaw.com -- Gray
Duffy, LLP & Caitlin R Maurer, Gray Duffy LLP.

Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caitlin R
Maurer, Gray Duffy LLP & Richard Martin Williams, Gray Duffy, LLP.

Data Processing Systems, LLC, Defendant, represented by Neil A.
Friedman Popovic -- npopovic@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Lai Lam Yip -- lyip@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton & Meredith Anne Jones-McKeown
-- mjonesmckeown@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Interested Party,
represented by Neil A. Friedman Popovic, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.


* Changes in Law Led to New Class Action Filings in 2014
--------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP
shared his thoughts on key trends in insurance class actions (and
class actions more broadly) over the last year.

Mr. Ackerman said "Changes in the law have frequently led to new
class action filings.  Most insurers are large organizations, and
changing daily practice across a claim or underwriting department
can be challenging, and take time.  When a state supreme court
changes the law, or makes new law in an area where there was none,
or when an insurance department issues a new regulation, and the
insurer does not conform to the new law quickly, or arguably makes
the change incorrectly, or fails to make changes retroactively (if
required), that has frequently led to new class action filings.
These are difficult (in some cases impossible) events to
anticipate (unless you are following other insurers' key cases
closely), and difficult to react to.  But if I were running an
insurance company's law department, I'd make that a priority."

"Class action settlements are becoming more difficult. Judges are
scrutinizing them more carefully.  Especially the attorneys' fees.
If you're in the Seventh Circuit, Judge Posner seems to hardly
ever find a fee award he likes.  And plaintiffs' lawyers may try
to drive up the overall settlement cost to the defendant in order
to garner more fees.  The options going forward, as I see them,
are two-fold. First, defendants can agree to a settlement that
provides reasonable and fair relief to the class, and leave the
fee award to the judge. If you trust the judge.  Second, make a
fair deal for the class and negotiate very aggressively on the
fees.  Good plaintiffs' lawyers probably know that they will not
get the same fee in a federal court they might have gotten ten
years ago.  And if their chances of class certification are not
very strong, they probably do not want to invest all of the time
and effort that will be required to get the chance to roll those
dice.

"Creativity matters.  The old, "tried and true" method of
defending these cases -- throwing in the kitchen sink of potential
individualized issues and variations -- may not be the best
strategy in 2014 or 2015.  Not all variations necessarily make a
difference.  But don't be afraid to make arguments that have not
been made before.  You need to know the case law inside and out
and dig deeply into the facts to demonstrate how the case will be
tried.  It's not quite as hard for courts to envision how these
cases will be tried because more of them (although still a very
small number) are actually being tried, including some prominent,
high-stakes ones."


* Supreme Court Set to Take Up 3 Major Class Actions This Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that class action
lawyers are waiting with bated breath to see whether the U.S.
Supreme Court will take up three major cases that threaten to
change the way they do business, including an appeal in a
California suit said to be an attempted "end run" around 2011's
landmark Concepcion decision.  December was a big month for class
action rulings in its own right, with major rulings in BP v. Lake
Eugenie and Dart Cherokee v. Owens.

In the former, the high court refused to review BP PLC's challenge
of its $9.2 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement, a deal the
energy giant claims allows people who weren't injured by the spill
to collect payments.  And in the latter, a 5-4 majority concluded
that the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion in refusing to review
a district court's conclusion that Dart hadn't provided enough
evidence to support its bid to transfer a class action to federal
court and couldn't cure the defect by submitting evidence later
on.

Now, the Supreme Court will turn its attention to requests that it
take up questions on standing, ascertainability and waivers in
2015.

SPOKEO V. ROBINS

First on the most-watched list is a case with broad implications
for standing requirements under federal consumer protection laws,
and lawyers say the Supreme Court's request of a brief from the
solicitor general makes it likely the court will take it.

In the litigation, people-search engine Spokeo Inc. is challenging
a Fair Credit Reporting Act suit accusing it of publishing false
information about a Virginia man.

The Supreme Court invited the solicitor general in October to file
a brief outlining the government's stance on Spokeo's bid to
overturn a Ninth Circuit decision that revived plaintiff Thomas
Robins' proposed class action alleging the company compiles false
information from various online and offline sources into reports
and sells them to subscribers.

The Ninth Circuit had ruled in February 2014 that the alleged
violations of Robins' statutory rights under the FCRA sufficiently
satisfied Article III's injury-in-fact requirement for standing.
But Spokeo countered that there is a circuit split on the issue
and that Robins must show actual harm.

"I think the Supreme Court needs to discuss this issue," Richard
Gottlieb -- rgottlieb@buckleysandler.com -- of BuckleySandler LLP
said.  "In my area, truth in lending, Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, [Telephone Consumer Protection Act], [Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act], it'd be very, very useful for courts
to say, you know what, in those circumstances where no one's
actually been injured, that's not a lawsuit . . . If they don't
[grant cert] in Spokeo, it would be a bad result."

Pasadena, California-based Spokeo's May petition for certiorari
has garnered support from some of its more prominent Internet
brethren, including Facebook Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc. and
Yahoo Inc., which lodged an amicus brief in June.

"There are other statutes that would have the same statutory
damages provisions and may not have a cap in class actions.  And
there's huge exposure at issue in those type of cases," Bruce
Allensworth of K&L Gates LLP said.  "I'm guessing the Supreme
Court is actually going to hear it this time around in that it's
asked the solicitor general to brief the issue."

The case is Spokeo Inc. v. Thomas Robins et al., case number 13-
1339, in the U.S. Supreme Court.


TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING V. INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES

In what's likely to be the first item on this list to be settled,
the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in January in a suit
that will better define the limits of disparate-impact claims, a
question with possible ramifications under multiple statutes.

In the suit, Inclusive Communities Project Inc. v. Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs, homebuilding,
insurance and financial services industry groups have urged the
high court to find that the law does not allow disparate-impact
discrimination claims to be heard under the Fair Housing Act.

The case centers around the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs' allegedly disproportionate allocation of
property tax credits to minorities in Texas.  The groups also took
issue with a rule by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development purporting to establish burden-of-proof standards in
disparate-impact claims.

"The real question, the hard question, in discrimination cases is
whether you have to prove actual discrimination or whether you can
prove indirect discrimination simply by showing statistically
different outcomes that stratify along racial or other suspect
grounds," said William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP.  "It's hugely controversial."

During the Texas department's Fifth Circuit appeal, HUD issued a
regulation that purports to establish standards for proving
disparate-impact claims under the FHA. Under the HUD regulations,
the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the challenged
practice has a discriminatory effect.  If that burden is met, the
defendant must then prove that the challenged practice is
necessary to achieve legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests.  If
the defendant meets that burden of proof, the plaintiff must
finally prove that those interests could be served by another
less-discriminatory practice.

"Depending on what the Supreme Court decides, this is a case
that's going to have a significant impact for class actions under
the FHA, and probably under related statutes like the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act," Mr. Allensworth said.

The case is Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs et
al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc., case number 13-
1371, in the U.S. Supreme Court.


CLS TRANSPORTATION V. ISKANIAN

A second pending request for cert in the Supreme Court concerns a
suit that lawyers say is an attempted "end run" around the
arbitration-related guidelines that Concepcion memorably laid out
in 2011 -- and it's being appealed from a state that carries a lot
of weight in the class-action world.

In CLS v. Iskanian, the California Supreme Court held that Private
Attorneys General Act claims can't be waived in employment
arbitration deals, saying the decision undermines federal
precedent.

The petition for certiorari in Iskanian will be considered in an
early-January conference.  Four legal and employer advocacy groups
have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear CLS Transportation
Los Angeles LLC's appeal.  The groups include the Pacific Legal
Foundation and the California Employment Law Council.

They're asking the high court to determine whether an arbitration
agreement's waiver of collective or representative actions under
PAGA is meaningfully distinguishable from a class action waiver.
If it is, it could undermine the broad sweep of Concepcion.

"This California decision creates an exception [to arbitration],"
Stern said. "It's more fallout, if you will, from the Concepcion
arbitration decision . . . In California, we've been very
resistant to arbitration, reluctantly so, and this is yet another
example where California's not quite ready to accept that there
can be class action waivers."

In the 2011 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion decision, the nation's
high court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state
laws invalidating class action arbitration waivers.  The June
Iskanian ruling strengthened the enforceability of class waivers
in arbitration agreements in the wake of Concepcion, but carved
out an exception for PAGA claims.

It "just strikes me as an end run around Title 9, because the PAGA
is nothing more than a statutory form of representative action
just like a class action. California is a magnet for class action
cases.  It's a huge economic state with what's generally perceived
to be a very liberal court system," Mr. Allensworth said.

The case is CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC v. Arshavir
Iskanian, case number 14-341, in the U.S. Supreme Court.


ATHENA V. ALLERGAN

In yet another pending bid for cert, the Supreme Court is being
asked to review a Federal Circuit ruling and decide whether
private plaintiffs have the power to override the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's enforcement choices and obtain court rulings
on matters that Congress delegated to the FDA.

If taken up, the ruling could affect all class actions regarding
food or drugs -- any product subject to FDA oversight, lawyers
say.  And it's a second case in which the solicitor general has
been asked to file a brief giving the U.S.' stance.

In August, Athena Cosmetics Inc. told the Supreme Court that
Allergan's claim that it violated a California unfair competition
law by selling its eyelash conditioner without regulatory approval
is preempted by federal law, countering Allergan's argument that
its claim relies only on state law.

The high court is being asked to decide whether the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act "impliedly preempts a private state-law claim for
unfair competition premised on a party's purported failure to
obtain FDA approval, where the FDA itself has not imposed any such
requirement," Stern said.

The Venture, California-based cosmetics company argued in its Aug.
5 reply brief that although Allergan argued in its opposition
brief that its UCL claim "depends entirely on state law," the
claim "borrows," as its predicate act, a violation of California's
Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, which requires new drugs to
be approved by the FDA "under . . . the federal act."

"By layering the UCL and the Sherman Law on top of one another,
Allergan constructed a state-law claim indistinguishable in effect
from a lack-of-approval claim under the [federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act] itself," Athena said.

Athena filed its petition to the high court in May, kicking off
the next round in a dispute between the two companies that dates
back to 2009. At that time, Allergan, which sells an FDA-approved
eyelash enhancement product called Latisse, added a claim under
California's unfair competition law to a patent suit against
Athena, contending that its rival violated the state law by
selling RevitaLash without drug approval from the FDA.

In its appeal to the Federal Circuit, Athena argued that the
California law simply incorporates provisions of the federal law
and that Allergan's suit interferes with the FDA's authority to
regulate products. But the Federal Circuit was unconvinced, ruling
in December that the FDCA does not preempt state law claims
involving prescription drugs, which is what it held RevitaLash to
be.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, Athena again claimed the
record "strongly indicates" that the FDA does not consider
RevitaLash to be a drug, even though the product contains an
ingredient similar to the bimatoprost in Latisse.

The case is Athena Cosmetics Inc. v. Allergan, case number 13-
1379, in the U.S. Supreme Court.


O'BANNON V. NCAA

A fifth closely watched case concerns one major front in NCAA
players' war to win more rights for themselves as they play under
the umbrella of the college system.

The Ninth Circuit is set to consider an appeal of a finding that
the National Collegiate Athletic Association broke antitrust law
by barring compensation for college athletes for the use of their
names, images and likenesses.  In November, antitrust professors
from law schools at 13 universities urged the Ninth Circuit to
reverse, saying the ruling turns courts into regulators.

The professors argued in their amicus brief that the California
federal court's injunction against the NCAA's system for
preserving student-athletes' amateur status centered on how the
court judged how the NCAA's restraints were enacted and not the
restraints themselves -- which they say the court deemed to have
procompetitive justifications.

Earlier in November, the NCAA kicked off appellate briefing with
its opening salvo in the long-running class action, which accuses
the college athletics organization of using its decades-old
amateurism rules to illegally deprive student-athletes of a share
of the billions of dollars made by licensing their names and
likenesses for television broadcasts and merchandise.

The litigation stretches back to 2009, when former student-
athletes Edward O'Bannon Jr. and Sam Keller filed separate suits
against the NCAA, Electronic Arts Inc. and Collegiate Licensing
Co. over the use of their likenesses.  Electronic Arts and
Collegiate Licensing settled with both plaintiff groups for $40
million in September 2013.  The NCAA reached a separate $20
million settlement over the use of athletes' likenesses in video
games in June.

The athletes have argued that the NCAA and its member conferences
and colleges formed a cartel that agreed to fix their compensation
at zero for the use of their likenesses.

The case is Edward O'Bannon Jr. v. NCAA et al., case number 14-
16601, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


                             *********

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 2015. 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 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *