CAR_Public/150115.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 11


                             Headlines

ABM SECURITY: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Augustus" Case Reversed
ADIR INTERNATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
AEROTEK INC: Dist. Court Compels Discovery in "Drake" Suit
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
AETNA INC: Cal. Patients Fight Change on Health Insurance Policy

AETNA INC: Court Grants Manz's Reconsideration Bid in ERISA Case
AGEHA JAPANESE: "Ie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ARCH RESOURCES: Dist. Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Yocupicio" Case
ARS NATIONAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
BANK OF AMERICA: $5.8-Mil. "Boyd" Class Settlement Approved

BLUESTONE PROPERTY: Faces Class Action Over EMSA Fees
BNK-BUSINESS REALTY: "Gama" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BNY MELLON: Obtains Favorable Ruling in MBS Class Action
BP WEST: "Kelly" Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
BUILDING MATERIALS: April 22 Settlement Approval Hearing Set

C & H LAWN: Faces "Tejada" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CALIFORNIA: To Fight Class Action Over Education Funding Formula
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jones" Suit Claims
CRST VAN: EEOC Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fee Award Dispute
DAIMLER: Supreme Court Ruling May Provoke More Litigation

DE ROSSI AND SON: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Summary Judgment Entered in Ridgewood Suit
ECOTALITY INC: Settles Securities Suit for $1.1 Million
ELI LILLY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Cymbalta Class Action
ENTERGY CORPORATION: Class Cert. Ruling in Jenkins Case Reversed

FACEBOOK INC: Judge Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed
FANNIE MAE: April 3 Proof of Claim Submission Deadline Set
FEDERATED SERVICE: Summary Judgment Bids Ruled in "Stoms" Suit
FIRST STUDENT: Removes "Hurst" Suit to Oregon District Court
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Sued for Abusing Fair Debt Collection Act

FLY LOW: Suit Seeks to Recover Straight Wages, Damages Under FLSA
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Hearing Held on Conflict of Interest
GEICO GENERAL: Trial Court Ruling in "Elberson" Case Reversed
GENERAL MOTORS: Volts Have Defective Steering System, Suit Claims
GERBER PRODUCTS: Mislabeling Class Suit in California Dismissed

GLOBAL TRAVEL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Turner" Suit Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Can't Arbitrate NCUA Dispute Over MBS Sale
GRAND REVIEW: Faces "Bravo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GRILL CONCEPTS: "Jerome" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES: Obtains Initial OK of Hayward, Zodiac Deals

HEALTH NET: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Inferior Health Plans
HOLMES EUROPEAN: Faces Suit Over Communications Act Violations
HOOTERS OF TRUSSVILLE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
INTELLIGENT MEXICAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
INTER-CON SECURITY: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Upheld

JACK IN THE BOX: Trial Court Ruling Upheld in Customers' Suit
JAMBA JUICE: Class Action Plaintiffs Foreswear Collective Damages
JEFFREY-ALLEN INC: Removes "Aguda" Suit to Florida District Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jilted Class Action Attorney Sues Plaintiff
JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Junks "Flushable" Toilet Paper Suit
KINETIK INDUSTRIAL: "Michael" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
KINGS COUNTY, CA: Faces Convict Laborers' Class Action
KINRAY INC: Fernandez, et al. Allowed to Amend Class Action
LAPTOP & DESKTOP: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Business Practices

LEPAGE BAKERIES: Illegally Withholds Employees Wages, Suit Claims
MARION, IN: Jails Inmates Days After Release Date, Suit Says
MASSAGE ENVY: Removes "Robinson" Suit to Florida District Court
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Court Rules on Discovery Request
MF GLOBAL: January 21 Deadline Set for Settlement Objections

NAT'L FOOTBALL: 7 Players Can't Appeal Conditional Certification
NAVISTAR INC: "Klinger" Suit Included in MaxxForce Engines MDL
NAVISTAR INC: Priority Suit Consolidated in MaxxForce Engines MDL
NEATO BURRITO: Faces "Ruggiero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NEW YORK, USA: Sued for Collecting Info on Mental Health Patients

NIELSEN AUDIO: Has Until Feb. 13 to Respond to "Orea" Class Suit
ONE STOP PERSONNEL: Removes "Rojas" Suit to W.D. Pennsylvania
OPTICAL EXPRESS: 50 Patients Join Class Action Over Mplus X Lens
PACIFIC BELL: Class Cert. Denial in "Koval" Case Affirmed
PAUL COMO: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Moran" Suit Claims

PEARL RIVER: Trial Court Judgment in Crowe Case Amended in Part
PETSMART INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PROSSER HOLDINGS: Judge Won't Reverse Fee Order in EFTA Suit
RELIANCE GOLD: Faces "Coley" Suit in New Jersey District Court

RUFFALOCODY LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Anvar" Suit Claims
SAGESMITH CONSULTING: Sued in N.Y. for Making Unsolicited Calls
SKECHERS USA: Faces 18 Suits Arising From Sale of Toning Shoes
SONY PICTURES: Faces "Exum" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
SONY PICTURES: Faces 2nd "Exum" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING: 3rd "Myart" Complaint Denied in Part
SPENCER & LIVINGSTON: Wash. Court Revives "Riverview" Suit
SYNGENTA CORP: "Collins" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Krielow" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "McClain" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL

SYNGENTA CORP: "McCorkle" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Neely" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: RJR Farms Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SZ ENTERPRISES: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in FLSA Suit
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Gori" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TARGET CORP: Judge's Data Breach Class Action Ruling Significant
TING HSIN: Consumer Foundation Mulls Class Suit Over Tainted Oil
TOP FINANCE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Guzman" Case Reversed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: DoJ Mulls Blind Customers' Discrimination Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Illegally Collects Safe Ride Fees, Suit Claims

UNARCO INDUSTRIES: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to E.D. Oklahoma
UNITED STATES: Accused of Denying Medicare Coverage to Recipients
UNITED STATES: Flores' Suit v. FBI Dismissed with Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Labor Dep't Sued Over Alleged Sex Bias Claims
VERIZON COMMS: Judge Tosses Class Suit Accord in Vodafone Deal

WELLS FARGO: App. Ct. Affirms TRO v. ILG in "Lofton" Wages Suit
WESTWOOD BOARDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
WHOLE FOODS: "Frydman" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
YESHIVA BNOS: "Cordoba" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ZYNGA INC: "Lee" Securities Action May Proceed Against D&Os

* Fax Ads Must Contain Opt-Out Notice Requirements Under JFPA
* Video Games Sector Target of Publicity Case Attorneys


                            *********


ABM SECURITY: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Augustus" Case Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Augustus and others, formerly security guards employed by
ABM Security Services, Inc., allege on behalf of themselves and a
class of similarly situated individuals that ABM failed to provide
rest periods required by California law in that it failed to
relieve security guards of all duties during rest breaks, instead
requiring its guards to remain on call during breaks. The trial
court certified a class and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary
adjudication, concluding an employer must relieve its employees of
all duties during rest breaks, including the obligation to remain
on call. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on the issue
of damages, seeking unpaid wages, interest, penalties, attorney
fees and an injunction. Finding no triable issue as to whether ABM
was subject to approximately $90 million in statutory damages,
interest, penalties, and attorney fees, the court granted the
motion.

According to the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division One, the summary adjudication and summary judgment orders
rest on the premise that California law requires employers to
relieve their workers of all duty during rest breaks.  The Calif.
Appeals Court concludes that the premise is false, and therefore
reverses the orders.  The certification order is affirmed, the
Court added in its December 31, 2014 decision, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/vvIjBqfrom Leagle.com.

The case is JENNIFER AUGUSTUS, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v. ABM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NOS.
B243788 & B247392.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Theane Evangelis --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Andrew G. Pappas --
apappas@gibsondunn.com -- and Bradley J. Hamburger --
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com ; Littler Mendelson, Keith A. Jacoby --
kjacoby@littler.com -- and Dominic J. Messiha --
dmessiha@littler.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Paul Hastings, Paul Grossman for California Employment Law Council
and Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Appellant.

Thompson & Knight, David R. Ongaro -- David.Ongaro@tklaw.com -- as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Horvitz & Levy, John A. Taylor, Jr. -- jtaylor@horvitzlevy.com --
Robert H. Wright -- rwright@horvitzlevy.com -- and Felix Shafir --
fshafir@horvitzlevy.com -- as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant
and Appellant.

Shaw Valenza, D. Gregory Valenza -- gvalenza@shawvalenza.com -- as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, Drew E. Pomerance --
dep@rpnalaw.com -- Michael B. Adreani -- mba@rpnalaw.com -- and
Marina N. Vitek -- mnv@rpnalaw.com ; The Ehrlich Law Firm, Jeffrey
Isaac Ehrlich -- jehrlich@ehrlichfirm.com ; Initiative Legal
Group, Monica Balderrama -- MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com -- and
G. Arthur Meneses -- AMeneses@InitiativeLegal.com ; Scott Cole &
Associates, Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- and Matthew
R. Bainer -- mbainer@scalaw.com ; Law Offices of Alvin L. Pittman,
Alvin L. Pittman for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Law Offices of Louis Benowitz, Louis Benowitz as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

The Turley Law Firm, William Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com
-- and David T. Mara as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and
Respondents.


ADIR INTERNATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ned Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Adir International, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00076 (C.D.
Cal., January 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Adir International, LLC is in the business of buying and
collecting consumer debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


AEROTEK INC: Dist. Court Compels Discovery in "Drake" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara B. Crabb granted a motion to compel
discovery in the case captioned ANDREW DRAKE, on behalf of himself
and a class of employees and/or former employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC., Defendant, NO. 14-CV-216-
BBC, (W.D. Wis.).

In this proposed class action, plaintiff Andrew Drake alleges that
he and other employees like him have worked overtime for defendant
Aerotek, Inc. without appropriate pay under Wisconsin wage and
hour laws. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery
related to putative class members, current and former managers of
class members, current and former office directors and certain
documents in defendant's possession.

Because the Plaintiff has shown that these requests are reasonably
calculated to lead to information relevant to Plaintiff's
arguments for class certification and defendant has not shown that
the requests are unduly burdensome, plaintiff's motion will be
granted, wrote Judge Crabb in her December 30, 2014 opinion and
order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NYGKhsfrom
Leagle.com.

The parties were given until January 6, 2015 to propose language
for a protective order. Defendant Aerotek, Inc. must serve full
and complete responses to plaintiff's discovery requests no later
than noon on January 30, 2015, Judge Crabb added.

Andrew Drake, Plaintiff, represented by Heath P. Straka --
straka@gcllawyers.com -- Gingras, Cates & Luebke, S.C., John C.
Mitby -- JMitby@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP, Michael J. Modl
-- mmodl@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP, Paul A. Kinne --
kinne@gcllawyers.com -- Gingras, Cates & Luebke, S.C. & Robert
John Gingras -- gingras@gcllawyers.com -- Gingras, Cates & Luebke,
S.C.

Aerotek, Inc., Defendant, represented by John S. Battenfeld --
jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joyce
Elaine Taber -- jtaber@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis, Lincoln O.
Bisbee -- lbisbee@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Thomas F. Hurka -- thurka@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Kendall W. Harrison -- kharrison@gklaw.com --
Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamshid Khodavandi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., David A. Dodd,
Juergen Engel, Dennis Turpin, Jude Dinges, Richard Sachse, and
Paul Blake, Case No. 3:15-cv-00091 (D.N.J., January 6, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Aeterna Zentaris, Inc.is a biopharmaceutical company primarily
engaged in developing treatments in oncology and endocrinology.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Aeterna
Zentaris, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 313-1887
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AETNA INC: Cal. Patients Fight Change on Health Insurance Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Aetna, starting
January, will force customers with HIV or AIDS to buy medicine
from a subsidiary or pay thousands of dollars or more each month,
a class action claims in California Federal Court.

John Doe, et al. sued Aetna, Aetna Healthcare, and Aetna Specialty
Pharmacy on Dec. 19.  They also claim that the new policy will
invade their privacy.

According to the 65-page lawsuit, Aetna enrollees as of Jan. 1
will be "required to obtain their specialty medications to treat
HIV/AIDS and other serious illnesses from ASP, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Aetna."

ASP delivers medications only by mail, threatening the privacy of
HIV and AIDS patients, the class claims.

"Class members who live in apartment buildings or will be required
to have medications delivered to their work place have expressed
alarm that neighbors and co-workers, who do not know that the
recipient has HIV/AIDS, will come to suspect that they are ill,"
the lawsuit states.  "Mail-order shipments also present the risk
of lost or stolen medications, as each shipment of medications may
be worth thousands of dollars."

Also, enrollees will be forced to obtain medications based on the
schedule of the delivery person, as the recipient must be present
when the package arrives, the complaint adds.

Patients who continue to use their community pharmacy "must pay
thousands of dollars or more each month to purchase their
medications at their community pharmacy (hereafter, the
'program')," the lawsuit states.  "The dramatic cost increase is
the result of Aetna's reduction in health plan benefits
effectuated by transforming drug purchases at community pharmacies
from an 'in-network' covered benefit to an 'out-of-network'
payment."

If enrollees choose to have their medications delivered, they say
they will suffer a 20 percent co-insurance charge of up to $150
per prescription.  Before the change, enrollees paid a fixed
amount of $20-$70 per prescription.

"For all but the wealthiest HIV/AIDS patients, such dramatic cost
increases are untenable and thus many class members are left with
no choice but to risk their health and privacy by obtaining their
life-sustaining medications by mail," the complaint states.

According to the class, Aetna's new policy does not allow for
early deliveries.

"If there are circumstances that make it difficult for the patient
to re-order drugs at the time -- for the example, workload,
travel, illness -- or if there are any processing or mail delays,
HIV/AIDS patients will likely miss doses and potentially
experience serious health problems as a result," the lawsuit
claims.

The mail program is further flawed because enrollees can't
transfer all of their medications to the program.  "Instead, the
mail-order program is limited exclusively to specialty
medications, requiring the patient to manage prescriptions between
several locations and bounce between their community pharmacy and
receiving their mail-order deliveries," according to the lawsuit.

The class claims Aetna will profit by keeping hundreds of
thousands of dollars in prescription fill fees to itself.

Doe seeks class certification, restitution, and wants Aetna and
its subsidiaries enjoined from implementing the program.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edith Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEYKALLAS, LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com


AETNA INC: Court Grants Manz's Reconsideration Bid in ERISA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY CHIROPRACTERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AETNA, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3761 (MAS)
(TJB), (D. N.J.) is a putative class action brought by healthcare
providers and chiropractic professional associations against an
insurance company and its affiliates, claiming violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

Plaintiffs bring suit against Aetna, Inc., and several of its
affiliated or subsidiary companies ("Aetna") claiming that the
company engages in retroactive benefit determinations that do not
comply with ERISA. On June 17, 2011, the Court granted Aetna's
motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by Drs. Peter Manz,
D.C. ("Dr. Manz"), and Leon Egozi, M.D. ("Dr. Egozi"), pursuant to
provider agreements negotiated between them and Aetna. Since the
Court's decision, the Third Circuit decided a somewhat similar
case, CardioNet, Inc. v. CignaHealth Corp., 751 F.3d 165 (3d Cir.
2014), which Drs. Manz and Egozi contend effects an intervening
change in the law warranting reconsideration of the Court's prior
decision.

In response, Aetna contends that the CardioNet decision does not
modify controlling law and seeks to enforce a settlement it
negotiated with Dr. Egozi during the course of arbitration. Aetna,
along with its opposition, filed a cross-motion seeking the
Court's enforcement of a settlement and release negotiated with
Dr. Egozi. Drs. Manz and Egozi filed a reply brief, in which Dr.
Egozi simultaneously withdrew his portion of the motion for
reconsideration.  As a result, only Dr. Manz still moves for
reconsideration.

District Judge Michael A. Shipp, in an opinion dated December 31,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/cEgmpDfrom
Leagle.com, granted Dr. Manz's motion for reconsideration.
Aetna's motion to enforce the settlement agreement was denied as
moot.

The Court vacated its prior order compelling the arbitration of
Dr. Manz's claims.


AGEHA JAPANESE: "Ie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fortunataliana Ie, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Ageha Japanese Fusion, Inc., Zhong Hong Bao,
and Chun Yong Chen, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-00063
(S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full-service restaurant doing
business as Ageha Japanese Fusion and located at 767 9th Avenue,
New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


ARCH RESOURCES: Dist. Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Yocupicio" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George H. Wu denied plaintiff's motion to remand
and request for attorney's fees and costs in the case captioned
Porfiria Yocupicio v. PAE Group, LLC. et al., CASE NO. CV 14-8958-
GW(JEMX), (C.D. Cal.).

Porfiria Yocupicio filed this putative class action in state court
against her former employer, a staffing company called Arch
Resources Group, LLC (Arch), asserting claims for: (1) missed meal
periods, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512; (2) missed rest
breaks, id Section 226.7; (3) unpaid minimum wages, id. Section
1194; (4) unpaid overtime, id. Sections 1194, 1198; (5) unpaid
vacation time, id. Section 227.3; (6) failure to timely pay
temporary employees, id. Section 201.3; (7) waiting-time
penalties, id. Sections 201-03; (8) inaccurate itemized wage
statements, id. Section 226; (9) unfair competition, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17200; and (10) related penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code
Section 2698 et seq.  In November 2014, Arch removed the case to
the Court under authority conferred by the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 (CAFA).  Shortly after removal, Plaintiff filed the
Motion to Remand and Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs.

Until April 2014, Arch was known as PAE Group, LLC (PAE). In April
2014, PAE filed a certificate of amendment, changing its name from
PAE Group, LLC to Arch Resources Group, LLC.

A copy of the Court's December 29, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/NRtBVHfrom Leagle.com.

Justin F. Marquez, Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs.

Michael E. Chase, Attorneys Present for Defendants.


ARS NATIONAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Dier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00002 (E.D.N.Y., January 2, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: $5.8-Mil. "Boyd" Class Settlement Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit TERRY P. BOYD, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORP., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. SACV 13-0561-DOC (JPRX) (C.D.
Cal.) is a class and collective action, alleging against
Defendants overtime violations, wage statement violations and meal
and rest period violations.  The second amended complaint added
Victor Galaz as representative plaintiff.

Defendants are Bank of America Corp., LandSafe, Inc., and LandSafe
Appraisal Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants maintained a uniform policy
misclassifying hundreds of California-based real estate appraisers
as exempt. As a result, Plaintiffs maintain, these employees were
not paid overtime for long hours and were not provided meal and
rest periods, in violation of the California labor code.

The Collective Class is defined as: "All persons who are or have
been employed by Defendants as Appraisers, including employees
with the job title 'Staff Appraiser' or 'Residential Appraiser'
and any other employee performing the same or similar duties for
Defendants and Review Appraisers within the United States at any
time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the
final disposition of this case."  The California Class is defined
similarly, but with a four-year statute of limitations. Two sub-
classes are also defined for the California penalty claims, based
on the different statutes of limitations for those claims.

District Judge David O. Carter entered an order on Nov. 18, 2014,
available at http://is.gd/4d0bu7from Leagle.com, granting final
approval of partial class action settlement and approval of
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Settlement includes a payment of $5,800,000, all of which will
be distributed and none of which reverts to Defendants, plus the
employers' share of payroll taxes on the portion of the settlement
payments considered wages.  The Settlement also includes a
reclassification of the Review Appraiser position to non-exempt,
which Plaintiffs expect to have significant financial benefits for
all Review Appraisers going forward.  The Settlement pays on
average more than $10,200 each to approximately 370 Review
Appraisers who worked for Defendants since 2009 (in California) or
2010 (nationwide).

From the $5,800,000 common fund:

  -- One-third of the Settlement Amount will be deducted as
     attorneys' fees ($1,933,333.33);

  -- reimbursement of actual litigation costs of $30,000 will be
     applied;

  -- an enhancement payment to Mr. Galaz of $15,000 is approved;

  -- a payment of $18,750 to the California Labor Workforce
     Development Agency ("LWDA") for the PAGA claims is approved;

  -- claims administrator charges for printing and mailing the
     Notice of Settlement, processing opt-in forms, calculating
     payment amounts, and issuing and mailing settlement checks,
     along with related necessary tasks, to total not more than
     $20,000, is approved.

By virtue of the Settlement, the claims of the Settlement Class
Members are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear his,
her, or its own costs, the District Court rules.

Terry P Boyd, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Bryan J Schwartz, Bryan Schwartz Law Offices, Aidan
C McGlaze, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman and Harrison
LLP, Benjamin Schonbrun, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman LLP, Michael D Seplow, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman LLP, William C Jhaveri-Weeks, Bryan Schwartz Law & Wilmer
J Harris, Schonbrun DeSimons Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP.

Ethel Joann Parks, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Bryan J Schwartz, Bryan Schwartz Law Offices, Aidan
C McGlaze, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman and Harrison
LLP, Benjamin Schonbrun, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman LLP, Michael D Seplow, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman LLP, William C Jhaveri-Weeks, Bryan Schwartz Law & Wilmer
J Harris, Schonbrun DeSimons Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP.

Sonia Medina, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Bryan J Schwartz, Bryan Schwartz Law Offices, Aidan
C McGlaze, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman and Harrison
LLP, Benjamin Schonbrun, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman LLP, Michael D Seplow, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman LLP, William C Jhaveri-Weeks, Bryan Schwartz Law & Wilmer
J Harris, Schonbrun DeSimons Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP.

Linda Zanko, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, represented by
Bryan J Schwartz, Bryan Schwartz Law Offices, Aidan C McGlaze,
Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman and Harrison LLP,
Benjamin Schonbrun, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman
LLP, Michael D Seplow, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman
LLP, William C Jhaveri-Weeks, Bryan Schwartz Law & Wilmer J
Harris, Schonbrun DeSimons Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP.

Victor Galaz, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan C McGlaze, Schonbrun
DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman and Harrison LLP, Bryan J Schwartz,
Bryan Schwartz Law Offices, Michael D Seplow, Schonbrun DeSimone
Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, William C Jhaveri-Weeks, Bryan
Schwartz Law & Wilmer J Harris, Schonbrun DeSimons Seplow Harris &
Hoffman LLP.

Bank of America Corp, Defendant, represented by Christopher A
Killens -- ckillens@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Matthew
Charles Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
Michael David Mandel -- mmandel@mcquirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP & John A Van Hook -- jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods LLP.

LandSafe Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher A Killens,
McGuireWoods LLP, Matthew Charles Kane, McGuireWoods LLP, Michael
David Mandel, McGuireWoods LLP & John A Van Hook, McGuire Woods
LLP.

LandSafe Appraisal Services Inc, Defendant, represented by
Christopher A Killens, McGuireWoods LLP, Matthew Charles Kane,
McGuireWoods LLP, Michael David Mandel, McGuireWoods LLP & John A
Van Hook, McGuire Woods LLP.


BLUESTONE PROPERTY: Faces Class Action Over EMSA Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Tulsa World reports that Bluestone Property Management LLC, kept
residents' $5 payments and opted out of the EMSA program,
according to a lawsuit filed by Brenda Poitra in Tulsa County
District Court.  It seeks class-action status for residents of
Westminster and three other apartment complexes in Tulsa and
Oklahoma City.

Ms. Poitra, 52, developed pneumonia and had to be rushed to the
hospital for treatment.  But like other residents of the
Westminster Apartments in east Tulsa, she paid an extra $5 a month
to the complex to be covered by EMSA's utility fee program, so at
least Ms. Poitra knew that ambulance bill would be paid.

But the $1,036 bill wasn't paid because the company that managed
Poitra's complex, opted out of the EMSA program.

Ms. Poitra said before she even knew a bill was due, EMSA's law
firm, Works & Lentz, sued her and garnished her wages in 2011.

"I thought there was no charge for the EMSA ride and all of a
sudden I got garnished at work.  I had to pull out of my 401k and
in the meantime I am still trying to take care of my husband and
work 40 to 50 hours a week," she said.

Under the utility fee program, now called EMSAcare, residents in
14 cities served by EMSA can pay a fee on their utility bills and
incur no out-of-pocket costs for most ambulance transports.  EMSA
is a government agency that provides ambulance service to
residents in Tulsa, Oklahoma City and surrounding cities.

Some cities allow property owners to opt out of paying the fee,
making them responsible for paying out-of-pocket costs due to
ambulance service.  In cases where apartment complex owners opt
out, managers are required to obtain signed notifications from
residents of that decision.

Ms. Poitra said she never saw or signed such a notice at
Westminster.

When Ms. Poitra got sick again in 2011 and 2012, each time
requiring ambulance transports, she built up more debt to EMSA.
Her apartment manager said she should talk to EMSA, while
officials at EMSA referred her back to the property management
company for answers.

Ms. Poitra finally demanded and received from the complex manager
an itemized list of all monthly payments she had made to be
covered by the EMSA program.  Soon after that, flyers began
appearing throughout Westminster notifying residents they weren't
covered by EMSA's utility fee program, she said.

Then Bluestone sold the complex, a deal that Ms. Poitra said was
finalized last month.

Bluestone Property Management LLC is located in Indiana, according
to corporation records on file with the state.  Calls and emails
to the company were not returned.

Bob Pezold, an attorney who filed the suit, said records indicate
Bluestone Property Management LLC collected $5 monthly fees from
tenants at three complexes in Tulsa and one in Oklahoma City.

Combined, the four complexes have more than 1,000 units, he said.
Mr. Pezold said residents of three Tulsa complexes were affected
by the practice: Westminster, 4858 S. 78th East Ave.; Wood Creek,
11107 E. Brady St.; and Bandon Trails, 2505 E. 88th St.  He said
residents in Oklahoma City's Seminole Ridge apartments were also
charged the EMSA fees.

A property manager for Westminster said on Jan. 2 that the complex
was sold in November and that neither Westminster nor Wood Creek
are managed by Bluestone Property Management.

Bluestone's website lists its only Oklahoma rental properties as
Bandon Trails in Tulsa and Seminole Ridge apartments in Oklahoma
City.

Kelli Bruer, a spokeswoman for EMSA, said records show
Westminster, Wood Creek and Bandon Trails all opted out of the
EMSA program at various points during 2011.

"Rather than paying EMSA the fees that Bluestone collected from
Plaintiff and Class Members, Bluestone 'opted out' of
participation in EMSA's utility fee program for all of the
properties, and Bluestone kept the five-dollar-per-month fee . . .
for Bluestone's own use and benefit," the suit states.

Additionally, the suit claims tenants were charged $5 "when the
actual cost was approximately $3.70 per month."  The fee on Tulsa
utility bills was $3.64 until September, when it increased to
$5.45.

Mr. Pezold said complaints from apartment residents surfaced while
attorneys were working on an unrelated lawsuit against EMSA that
seeks class-action status for some patients.  That lawsuit, which
alleges improper billing practices in the utility fee program,
remains pending.

EMSA is not a party to the lawsuit against Bluestone Property
Management LLC.

Mr. Pezold said the complexes were not sued individually because
Bluestone managed the properties, collecting rent and fees,
including the fee for the EMSAcare program.  In some cases such as
Poitra's, residents were sued and their wages garnished due to
ambulance bills they believed they did not owe, he said.

"When we started checking these apartment complexes, all of them
that opt out are supposed to get something signed by each
resident," Mr. Pezold said.  "There's a penalty that the city is
supposed to enforce and we found out they haven't been doing
that."

Records show EMSA sued Ms. Poitra after her 2010 transport and
obtained a judgment of $1,036 plus legal fees and costs.  EMSA
garnished Ms. Poitra's wages and the judgment was paid in full in
2011, records show.


BNK-BUSINESS REALTY: "Gama" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yasmin Gama, and other similarly situated individuals v. BNK-
Business, Realty & Investments, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Alvaro Sanchez, Victoria F. Campo, Sergio Sanchez, Juan
C. Zuniga, and Vanna Nikolov, Case No. 0:15-cv-60031 (S.D. Fla.,
January 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


BNY MELLON: Obtains Favorable Ruling in MBS Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
siding with BNY Mellon and its lawyers at Mayer Brown, a Manhattan
federal appeals court has thwarted a potential class action
brought by pension funds seeking to recoup losses from the
financial institutions that served as trustees for residential
mortgage-backed securities trusts.  Under the ruling, the pensions
can only pursue claims related to trusts they actually invested
in.

The Dec. 23 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit is a setback for plaintiffs trying to bring sweeping class
actions alleging breach of duty against trustees that managed
residential mortgage-backed securities trusts.

A group of pensions -- including a retirement fund for Chicago's
police officers and a general retirement fund for the city of
Grand Rapids, Mich. -- had alleged that BNY was liable for losses
stemming from misconduct by Countrywide Financial, which
originated and serviced the underlying mortgages.  The pensions
claimed that BNY breached its duties as a trustee by failing to
inform investors of defects with the trusts' mortgages.

Although the named plaintiffs had invested in only 26 RMBS trusts
managed by BNY, lawyers from Scott + Scott sought to represent a
class of investors with a stake in any of 530 different BNY
mortgage securitization trusts.  The Second Circuit's ruling cuts
off that potential class action, holding that since no two trusts
are necessarily the same, the pensions can only sue over the BNY-
managed trusts they invested in.

"In short, the nature of the claims in this case unavoidably
generates significant differences in the proof that will be
offered for each trust," ruled U.S. Circuit Judge Debra Ann
Livingston, who wrote the court's opinion.  "Given these
differences, plaintiffs' quest to show BNYM's wrongdoing with
respect to their own certificates does not encompass proving
claims related to certificates from other trusts."

The Second Circuit also addressed whether RMBS trusts are subject
to the federal Trust Indentured Act, which places obligations on
certain trustees.  Manhattan U.S. District Judge William Pauley
III, who is presiding over the BNY case at the lower court, had
ruled that the TIA did apply to RMBS trusts.  But the appeals
court reversed, finding that the act didn't apply to a vast
majority of BNY's trusts.

William Fredericks -- wfredericks@scott-scott.com -- of Scott +
Scott, who argued the appeal for the pension funds, couldn't
immediately be reached for comment on
Dec. 24.

Mayer Brown's Charles Rothfeld -- crothfeld@mayerbrown.com -- who
argued the appeal at the Second Circuit, referred us to BNY Mellon
for comment.  A spokesman for the bank said the company was
"pleased with court's decision."


BP WEST: "Kelly" Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned CHARLES KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01507-KJM-CKD, (E.D.
Cal.)/.

Charles Kelly purchased gasoline at BP West Coast Products LLC
(BP)'s ARCO station. After he chose to pay with a debit card, an
electronic display at the pump station warned Kelly he would be
charged a $0.35 fee. He bought gas despite the fee and
consequently brought this action, alleging he was the victim of a
bait-and-switch scheme. BP moved to dismiss the complaint.

Judge Mueller dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  A copy of
the December 30, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/vn1H8D
from Leagle.com.

Charles Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson --
mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- Carlson Legal Services.

BP West Coast Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by Isabelle
Louise Ord -- isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP, Mark
Allen Nadeau -- mark.nadeau@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Thomas
Alexander Cierny -- alec.cierny@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP.


BUILDING MATERIALS: April 22 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If You Own Property With GAF Timberline(R) Roofing Shingles Made
Between 1998 and 2009,

You Could Receive Benefits from Class Action Settlements

Settlements have been reached with Building Materials Corporation
of America (known as GAF Materials Corp.) ("GAF") involving
Timberline(R) roofing shingles ("Shingles").  The lawsuits claim a
defect that might cause the roofing Shingles to prematurely crack,
split or tear.  GAF claims that the Shingles were not defective
and that GAF's warranty appropriately covers any problems.

The Settlements include two Classes covering Shingles made: (1)
between 1999 and 2007 at GAF's plant in Mobile, Alabama and (2)
between 1998 and 2009 at other GAF manufacturing plants.

Am I included?

You may be included if you own any property in the United States
with Timberline(R) Shingles made during the relevant time periods.

What do the Settlements provide?

The benefits you may be eligible to receive are based on: (1) the
location of your property, (2) where your Shingles were made, (3)
the date your Shingles were installed and the date on which you
make a claim, (4) the type and extent of damage to your Shingles,
and (5) the size of your roof.

You may be eligible to receive: (1) replacement shingles
(comparable to the Shingles installed) and/or (2) a cash payment.
The Settlements will not reduce the benefits you may be entitled
to under any existing GAF warranty.

The attorneys representing the Classes are asking the Court for
attorneys' fees (up to $6,890,000 in total) and costs and expenses
(up to $1,115,000 in total).  Counsel will also request an
incentive payment for the Class Representatives.  The payment of
costs and expenses, and the incentive awards, will be paid by GAF
and will not reduce the benefits under the Settlements.

The attorneys representing the Class covering Shingles made in
Mobile are also asking for a portion of the additional benefits
going to Class Members with property outside South Carolina.
These fees will not be paid by GAF and would in these instances
reduce a percentage of the enhanced benefits to some Class
Members.

How can I make a claim?

In order to get benefits, you need to file a claim.  You can find
out how to file a claim by visiting www.RoofSettlement.com or
calling 1-866-759-6518.  You can file a claim over the next seven
years after the effective date of the Settlements.

What are my rights?

If you do nothing, you will be bound by the Settlements and the
Court's decisions.

If you want to keep your right to sue GAF, you must exclude
yourself from the Classes by March 16, 2015.  If you stay in the
Classes, you may object to the Settlements by March 16, 2015.  The
Court will hold a hearing on April 22, 2015 to consider whether to
approve the Settlements.  You or your own layer may appear at the
hearing at your own expense, but you do not have to attend.


C & H LAWN: Faces "Tejada" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro R. Tejada and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. C & H Lawn Service Inc., Hanoi Macias,
Alejandro Datorre, Case No. 1:15-cv-20027 (S.D. Fla., January 6,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping services company 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


CALIFORNIA: To Fight Class Action Over Education Funding Formula
----------------------------------------------------------------
With the creation of the new state education finance system, the
Local Control Funding Formula, California has given school
districts the authority to spend funds as they see fit.  But does
local control absolve the California Department of Education of
its responsibility under the state Constitution to ensure equal
educational opportunity?

Rulings this year in the class action lawsuit Cruz v. California
will address what the state is required, or not required, to do
about disruptive conditions in eight high-poverty schools where
students allegedly are being denied significant amounts of
mandated instructional time.  State Board of Education President
Michael Kirst, an architect of the new funding formula, and State
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson have indicated
that the state will fight the lawsuit.


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jones" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katelyn Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc., and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00118 (D.N.J., January 6, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's abusive, deceptive and unfair
practices of collecting a debt.

Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc. is a company that uses
the mail, telephone, and facsimile to attempt to collect debts
alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
              bwolf@legaljones.com


CRST VAN: EEOC Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fee Award Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
after taking some hard lumps in the courts this year, the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission managed to save some face
in battle over attorney fees.  A federal appeals panel concluded a
judge was too quick to award nearly $5 million in fees to a
trucking giant represented by Jenner & Block, finding that such
awards require a more careful analysis by the courts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Dec. 22
rejected much of the lower court's decision, which put the EEOC on
the hook for legal fees and costs in a sex discrimination suit
against Jenner client CRST Van Expedited Inc.  U.S. District Judge
Linda R. Reade in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, had found CRST the
prevailing party in the case and awarded the company $4.69 million
in fees and costs -- one of the largest such awards against the
EEOC.

The ruling limits the fallout for the EEOC in a case that critics
have cited as an example of misguided enforcement by the agency.
But it doesn't end the EEOC's fee fight with Jenner & Block, which
has defended CRST against allegations that it created a hostile
work environment for female employees.

On remand, the firm can still argue for attorney fees with respect
to at least 83 individual claims on which CRST previously secured
summary judgment, the appeals court ruled.  For CRST to prevail,
however, the district judge must first assess each individual
claim and find it "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless."

"While we recognize that it is an arduous task, the . . . standard
requires the district court to make findings as to why a
particular 'claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless,'"
U.S. Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith wrote for the panel.  "Here, the
district court did not make these particularized findings."

The appeals court sided more definitively with the EEOC regarding
67 other individual claims, foreclosing Jenner & Block from
collecting fees in connection with those claims.  The district
judge had thrown out those claims after finding that the EEOC
didn't meet its obligations to try to conciliate before suing.
Since the claims were tossed because the EEOC failed to fulfill
its pre-suit duties and not on the merits, the Eighth Circuit held
Dec. 22 that CRST couldn't be considered a "prevailing party" for
the purpose of awarding attorney fees.

Jenner & Block's John Mathias Jr. -- jmathias@jenner.com -- who
argued for CRST in the appeal, called the decision "disappointing"
but declined to go into specifics about the ruling or plans for
any further appeal.

An EEOC spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.


DAIMLER: Supreme Court Ruling May Provoke More Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
According to The Litigation Daily's Michael D. Goldhaber, by the
time the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National
Australia Bank was 1 year old, the Federal Reporter was littered
with the bones of its billion-dollar casualties.  Daimler v.
Bauman, handed down by the high court last January, has slain
fewer giant cases.  But it has the potential to scorch wide
swathes through the case law, in ways both intended and
unintended.

Daimler abolished the "doing business" test for general
jurisdiction that had prevailed for nearly 70 years.  Now, unless
there's a link between the injury and the forum, a business can
only be sued "at home."  This cuts the number of states where a
court can assert general jurisdiction over a major U.S. company
from 50 to two: the place of incorporation and the main place of
business (putting aside the vague possibility that a company might
be "at home" in some third way).  Even more consequentially,
Daimler cuts the number of states where a court can establish
general jurisdiction over a non-U.S. defendant to zero.  As many
commentators have noted, this is bound to put pressure on other
forms of jurisdiction.

Daimler was immediately hailed in Forbes as a way to end shopping
for the friendliest forum in nationwide class actions.  But after
this summer's Plavix class action ruling by the California Court
of Appeals in Bristol Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, DRI-The
Voice of the Defense Bar blogged that "Forum Shopping Lives On"
despite Daimler.  The intermediate court ruled that out-of-state
plaintiffs were able to meet the test for specific jurisdiction
even though their injuries did not occur in California, in part
because the activities injuring plaintiffs nationwide were part of
a "common effort."  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce understandably
cried that specific jurisdiction was being distorted to undermine
Daimler, and the California Supreme Court accepted Bristol Myers'
petition for review.

Inflating specific jurisdiction is the first of three ways to get
around Daimler anticipated by Tanya Monestier in the Hastings Law
Journal.  The second (picking up on a suggestion that I made at an
Irvine symposium) is to try transplanting the civil law "forum of
necessity" doctrine. This approach has yet to be tried, and
Ms. Monestier is skeptical that it can pass constitutional muster.

Ms. Monestier thinks a more plausible argument is that
registration to do business in a state implies consent to general
jurisdiction.  A form of that argument has been accepted this year
by one New York state lower court, and rejected by another.  The
hitch is that the Supreme Court didn't embrace a third base
paradigm for general jurisdiction.  "At home" meant at home, and
"two" probably means two.  A final possibility for a cross-cutting
exception is the one Daimler granted cert on, but did not address
-- that a subsidiary's contacts be imputed to the parent through
some sort of agency theory to establish personal jurisdiction.

Daimler will create more acute access to justice problems for
plaintiffs hurt by non-U.S. defendants.  Out-of-state defendants
should be amenable to suit in two states.  But for out-of-country
defendants, there will sometimes be no equivalent forum.  In the
context of Daimler -- where the plaintiffs dragged the German
automaker to the U.S. from square one to bring a plenary action
grounded in alien tort for its alleged complicity in Argentina's
Dirty War -- this apparently didn't trouble the court.  How about
in the context of international arbitration?

Linda Silberman of New York University School of Law argues in a
provocative paper that actions to recognize or enforce awards and
judgments deserve to be treated under a different and lower
jurisdictional standard, such as the old "doing business" test
cast aside by Daimler.  A summary action following up an award
that has already been rendered by a forum with jurisdiction over
the merits imposes much less of a burden on the defendant, and
advances the pro-enforcement policy of the New York Convention.
The leading case is Sonera v. Cukurova.  In one front of a
worldwide war for control of a Turkish telecom, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit applied Daimler to vacate orders
enforcing a $932 million arbitral award against the Turkish
conglomerate Cukurova and enjoining Cukurova from selling assets,
transferring funds, or raising finances globally.  Professor
Ms. Silberman sees Sonera as a missed opportunity by the Second
Circuit (and the Supreme Court, which denied cert) to carve out an
exception to Daimler for recognition and enforcement actions.
Sonera was not really about enforcement, at least not directly,
for there were no U.S. assets to collect.  And if there were U.S.
assets, then the court could have asserted property-based
jurisdiction, and Daimler would have been irrelevant.  The point
is that an "enforcement" action will only turn on general
jurisdiction when a party wants something other than U.S. assets
-- for instance, to invoke the U.S. courts' expansive powers of
discovery or asset restraint.  The Sonera case in New York was
really about asset restraint.  In that sense, it has less in
common with an action to collect on an arbitral award than with
Gucci v. Bank of China, where the Second Circuit applied Daimler
to unfreeze the assets of intellectual property pirates held by
nonparty banks.

From the viewpoint of Cukurova's U.S. lawyers -- David Lindsey and
Andreas Frischnecht of Lindsey Chaffetz -- the asset restraint
proceedings were prolonged and burdensome, and a species of forum
shopping appropriate for Daimler to shut down.  Mr. Frischnecht
says we need a limiting principle, "because U.S. courts have the
ability to interfere with assets around the world that other
courts don't have."

On the other hand, harnessing the unique powers of U.S. courts (or
U.K. courts) to promote global enforcement of an arbitral award
effectuates the aims of the New York Convention.  Doing so to
promote a foreign judgment's enforcement would seem only to honor
the principle of comity.  At any juncture (including prejudgment),
broad powers to subpoena documents and freeze assets may promote
the public policy against fraud and other malfeasance.  To put
defendants with no U.S. assets (or portable assets) beyond the
reach of those powers may deprive some victims of access to
effective justice.  That the Supreme Court anticipated this
situation seems doubtful.

Is there any way around such a result? Mr. Frischnecht speculates
that a party will try to reduce an arbitral award to judgment in
another nation, and then seek asset restraints in New York courts,
where judgments (as opposed to awards) may be enforced without
personal jurisdiction.

Ms. Silberman offers that arbitration agreements might be
interpreted to imply consent to personal jurisdiction in
recognition and enforcement actions.  That argument failed in
Sonera v. Cukurova -- but Pieter van Tol of Hogan Lovells cites
helpful Fourth and Eleventh Circuit precedent in Sonera's petition
for certiorari.  Contracting parties who fear that U.S. courts
would deny jurisdiction might consider placing more explicit
consent language in their arbitration agreements.  Otherwise,
contracting parties who want the benefit of strong asset
restraints may opt for U.K. law in their arbitration agreement.

Daimler v. Bauman is sure to be cited a lot in the next 70 years.
It's true that general jurisdiction is a residual doctrine (needed
only in the absence of specific or property-based jurisdiction).
But Daimler matters profoundly for the location of nationwide
class actions, and for the viability of "enforcement" actions that
were brought for reasons other than collecting local assets.  Like
many Supreme Court cases, it will provoke more litigation before
it provokes less.


DE ROSSI AND SON: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faustino Gonzalez v. De Rossi and Son, Co., a/k/a Derossi and Son,
CO., and Donald De Rossi, Individually, aka Donald Derossi, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00090 (D.N.J., January 6, 2015), 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 clothing manufacturing factory
which makes and sells military uniforms in Vineland, Cumberland
County, New Jersey.

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


DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Summary Judgment Entered in Ridgewood Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ridgewood Manor II, Inc. v. The Delaware Manufactured
Home Relocation Authority C.A. No. 8528-VCN (Del. Ch.),
plaintiffs, landlords and tenants of manufactured home communities
throughout Delaware filed an action seeking declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and disgorgement of monthly assessments
collected under the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners
Act by Defendants from February 1, 2006, through April 8, 2014.
The parties have stipulated that there is no dispute of material
fact and have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On December 31, 2014, the Court of Chancery of Delaware ruled that
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted except for the
possibility that Plaintiffs are entitled to some measure of
recovery for the assessments collected between the date they filed
the Complaint and April 8, 2014.  Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment is granted as to the failure of the Board "to adopt an
adjusted assessment on or before January 31, 2006," or eliminate
the fee, but it is otherwise denied.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/ySJ3GN
from Leagle.com.

John W. Paradee Esquire -- jwparadee@prickett.com -- Joseph C.
Handlon Esquire, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. Scott W. Perkins,
Esquire 11 North State Street Department of Justice Dover, DE
19901 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801


ECOTALITY INC: Settles Securities Suit for $1.1 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers who filed a securities suit against Ecotality Inc., a
maker of electric car charging stations, have opted to settle for
$1.1 million after their case took a beating in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti of the Northern District of
California dismissed the suit in September, granting plaintiffs
leave to amend a handful of claims.  Instead plaintiffs agreed to
a deal, which they recently filed with the court.

The proposed settlement is a far cry from the $12.9 million in
damages plaintiffs lawyers with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd had
originally sought.

"Uncertainty about the amount of provable damages in this case was
a significant factor in lead plaintiff's willingness to settle the
case for $1.1 million," the lawyers wrote in their motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Cooley represents Ecotality.

Investors sued the company in August 2013, after Ecotality's
funding fell through and it was forced to file for bankruptcy.
They said company executives misled them about the success of a
botched government-funded electric car charging project.
But Judge Conti, calling the complaint "a redundant and repetitive
tangle of verbosity," ruled Ecotality's statements were protected
under federal securities law as forward-looking and corporate
optimism.


ELI LILLY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Cymbalta Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that the
year is ending on a sour note for plaintiffs in a string of
lawsuits accusing Eli Lilly & Co. of misrepresenting the
withdrawal risks of its blockbuster antidepressant, Cymbalta.

After a failed bid to consolidate more than two dozen individual
Cymbalta suits in California, plaintiffs lawyers at Baum, Hedlund,
Aristei & Goldman PC failed to persuade a judge to certify a
parallel class action brought by Cymbalta patients in California,
Massachusetts, Missouri and New York.  U.S. District Judge Stephen
Wilson in Los Angeles ruled Dec. 18 that the plaintiffs couldn't
establish damages on a classwide basis, finding their damages
theory both "novel" and "highly flawed."

The decision is a win for Eli Lilly's lawyers at Covington &
Burling, which is representing the drugmaker in Cymbalta cases
pending around the country.  The proposed class action is one of
the earliest cases alleging that Eli Lilly didn't provide enough
warning about Cymbalta's withdrawal symptoms, which include
paresthesia -- colloquially called "brain zaps" -- and other side
effects.

Lawyers for the proposed class don't claim the plaintiffs are owed
damages for personal injuries or that they were overcharged,
strictly speaking.  Instead, they argue that since Cymbalta's
withdrawal risks were allegedly higher than Eli Lilly warned, the
drug they purchased was worth less than the drug they thought they
were buying.  Lilly advertised a 1 percent risk for withdrawal
side effects, the plaintiffs claim, when the true risk was 44
percent.

Even assuming that Eli Lilly's warnings about Cymbalta withdrawal
were inadequate -- something Covington fervently contests -- Judge
Wilson still rejected the plaintiffs' damages model on Dec. 18.

Normally, the judge ruled, the price paid by consumers could be a
stand-in for a product's value.  Not so in the prescription drug
market, however, where there are "numerous complicating factors"
that "sever the relationship between price and value."

"This twist on the usual argument causes significant problems,"
Judge Wilson found.  "Even assuming that conjoint analysis can be
used to compute the relative value that consumers place on a drug
having a lower withdrawal risk (which Lilly disputes), [the]
proposed measure of damages is highly flawed."

Along with the proposed class action, which was filed in October
2012, Eli Lilly is facing at least 25 individual cases brought by
the same plaintiffs lawyers related to Cymbalta's withdrawal
risks.  Baum Hedlund and the firm's cocounsel, Pogust Braslow and
Millrood, have faced a series of recent setbacks in those cases as
well.

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet in Manhattan dismissed one of the
individual cases on Nov. 6, ruling that Eli Lilly had, in fact,
issued adequate warnings about the withdrawal risks.  Then, on
Dec. 10, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
denied the plaintiffs' attempt to consolidate the individual
actions in Los Angeles.  Among other things, the MDL panel found
that with just two plaintiffs firms and one defense firm
litigating all the cases, they were more or less coordinated
already.

Covington's Michael Imbroscio, Mark Lynch and Phyllis Jones are
defending Eli Lilly in both the proposed class action and the
individual suits.  In a statement, an Eli Lilly spokeswoman said
the company was pleased with Wilson's "comprehensive" opinion.


ENTERGY CORPORATION: Class Cert. Ruling in Jenkins Case Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENTERGY CORPORATION, ENTERGY SERVICES, INC., ENTERGY POWER, INC.,
ENTERGY POWER MARKETING CORPORATION, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC., AND
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC., Appellants, v. DAVID JENKINS, GEORGE W.
STRONG, FRANCIS N. GANS, AND GARY M. GANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, NO. 01-12-
00470-CV is an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's
order certifying a class action in a suit brought under the Texas
Theft Liability Act (the Theft Act).  In three issues, appellants,
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Power, Inc.,
Entergy Power Marketing Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and
Entergy Texas, Inc. contend that the trial court (1) lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over this suit, (2) abused its
discretion in finding that the requisites for class certification
had been established, and (3) abused its discretion by making
findings of fact and conclusions of law that misstate and misapply
the applicable law.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, on
December 30, 2014, held that since resolving this dispute involves
the consideration and interpretation of a Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission-approved tariff, this dispute falls within
FERC's exclusive jurisdiction.  Moreover, because Jenkins did not
exhaust his administrative remedies by first bringing this dispute
before FERC, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the case.

The Texas Appeals Court held that the trial court erroneously
denied Entergy's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and
that the trial court's class-certification order is therefore
void. Accordingly, it sustained Entergy's first issue.

A copy of the Court's opinion is available at http://is.gd/ZeYEiC
from Leagle.com.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that another
federal judge has put Silicon Valley on notice that scanning user
communications without consent may run afoul of the federal
Wiretap Act.

Ruling on Dec. 23, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the
Northern District of California refused to dismiss a proposed
privacy class action against Facebook Inc. over its screening of
users' private messages.  Plaintiffs lawyers at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein sued Facebook in 2013, claiming that the
company illegally intercepted the content of private messages
whenever users included a link to an outside website.

Judge Hamilton wrote that determining whether Facebook violated
federal and state privacy laws would require a factual inquiry
into its handling of messages.  The use of a so-called web crawler
to scan the content of users' messages could constitute an
interception under the Wiretap Act, she wrote, considering that
Facebook users did not give their express consent for such
scanning.

Facebook's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have argued that any
processing of messages carried out in conjunction with their
delivery should not be considered an interception under the
Wiretap Act, which carries statutory damages of up to $10,000 per
violation.  The social network analyzes messages to prevent
hacking and detect spam, partner Joshua Jessen told Judge Hamilton
at a hearing in October.  Additionally, such activity is shielded
from liability under the Wiretap Act, Mr. Jessen argued, because
it falls within Facebook's "ordinary course of business" as an
electronic communication service provider.

The exception has become a critical battleground in online privacy
litigation and Judge Hamilton's order in Campbell v. Facebook, 13-
5996, is the third from a Northern District judge to parse its
meaning.

Judge Hamilton said that without more specifics on the company's
practices she wasn't willing to adopt Facebook's broad
interpretation of the "ordinary course of business" exception.
"The statute's inclusion of the word 'ordinary' implies some
limits on a company's ability to self-define the scope of the
exception," she wrote.  "An electronic communications service
provider cannot simply adopt any revenue-generating practice and
deem it 'ordinary' by its own subjective standard."

Ruling in 2013, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh found Google's
scanning of Gmail to help sell targeted ads wasn't exempt
activity.  However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal dismissed a
separate suit challenging Google's collection of user data,
finding the exemption bestows broad protection for the "customary
and routine" business practices of electronic communication
service providers.

Using her colleagues' decisions as guideposts, Judge Hamilton said
there shouldn't be a "generic, one-size-fits-all approach," and
judges should consider the details of particular businesses to
determine whether the exception applies.  She offered to
reconsider the question with regard to Facebook's scanning
practices based on a more complete evidentiary record.

For now, her order allows illegal interception claims to proceed
under the Wiretap Act and California's analogous Invasion of
Privacy Act (CIPA).  Judge Hamilton knocked out a separate CIPA
claim as well as a claim under the state's Unfair Competition Law.


FANNIE MAE: April 3 Proof of Claim Submission Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The Shareholders Foundation on Jan. 5 disclosed that a deadline is
coming up on April 3, 2015 in the settlement reached in the
securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of Federal National Mortgage Association between
November 8, 2006 and September 5, 2008.

Investors who purchased a significant amount of shares of Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) between November 8,
2006 and September 5, 2008, have certain options and should
contact the Shareholders Foundation at
mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779  --  1554.

The settlement proof of claim form or detailed settlement notice
for the settlement in the Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae) Investor Securities Class Action Lawsuit 09/08/2008
can be downloaded at http://is.gd/zy1VOJ

In order to submit a claim an investor has to submit the claim
proof to the class action claim administrator in a timely manner.
The deadline to submit the proof with the class administrator is
April 3, 2015.  The class action administrator for this case is AB
Data Ltd.

The lawsuit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Federal National
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) over alleged violations of
Federal Securities Laws between November 16, 2007 and September 5,
2008.

The complaint charges certain of Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae)'s officers and/or directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) is a shareholder-owned,
government-sponsored enterprise of the United States federal
government that is authorized to make loans and loan guarantees.
It is the leading market-maker in the U.S. secondary mortgage
market, which helps to replenish the supply of money for mortgages
and enables money to be available for housing purchases.

The complaint alleges that between November 16, 2007 and
September 5, 2008, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie
Mae)'s business and prospects and misrepresented the company's
financial statements.  These false and misleading statements cause
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)'s stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices, reaching as high as $40.69
per share.

On July 7, 2008, a financial analyst at Lehman Brothers published
a report suggesting that Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae) might need to raise as much as $46 billion in
capital, causing the company's stock price to plummet 16% in a
single trading day.  Following that disclosure, former St. Louis
Federal Reserve Board President, William Poole, suggested that
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was nearly
insolvent and The New York Times disclosed that the federal
government was making plans to place Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) into a conservatorship.  On July 13,
2008, the Treasury Department announced that it was making a
temporary line of credit available to Fannie Mae and would
purchase an equity stake if necessary to provide more capital.
From July 7 through July 14, 2008, stock price declined over 48%.
Finally, on Sunday, September 7, 2008, in the biggest government
bail out in U.S. history, federal regulators seized control of
Fannie Mae.  On September 8, 2008, Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) stock opened at $1.91 per share, down
from a close of $7.04 per share on September 5, 2008, a 72%
decline.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public between
November 16, 2007 and September 5, 2008, were as follows: (a) the
decline in the U.S. housing market rendered Federal National
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) undercapitalized; (b) Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)'s December 2007 capital
raise did not meet its capital needs; (c) Federal National
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)'s May 2008 capital raise did not
meet its capital needs; (d) although Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) had more capital than its regulator
required, it did not have "surplus capital" as defendants claimed;
and (e) Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)'s
publicly disclosed financial results misrepresented the financial
condition of the company.

Those who purchased shares of Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) have certain options and should contact
the Shareholders Foundation.


FEDERATED SERVICE: Summary Judgment Bids Ruled in "Stoms" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case STOMS v. FEDERATED SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. NO.
N14C-01-163 MJB, was filed by Epiphany Stoms on behalf of herself,
on behalf of his husband's estate, and on behalf of their children
Alexis and Chad, demanding that Federated Service Insurance
Company pay supplemental uninsured motorists benefits, beyond the
statutory minimum, to compensate the family for medical expenses,
funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and punitive damages against
the uninsured motorist.

David Stoms, the husband of Epiphany, was involved in an
automobile accident with an uninsured driver.  David died and at
the time of his death, he was driving a car owned by his employer,
Diamond Motor Sports, Inc. and the vehicle was insured by Federal
Service.

The parties both moved for summary judgment.  An August 14, 2014,
hearing was held where the Court determined that the Plaintiff's
claim for punitive damages is proper.

In a Nov. 20, 2014 Opinion available at http://is.gd/15Xr23from
Leagle.com, the Superior Court of Delaware finds that Plaintiff's
cause of action against Federated is precluded as David did not
have supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage under
the Federated policy.

"For this reason, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and
Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is MOOT," the Court said.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Jonathan B. O'Neill, Esq.
     KIMMEL, CARTER, ROMAN, PELTZ & O'NEILL, P.A.
     56 W. Main Street, Plaza 273
     4th Floor, P.O. Box 8149
     Newark, DE 19714
     E-mail: jboneill@kimmelcarter.com

Attorney for Defendant:

     James S. Yoder, Esq.
     WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
     824 N. Market Street, Suite 902
     Wilmington, DE 19899
     E-mail: yoderj@whiteandwilliams.com


FIRST STUDENT: Removes "Hurst" Suit to Oregon District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hurst v. First Student, Inc.,
Case No. 1304-05955, is removed from the Multnomah County Circuit
Court to the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon
(Portland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
00021-HZ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from employment-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Arthur Schuck, Esq.
          SCHUCK LAW, LLC
          10013 NE Hazel Dell Avenue, Suite 178
          Vancouver, WA 98685
          Telephone: (360) 566-9243
          Facsimile: (503) 575-2763
          E-mail: dschuck@wageclaim.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer Neth Warberg, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          121 SW Morrison, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 221-0309
          Facsimile: (503) 296-5373
          E-mail: jwarberg@littler.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Sued for Abusing Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sholem Weber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00003-JG-SMG (E.D.N.Y., January 2, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLY LOW: Suit Seeks to Recover Straight Wages, Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Butler v. Fly Low, Inc., d/b/a King of Diamonds, a Florida
Corporation; AK "N" Eli, LLC d/b/a King of Diamonds, a Florida
Limited Liability Company; KODRENYC, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company; Elliot "Eli" Kunstlinger, an individual; Brian
Abraham, an individual; Akiva "AK" Feinsod, an individual; and,
Akinyele Adams, an individual, Case No. 1:15-cv-20009-DPG (S.D.
Fla., January 5, 2015) seeks to recover money damages for straight
wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

The Defendants owned and operated "King of Diamonds," a
gentlemen's club located in Miami.

Fly Low is a Florida Corporation having its main place of business
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  AK is a Florida Limited Liability
Company having its main place of business in Miami-Dade County.
KODRENYC is a Florida Limited Liability Company having its main
place of business in Miami-Dade County.  The Individual Defendants
are corporate officers, owners or managers of King of Diamonds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          Ria N. Chattergoon, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
                  ria@saenzanderson.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Hearing Held on Conflict of Interest
--------------------------------------------------------
MetroNews reports that a federal judge was set to determine
whether U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin and his staff have a conflict
of interest in prosecuting the water-contamination emergency
criminal case.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston scheduled a hearing for Jan. 5
to entertain a motion filed by the attorneys representing former
Freedom Industries president Gary Southern.  They claim a conflict
of interest because Goodwin, his staff and their families were
personally impacted by the water crisis.

Mr. Goodwin previously said he'll fight the motion.

Mr. Southern is one of four former Freedom executives named in
federal indictments in connection with the Jan. 9 spill of MCHM
into the Elk River in Charleston and the water emergency that
followed.


GEICO GENERAL: Trial Court Ruling in "Elberson" Case Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ELBERSON v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., NO. 14-
640 is an appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment
filed by an insurance company which purportedly provided
underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage to the plaintiff. The
insurance company paid the plaintiff the policy limits of its
policy and moved for summary judgment.  The trial court granted
the insurance company's motion.

On December 30, 2014, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third
Circuit held that the trial court impermissibly weighed evidence
related to material facts. Thus, it reversed the grant of the
motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  A copy of the Appeals Court's decision is available
at http://is.gd/MiTgYyfrom Leagle.com.

Cle' Simon, Carl Rachal, 122, Representative Row, P. O. Box 52242,
Lafayette, LA 70505, (337) 232-2000, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/
APPELLANT, Mary Elberson.

Stephen R. Barry -- sbarry@barrypiccione.com -- Daphne P. McNutt
-- dmcnutt@barrypiccione.com -- 405, West Main Street, Suite 101,
Lafayette, LA 70501, (337) 237-2889, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, GEICO General Insurance Company.


GENERAL MOTORS: Volts Have Defective Steering System, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that General Motors' 2011-14
Chevrolet Volts have a defective steering system that may lock up
or stick at highway speeds, a class action claims in New Jersey
Federal Court.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Mislabeling Class Suit in California Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge granted Gerber baby food summary judgment in a
class action that claimed it deceived consumers by labeling sugar-
laden snacks as good for toddlers.

A federal judge dismissed the case in 2007, but the 9th Circuit
reinstated it in 2008.

Natalia Bruton et al. claimed that Gerber mislabeled its Fruit
Juice Snacks as "nutritious" and "made with real fruit juice,"
with photos of oranges, peaches, strawberries and cherries on the
labels, though the main ingredients were corn syrup and sugar, and
the only juice was grape concentrate.

A federal judge dismissed the claim as puffery in 2008, but U.S.
District Judge Dean Pregerson reinstated it, writing: "We do not
. . . think that a busy parent walking through the aisles of a
grocery store should be expected to verify that the
representations on the front of the box are confirmed in the
ingredient list."

On Dec. 18, however, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Gerber
summary judgment, finding that Bruton failed to show that the
products are deceptive or unlawfully misbranded.

The case is Natalia Bruton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Gerber Products Company, Case No.
12-CV-02412-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


GLOBAL TRAVEL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Turner" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Travel International, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-
00013 (M.D. Fla., January 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Global Travel International, Inc. is a travel agency and provider
of a home-based business opportunity to independent travel agents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
      Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      7th Floor, 201 N Franklin Street
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
             jcohen@forthepeople.com
             rsoffin@forthepeople.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Can't Arbitrate NCUA Dispute Over MBS Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Goldman
Sachs & Co. can't force the National Credit Union Administration
to arbitrate a dispute over a sale of mortgage-backed securities,
despite the existence of a mandatory arbitration clause.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Dec. 23 held that the
NCUA's unusual power to repudiate burdensome contracts extends to
arbitration agreements.  The ruling upholds a decision by U.S.
District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan.
The NCUA is represented by David Frederick -- dfrederick@khhte.com
-- of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel.  Goldman Sachs
is represented by Richard Klapper of Sullivan & Cromwell.

The suit stems from the activities of Southwest Corporate Federal
Credit Union, which the NCUA took over in 2010.  The NCUA is
government agency tasked with supervising federally chartered
credit unions and it acts as a liquidating agent for failed credit
unions.  Three years after taking over Southwest, the agency sued
Goldman, claiming that it misrepresented the quality of $40
million worth of residential mortgage-backed securities that
Southwest bought from 2006 to 2007.  The securities were rated
triple-A when they were issued but were later downgraded to below
investment grade.

Goldman tried to force this dispute into arbitration, digging up a
one-page "Cash Account Agreement" that Southwest signed back in
1992, which appeared to create a broker-dealer relationship and
which required the arbitration of all disputes.

The NCUA argued that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989 gives it the power to repudiate any
contract of a failed thrift that's burdensome.  Goldman countered
that this repudiation power doesn't extend to procedural
provisions, such as agreements to arbitrate.  The Second Circuit
rejected that argument, as well as Goldman's contention that the
NCUA must produce more evidence that a contract would be
burdensome.

The NCUA has brought more than a dozen lawsuits against financial
institutions such as Goldman that sold mortgage-backed securities
to failed thrifts.  Goldman is the only defendant that attempted
to force the dispute into arbitration.  Other cases are pending in
Manhattan, Kansas City, Kan., and Los Angeles.  Last August, the
Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the defense argument
that the NCUA's claims were time barred under the statute of
repose.

Kellogg Huber's Frederick referred The Litigation Daily to his
client; an NCUA spokesman said the agency is pleased with the
court's ruling.


GRAND REVIEW: Faces "Bravo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marco V. Bravo, Wilson Vicuna, Blanca Alvarez, and Deifilio
Cordero, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Grand Review, LLC, Urban American Management Corp., and Urban
American Management, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00030 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 6, 2015), 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 real estate agency in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Constantine Tryfon Tzifas, Esq.
      ARTHUR J. SEMETIS, P.C.
      286 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 557-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 557-5051
      E-mail: ctzifas@semetislaw.com


GRILL CONCEPTS: "Jerome" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Jerome, Malik White, and Jennifer Gilner, for themselves and
others similarly situated v. Grill Concepts Services, Inc. d/b/a
Grill on the Alley a foreign corporation, Robert Spivak, and John
Sola, Case No. 1:15-cv-20024 (S.D. Fla., January 6, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Grill on the Alley restaurant in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samara Robbins Bober, Esq.
      Peter Joseph Marshall Bober, Esq.
      BOBER & BOBER, P.A.
      1930 Tyler Street
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 922-2298
      Facsimile: (954) 922-5455
      E-mail: samara@boberlaw.com
              peter@boberlaw.com


HAYWARD INDUSTRIES: Obtains Initial OK of Hayward, Zodiac Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Section: R(2), MDL NO. 2328, (E.D. La.), indirect-purchaser
plaintiffs (IPPs), together with Hayward Industries, Inc. and
Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc., moved the Court to preliminarily
approve a class action settlement between IPPs and Hayward and a
class action settlement between IPPs and Zodiac. The parties also
moved the Court to certify a class for the purposes of the Hayward
and Zodiac settlements.

District Judge Sarah S. Vance granted the joint motion on Dec. 31,
2014, in an order and reasons, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Wdbukjfrom Leagle.com.

Under the terms of the proposed Agreements, Hayward would pay a
settlement amount of $1.5 million and Zodiac would pay a
settlement amount of $500,000 into an Escrow Account pending final
approval by the Court. The Agreements require that the settlement
amounts be wire transferred by Hayward and Zodiac into the Escrow
Account within 10 days of when the Court enters a Preliminary
Order approving the settlements. Interest from the account will
accrue to the benefit of the settlement class.

The Agreements provides that the settlement amounts are "all-in"
figures, meaning that $1.5 million is the total amount Hayward
will pay and $500,000 is the total amount Zodiac will pay in
exchange for the released claims. Accordingly, the settlement
amounts will be used to pay: (1) the notice and administration
costs; (2) attorneys' fees and litigation expenses; (3) incentive
awards; (4) class member benefits; and (5) any remaining
administration expenses and any other costs of any kind associated
with the resolution of the action.

Both settlement agreements define the Settlement Class as: all
individuals residing or entities operating in Arizona, California,
Florida or Missouri, who or which, between January 1, 2008 and
July 16, 2013, purchased indirectly from PoolCorp (and not for
resale) Pool Products in Arizona, California, Florida or Missouri
manufactured by Hayward, Pentair, or Zodiac.

The Court approves Angeion Group as the Claims Administrator.
Angeion Group would be responsible for: (1) implementing and
coordinating the notice plan and (2) managing, accounting for, and
disbursing funds from the settlements, including tax reporting and
disbursing. Angeion anticipates that $60,000 will be sufficient to
cover these costs.

The Court also approves First NBC Bank as Escrow Agent. First NBC
Bank would be responsible for accepting deposit of, safeguarding,
and disbursing the settlement funds consistent with the final
settlement order and further orders from the Court. First NBC
Bank's fees will be capped at $2500.

Tom Brill is appointed as lead counsel for the settlement class.

Richard C Stanley, Special Master, represented by Richard C.
Stanley -- rcs@stanleyreuter.com -- Stanley, Reuter, Ross,
Thornton & Alford, LLC.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff,
represented by Russ M. Herman, Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff,
represented by Thomas J. H. Brill, Law Office of Thomas H. Brill.

Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Arnold
Levin -- ALevin@LFSBLaw.com -- Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman,
Daniel W. Krasner -- krasner@whafh.com -- Wolf, Haldenstein,
Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, Douglas G. Thompson --
dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Jay
L. Himes, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Linda P Nussbaum --
lnussbaum@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, Matthew B. Moreland
-- mmoreland@becnellaw.com -- Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Richard J.
Arsenault -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- Neblett, Beard &
Arsenault, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Ronald
J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Russ M. Herman, Herman,
Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP, Scott R. Bickford -- srb@mbfirm.com --
Martzell & Bickford & Vincent J. Esades -- vesades@heinsmills.com
-- Heins, Mills & Olson, PLC.

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Jay L.
Himes -- jhimes@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Robert N.
Kaplan -- rkaplan@kaplanfox.com --Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Ronald J. Aranoff --Aranoff@bernlieb.com  -- Bernstein Liebhard
LLP & Russ M. Herman -- rherman@hhkc.com -- Herman, Herman, Katz &
Cotlar, LLP.

Defendants' Liaison Counsel, Defendant, represented by William
Bernard Gaudet -- william.gaudet@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP.

Defendants' Lead Counsel, Defendant, represented by David H.
Bamberger -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP &
Deana L. Cairo -- deana.cairo@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP.

Manufacturer Defendants' Liaison Counsel, Defendant, represented
by Wayne J. Lee, Stone -- wlee@stonepigman.com -- Pigman, Walther,
Wittmann, LLC.

Federal Trade Commission, Movant, represented by Lisa Zeidner
Marcus, U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Div.


HEALTH NET: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Inferior Health Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net used bait-and-switch tactics to enroll Californians
into its inferior health plans under the federal Affordable Care
Act, a class claims in court.

Rebecca Lehman, of Los Angeles County, and Heather Womick, of
Orange County, filed the complaint on December 19 in Los Angeles
Superior Court against Health Net of California Inc., and its
subsidiary Health Net Life Insurance Co.

Despite Health Net's representations between Oct. 1, 2013, and
March 31, 2014, consumers who enrolled in the new plans soon
"discovered that their provider networks did not include the
providers Health Net had represented as in-network, and that those
provider networks were much more limited than previously
represented by Health Net," according to the complaint.

"Due to Health Net's actions and misrepresentations, plaintiffs
and class members are not able to fully access the benefits of the
plans they purchased," the complaint continues.

Among the superlatives that such conduct has earned, the class
notes that "Health Net made the fewest doctors available to its
enrollees in 2014, 'less than half what some other companies are
offering in Southern California.'"

Things are also going to get worse at Health Net in 2015, since
the company "will no longer offer PPO plans inside the covered
California exchange" as of Dec. 31, 2014, the complaint states.

"Compared to Health Net's PPO plans, Health Net's EPO plans offer
54% fewer doctors," the class adds.

Consumers say Health Net's practices allowed it to "significantly
increase[] its share of the California individual health plan
market, while offering inferior products," the complaint states.

Because Health Net concealed plan limitations from consumers,
however, they are now locked in those plans until the next
enrollment period, according to the complaint.

"Health Net's practices improperly shift the cost of medical care
onto plaintiffs and class members," the complaint states.  "Class
members with HMO and EPO plans, (sic) are at risk of huge unpaid
medical bills if they cannot access medical care in a timely
manner from the limited number of in-network providers.  For those
with PPO plans, the reduced networks can transform fixed co-
payments into percentage-based co-insurance arrangements that can
leave enrollees on the hook for hundreds of additional dollars."

The class says "Health Net's deceptive business practices resulted
in mass confusion."

Calling customer service at Health Net means that consumers "spend
hours navigating through a labyrinth of automated phone trees,
multiple transfers, average hold times of two to three hours, and
disconnections," the complaint states.

The class wants punitive damages for breach of contract and other
violations.

Consumer Watchdog attorney Harvey Rosenfield, Esq., of Santa
Monica, also filed the complaint.

The class is represented by:

          Travis M. Corby, Esq.
          SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY
          600 South Indian Hill Blvd.
          Claremont, CA 9171
          Telephone: (800) 458-3386
          Facsimile: (909) 625-6915
          E-mail: tcorby@shernoff.com


HOLMES EUROPEAN: Faces Suit Over Communications Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Holmes European Motors Inc. and Holmes
European Motors LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00003-JLH (E.D. Ark.,
January 5, 2015) seeks relief under the Communications Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Y. Hutchinson, Esq.
          201 East North Street
          Benton, AR 72015
          Telephone: (501) 315-0577
          Facsimile: (501) 778-7717


HOOTERS OF TRUSSVILLE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Pearman and Jodi Lee v. Hooters of Trussville, LLC, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00015 (N.D. Ala., January 6, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Hooters of Trussville, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in
Trussville, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      L. William Smith, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com
              jcg@wigginschilds.com
              wsmith@wigginschilds.com


INTELLIGENT MEXICAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit backed two Hispanic
marketing companies against former employees claiming it had
depressed their wages by hiring undocumented workers.

The court said the two plaintiffs in the putative class action,
Varela v. Gonzales, had failed to make a convincing case that by
allegedly "transporting, harboring, encouraging entrance of and
hiring . . . illegal aliens," the owners of Intelligent Mexican
Marketing Inc. and Marketing and Inventory Management had driven
their wages down.

Jaime Varela was a sales representative paid $46,000, and Yesica
Wiegert, a merchandiser, earned $26,000.  They claimed that the
two companies had hired at least 10 undocumented workers per year
between 2010 and 2013.  They sought to demonstrate that this
recruiting strategy effectively lowered their wages, and that it
was possible to evaluate the amount of lost wages.

"[T]he direct effect of the employment of only 10 undocumented
workers out of 100 workers is a loss of between $8,455 and $14,959
per worker, per year," their attorneys wrote.

But the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
found they had failed to demonstrate proximate cause.  It
dismissed two amended complaints and declined their motion to file
a third.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal on Dec. 11,
arguing that Mr. Varela and Ms. Wiegert had failed to explain how
the companies could have enough economic power to shape labor
markets.

Plaintiffs are represented by Rob Wiley PC and defendants by
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart.


INTER-CON SECURITY: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. (Inter-Con) appeals from an order
denying its petition to compel arbitration of a putative wage and
hour class action filed by Brian Bower. Inter-Con contends the
trial court erred in finding that it waived its right to compel
arbitration by engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent with
the right to demand arbitration. Inter-Con further argues that
Bower's claims should be arbitrated and that the arbitration
should be limited in scope to Bower's individual claims in light
of a waiver of class claims contained in the parties' arbitration
agreement.

According to the Court of Appeals of California, First District,
Division Three, it cannot say as a matter of law that Bower
suffered no cognizable prejudice. Hence, it concludes there was
substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding of
waiver, and it affirms the order denying the petition to compel
arbitration. Bower shall recover his costs on appeal.

A copy of the December 31, 2014 decision is available at
http://is.gd/4al261from Leagle.com

The case is BRIAN BOWER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. INTER-CON
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. A135940.

Ronald W. Novotny -- rnovotny@aalrr.com -- Robert R. Roginson --
robert.roginson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Amber M. Solano --
asolano@aalrr.com -- Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo PLC,
Counsel for Appellant, Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.

Matthew R. Bainer -- mbainer@scalaw.com -- Molly A. DeSario --
mdesario@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC, Counsel for
Respondent, Brian Bower.


JACK IN THE BOX: Trial Court Ruling Upheld in Customers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Pratt and Cleo Dixon acting in propria persona (pro.
per.), filed a putative class action against Jack in the Box,
Inc., and others alleging that defendants overcharged them for a
small combination meal that was upgraded to include large fries
and a large drink.  On appeal from a judgment of dismissal,
plaintiffs contend the trial court (1) erred in denying their
peremptory challenge to the assigned judge, (2) abused its
discretion in sustaining the defendants' demurrer without leave to
amend, and (3) abused its discretion in delaying consideration of
their motion to compel and in imposing discovery sanctions.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three
affirmed the judgment saying the plaintiffs' contentions lack
merit and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing discovery sanctions against plaintiffs. Their failure to
undertake meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing their
motions and the impropriety of the discovery requests at issue
provided a basis for the sanctions, which were significantly less
than defendants sought as compensation for having to respond to
the motions. Therefore, the Calif. Appeals Court discerns no abuse
of discretion meriting reversal of the trial court's discovery
rulings and imposition of sanctions.

A copy of Calif. Appeals Court's December 31, 2014 decision is
available at http://is.gd/tGR4CHfrom Leagle.com

The case is KENNETH PRATT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
JACK IN THE BOX, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO.
A139960.


JAMBA JUICE: Class Action Plaintiffs Foreswear Collective Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
in a proposed settlement of a class action over alleged
mismarketing of Jamba Juice kits as all-natural, the plaintiffs
sidestepped the process for identifying class members by not
seeking collective damages.

Lilly v. Jamba Juice was closely watched after the defendants,
Jamba Juice and Inventure Foods Inc. sought to defeat the case on
ascertainability ground, arguing it would be too difficult to
identify buyers of the small-ticket item.

In a motion for preliminary approval filed on Dec. 1, the
plaintiffs laid out a proposal for injunctive relief that would
require Jamba Juice to stop marketing its smoothie kits as "all
natural" and compensate the named plaintiffs with up to $5 million
each.  The class would not be awarded monetary damages, so the
settlement would not require sending out notices to potential
members.

In a September order, Judge Jon Tigar rejected the defendants'
ascertainability arguments and certified the liability class.
"Few people retain receipts for low-priced goods," he wrote.  "Yet
it is precisely in circumstances like these, where the injury to
any individual consumer is small, but the cumulative injury to
consumers as a group is substantial, that the class action
mechanism provides one of its most important social benefits."
However, Judge Tigar had stopped short of certifying the class for
purposes of damage relief.

In their initial complaint, filed in June 2013 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, named
plaintiffs Aleta Lilly and David Cox accused Jamba Juice and
Inventure Foods of misleading buyers by marketing a line of
smoothie kits as "all natural."

In fact, they noted, the frozen blends, which come out in such
flavors as Mango-A-Go-Go, Orange Dream Machine and Razzmatazz,
contain ascorbic acid, xanthan gum and other complex-sounding
ingredients.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are with Finkelstein Thompson and Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg.


JEFFREY-ALLEN INC: Removes "Aguda" Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Aguda v. Jeffrey-Allen, Inc.,
et al., Case No. CACE-14-22132, was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit Court In Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-60006-MGC to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Bernard Jones, Esq.
          Jason Matthew Leo, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1250
          Orlando, FL 32801-2366
          Telephone: (407) 393-2900
          Facsimile: (407) 393-2929
          E-mail: jbjones@littler.com
                  jleo@littler.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jilted Class Action Attorney Sues Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
when Patricia Moulton Partee decided to switch lawyers for a class
action against Johnson & Johnson, the jilted attorney, Steven M.
Johnson of Texas, sued her.

The suit, filed in August in Texas Northern District Court, was
dismissed by a federal judge on Nov. 26 on personal jurisdiction
grounds.

Ms. Partee, a California resident, had found out about the class
action involving a Johnson & Johnson DePuy ASR hip replacement
through the attorney's television ad, according to court records.
After calling Mr. Johnson, she signed a contract allotting him a
40 percent fee.  She had signed the contract without realizing
there were attorneys in the case.

Two years later, she sought representation from an attorney closer
to where she lived in California before recovered any settlement
money in the case.  At the time, she'd been "unaware of any legal
work done on her behalf" by Johnson, Judge John McBryde of the
Northern District of Texas ruled.

Judge McBryde cited insufficient "affiliations with Texas on the
part of [Partee] as would cause her to reasonably anticipate being
haled into a Texas court."  For example, Ms. Partee did not
purposefully seek a lawyer in Texas.  And her communication with
Johnson by mail were not sustained enough to justify general
jurisdiction from the Texas court.

The plaintiff's lawyers were with Needham Johnson.


JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Goldfinger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Journal Communications Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00012 (E.D. Wis., January 6, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Journal Communications Inc. operates as a media company in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
      Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
      HANSEN REYNOLDS DICKINSON CRUEGER LLC
      316 N. Milwaukee St., Suite 200
      Milwaukee, WI 53202
      Telephone: (414) 273-8474
      Facsimile: (414) 273-8476
      E-mail: ccrueger@hrdclaw.com
              edickinson@hrdclaw.com

          - and -

      Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
      Christopher Schuyler, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
      E-mail: kbronson@milberg.com
              cschuyler@milberg.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Junks "Flushable" Toilet Paper Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge flushed a consumer fraud class action over the
"flushability" of Kimberly-Clark disposable wipes, finding the
lead plaintiff didn't show that the products clogged plumbing or
damaged sewer treatment plants.

Jennifer Davidson claimed in her 2013 class action against
Kimberly-Clark and its subsidiaries that she bought the Scotts
Naturals Flushable Moist Wipes from a San Francisco supermarket
based on her belief that they were "specially designed to be
suitable for flushing down her toilet without causing problems in
her plumbing or at the water treatment plant."  She "began to
seriously doubt that they were truly flushable," however, after
"several uses of the wipes."

Though Davidson stopped using the wipes and did not purchase
additional flushable Kimberly-Clark products, she said the company
falsely advertises four of its products -- including Cottonelle
Fresh Care wipes and cleansing cloths, Huggies Pull-Ups Flushable
Moist Wipes, U by Kotex Refresh wipes and the aforementioned
Scotts product -- as flushable, despite causing problems in septic
tank and at sewage treatment plants.

Davidson survived Kimberly-Clark's first bid to dismiss the
action, although U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton advised her
to show that she relied on something more than the wipes'
packaging to make her fraud-in-advertising case, and declined to
get involved in whether "flushable" means that the wipes must
necessarily break down before arriving at a wastewater treatment
plant.

After allowing Davidson to amend her complaint, Hamilton dismissed
the action in full in the week of December.  In addition to
finding that Davidson lacked standing to force Kimberly-Clark to
remove the "flushable" label from the products -- since she
admitted that she would never purchase the products again --
Hamilton said Davidson still hadn't shown how the wipes can't be
flushed down the toilet.

"Having personally experienced no problems with her plumbing on
account of her use of the Scott Naturals wipes or any of the
products at issue, plaintiff must point to some other specific
facts showing that the designation 'flushable' is false.
Plaintiff has failed to do this," Hamilton wrote.  "She cites to
articles on the Internet that discuss problems with clogs and
blockages at wastewater treatment plants in various locations in
the United States, but those problems appear to have had a number
of causes -- including people flushing 'nonflushable' wipes or
other 'nonflushable' materials down the toilet."

News stories cited by Davidson that detailed plumbing clogs and
treatment plant problems involved the wipes' interaction with all
manner of refuse consumers flush but shouldn't, like diapers,
rags, towels, hair, cigarette butts, kitty litter and doggy waste
bags, Hamilton said.

The fact that the wipes never damaged Davidson's -- or San
Francisco's -- systems doomed the case in the end.

"The first amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face," Hamilton wrote.  "Because
plaintiff was previously been given leave to amend to correct the
deficiencies in the complaint and failed to do so, the court finds
that further leave to amend would be futile."

The case is Jennifer Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01783-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


KINETIK INDUSTRIAL: "Michael" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. removed the class action
lawsuit entitled Michael v. Kinetik Industrial Group, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 14-031170 CA 01, from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
20004-JLK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Defendant Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. is represented by:

          Peter W. Homer, Esq.
          Andrew Vitali, III, Esq.
          HOMER BONNER JACOBS, P.A.
          1441 Brickell Avenue
          Four Seasons Tower, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 350-5100
          Facsimile: (305) 372-2738
          E-mail: phomer@homerbonner.com
                  avitali@homerbonner.com


KINGS COUNTY, CA: Faces Convict Laborers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A class action filing in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California - Fresno Division by Dion Anderson
challenges the practice of transferring convict laborers'
commercial debts to private and public buyers (Docket No. and Case
Title: Dion Anderson v. Edmond G. Brown 1:12-CV-01839-AWI-DLB).

Anderson, a Pro Se litigant housed at Kern Valley State Prison
(#P-72476 KVSP B5-227), initiated a complaint on Nov. 6, 2012,
citing California Code of Civil procedure Section 996.410(b).  He
references the rights accorded ". . . any prisoner not serving a
capital offense but sentenced to service off discreet Superior
Court statutorial fines" and "special interests attached to the
amount of revenue taxed to their criminally convicted charges
(i.e., semantically referred to as Bond)."

According to Mr. Anderson, the issue revolves around the County's
practice of transferring convict laborers' commercial debts to
private and public buyers.

California legislation stipulates that, after 90 days from the
date of a prisoner's sentencing, convict laborers are allowed to
file "Claim and Deliver" actions within their own respective
county Superior Courts (California Code of Civil Procedure*
Section 996.110-150) to effect their own discharge from the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
System.

Mr. Anderson's suit seeks to protect putative class members'
release and to hold the State to its responsibilities to release
incarcerated individuals on their statutorial recognition.

Since the filing of the action, Mr. Anderson claims he has been:

   -- Charged criminally in the Kings County Superior Court for an
alleged assault on a correctional officer

   -- Denied legal access to the law library at Kern Valley State
Prison

  -- Subjected to tactical obstruction of power inside the Federal
Court as a result of his non-compliance with effectuating his own
personal release

A motion for appointment of class counsel and motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement proposal was submitted by
Anderson to the Court on Sept. 22, 2014.

"The Court appears to have gone moot," said Mr. Anderson.  "I
believe it has decided to deny another action I have filed in the
Federal Eastern District Court (Docket No. Anderson v. The City
1:14-CV-00202-LJO-MJS), to activate Congressional 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(g) to circumvent the District Court from responding
to my request for appointment of class counsel motion."


KINRAY INC: Fernandez, et al. Allowed to Amend Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Freddy Fernandez, Luis Velasquez, and Giovanny Gonzalez brought an
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq., and New York Labor Law (NYLL), alleging that
they and other similarly situated employees of the defendants were
misclassified as independent contractors, earned but were not paid
overtime wages, and had expenses improperly deducted from their
wages. Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint.
Defendants both oppose plaintiffs' motion and cross-move for
judgment on the pleadings.

In a memorandum order entered December 30, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/zqbTJqfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate
Judge Steven M. Gold granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend and denied defendants' crossmotion for judgment on the
pleadings.

"The fact that discovery relevant to class certification has not
yet been completed, and the added consideration that this case is
brought under a statute -- the FLSA -- that favors litigating
plaintiffs' claims against a common defendant in aggregate, I
conclude that defendants have failed to meet their high burden to
defeat plaintiffs' motion to amend or establish that dismissal is
warranted," ruled Magistrate Judge Gold.

The case is FREDDY FERNANDEZ, LUIS VELASQUEZ, and GIOVANNY
GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, and v. KINRAY, INC. and CARDINAL HEALTH,
INC., Defendants, NO. 13-CV-4938 (ARR), (E.D. N.Y.).


LAPTOP & DESKTOP: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Laptop & Desktop Repair LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00049
(E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
fraudulent business practices of wrongfully depriving the
Plaintiffs of their property, specifically by refusing to pay the
amount of the Initial Quote or refusing to return the Product.

Laptop & Desktop Repair LLC operates various web sites though
which it offers to purchase people's used electronic products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd C. Bank, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK
      119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 520-7125
      E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com


LEPAGE BAKERIES: Illegally Withholds Employees Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bart Bokanoski, Robert Dizinno, and Jeremy Anderson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lepage Bakeries
Park St., LLC, C.K. Sales Co., LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00021 (D.
Conn., January 6, 2015), seeks to redress the Defendants' practice
of making various unlawful and unauthorized deductions from the
Plaintiffs' and class members' compensation.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing,
delivering, and selling baked goods under brand names Flower
Foods, Country Kitchen, and Wonder Bread.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (860) 522-8888
      Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


MARION, IN: Jails Inmates Days After Release Date, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The Marion County Sheriff (Indianapolis) systematically keeps
inmates in jail for two or more days beyond their release date, a
class action claims in Indiana Federal Court, according to
Courthouse News Service.


MASSAGE ENVY: Removes "Robinson" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Robinson v. Massage Envy
Franchising, LLC, Case No. CACE-14-022736, was removed from the
Division 08 of the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-60017 to the proceeding.

MEF is a Delaware limited liability company.  The Plaintiff
alleges that MEF is the "franchisor and principal for all
Message[sic] Envy clinics throughout the United States," which
includes "more than 900" locations.   The Plaintiff also alleges
that said clinics operate on a "prepaid membership fee model"
where members receive monthly massages in exchange for a $59 per
month membership fee.

According to the Complaint, if a member cancels her membership or
the membership is in arrears, membership services may not be
redeemed.  The Plaintiff characterizes the membership structure as
a "pre-paid massage forfeiture scheme" and alleges that as a
result of this scheme, the Plaintiff and the Class she seeks to
represent "have suffered economic damages in an amount equal to
the value of all prepaid massages paid for and ultimately
forfeited by Massage Envy."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com
                  mpascucci@eggnatzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clinton Daggett Flagg, Esq.
          Carol Anne Fenello, Esq.
          9155 S. Dadeland Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 669-0506
          Facsimile: (305) 669-8980
          E-mail: cflagg@flagg-law.com
                  cfenello@flagg-law.com


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Court Rules on Discovery Request
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu partly granted Plaintiff's motion to
compel document production in the case captioned TRUE HEALTH
CHIROPRATIC, Plaintiff(s), v. McKESSON CORPORATION, NO. C-13-
02219-JST (DMR)(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed a class action case against the Defendant,
alleging practice of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements
("junk faxes").  Plaintiffs moved that Defendants be compelled to
(1) produce all fax advertisements that did not include an opt-out
notice that Defendants sent during the class period; (2) produce
the documents showing that the recipients of fax advertisements
gave the Defendants prior express permission; (3) produce
documents containing information about recipients of the fax ads
sent by Defendants during the class period, including their
identities and fax numbers, and the dates and times they received
transmissions.

Defendants objected, arguing that Plaintiffs' discovery request
seeks confidential and proprietary customer lists aside from being
overbroad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome, because the
advertisements are not relevant to the question of class
certification and are therefore outside the scope of
precertification discovery. Further, Defendant argued that the
requested documents are not relevant to the issue of class
certification.

Magistrate Judge Ryu held that the requested discovery is relevant
to the class certification issue, specifically to the issues of
typicality and commonality. Furthermore, although Defendants argue
that the production would be burdensome, they fail to articulate
the nature and extent of the claimed burden.  Judge Ryu granted
Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendants to produce documents
relating to the permission defense.  Judge Ryu said Defendants'
concerns about confidentiality are adequately addressed by the
parties' protective order.

A copy of Judge Ryu's Order dated November 14, 2014, is available
at bit.ly/1zCcDBY from Leagle.com.

True Health Chiropractic Inc, an Ohio Corporation, Individually
and as the Representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Schubert --
rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP,
Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Brian John
Wanca, Anderson + Wanca, George Demetrios Jonson, Montgomery
Rennie Jonson, Glenn L. Hara, Anderson + Wanca, Matthew Elton
Stubbs, Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Ross Michael Good, Anderson +
Wanca & Ryan Michael Kelly.

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by Brian John Wanca, Anderson + Wanca, Glenn L. Hara, Anderson +
Wanca, Ross Michael Good, Anderson + Wanca & Willem F. Jonckheer,
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

McKesson Corporation and McKesson Technologies, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Tyree P. Jones, Jr., Andrew Amoroso --
tpjones@reedsmith.com and aamoroso@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith
LLP & David S. Reidy, Reed Smith LLP.


MF GLOBAL: January 21 Deadline Set for Settlement Objections
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If You Purchased, Invested In, or Otherwise Acquired an Interest
in Platinum or Palladium Bullion in the United States Physical
or "Spot" Market Conforming to NYMEX "Good Delivery" Requirement,
or Purchased Platinum or Palladium Bullion of at
Least 99.95% Purity, During the Period of June 1, 2006 through
April 29, 2010, Inclusive, Then Your Rights Will Be Affected and

You May Be Entitled to a Benefit

Please be advised that this notice is separate and in addition to
the previously published notice concerning the Physical
Plaintiffs' prior $9,355,000 settlement with the Moore Capital
Defendants and Defendant Joseph Welsh and requires your separate
review.

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a Settlement with
James W. Giddens as trustee for the liquidation of MF Global Inc.
under the Securities Investor Protection ACT.  MFGI was, prior to
the SIPA Proceeding, a defendant in the class action In re:
Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig. (Platinum/Palladium
Physical Action), 10-cv-3617 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.) ("Physical Action")
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The Physical Plaintiffs filed a claim in the SIPA
proceeding based on the allegations in the Physical Action.  The
Court has scheduled a public Fairness Hearing for February 13,
2015, at 11:00 a.m. at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, Courtroom 20B.

In order to resolve the claims against MFGI, (1) the Trustee has
agreed, subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court, to the
allowance of a final, non-appealable allowed claim in the MF
Global SIPA Proceeding in the amount of $2,317,857.14 for the
benefit of the Physical Class; (2) MF Global's insurance carrier
has agreed, subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court, to make
an all-cash payment totaling $577,500; and (3) MF Global Holdings,
Ltd. has agreed to provide further specific consideration to the
Physical Plaintiffs and the Physical Class, including an all-cash
payment of $200,000 in consideration for the Physical Plaintiffs'
agreement to assign certain rights in relation to an anticipated
judgment against Defendant Joseph Welsh. See Settlement Agreement
and MF Global Holdings Agreement available at
www.PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

MFGI and the Trustee have consistently and vigorously denied the
Physical Plaintiffs' claims.  By entering into the Settlement
Agreement with the Physical Plaintiffs, the Trustee does not admit
and instead continues to deny MFGI engaged in any unlawful
conduct, and denies any member of the Physical Class suffered
compensable damages.  Absent a settlement, the Trustee would
continue to vigorously oppose each and every aspect of the
Physical Plaintiffs' claims and alleged damages.

There is a separate settlement with Defendant MF Global involving
certain transactions in futures platinum and futures palladium.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and other important documents
are available on the settlement website at
www.PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at (888) 206-5360 or at the
address below:

PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM LITIGATION SETTLEMENT -- PHYSICAL ACTION
c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
PO Box 170500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091
info@PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Physical Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim that
is received by the Settlement Administrator on or before April 29,
2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the settlement website
referenced above.  If you are a member of the Physical Class but
do not file a Proof of Claim, you will still be bound by the
releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the Court enters
an order approving the Settlement Agreement.  All objections must
be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
formal Settlement Notice and must be filed with the Court and
served on the Parties' counsel by January 21, 2015. All requests
to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the formal Settlement Notice and
must be received by the Settlement Administrator no later than
January 9, 2015.  You may obtain a Request for Exclusion form on
the settlement website referenced above.  However, it is the
Trustee's position that if anyone seeks to be excluded from the
Settlement and did not file a bankruptcy proof of claim in the
SIPA Proceeding on or before June 2, 2014, such claim is late
filed and should be disallowed and expunged.  Additionally, the
Trustee asserts that the claim of anyone excluded from the
Settlement (even if a timely bankruptcy proof of claim was filed)
will be subject to the claims allowance process in the Bankruptcy
Court and may be subject to denial and expungement.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: 7 Players Can't Appeal Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
seven dissident ex-pro football players have been denied
permission to appeal U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania's conditional certification, for
the purpose of facilitating settlement, of class plaintiffs in the
NFL concussion lawsuit.

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit panel held
that it lacked jurisdiction to take the appeal, as conditional
certification under Rule 23(e) was not a final determination by
Brody of the proposed class' status.  Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote
for the majority, with Judge Kent Jordan joining.  Judge Thomas
Ambro dissented.

The 56-page opinion explains the one-page order issued in
September denying the players' petition for leave to appeal.

"We hold that an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f)
permits the court of appeals to review only an 'order granting or
denying class-action certification' issued pursuant to Rule
23(c)(1)," Judge Smith wrote.  "An order issued under some other
subdivision of Rule 23, such as a case management order issued
pursuant to Rule 23(e) that 'preliminarily' or 'conditionally'
addresses class certification but reserves the class certification
determination for a later time, does not qualify as an 'order
granting or denying class-action certification' that is subject to
interlocutory review under Rule 23(f).19."

The Eastern District granted the settlement agreement preliminary
approval in July, five days after seven retired football players
filed an objection to the revised class-action settlement
agreement.

The objecting players were Sean Morey, Alan Faneca, Ben Hamilton,
Robert Royal, Roderick Cartwright, Jeff Rohrer and Sean Considine.
According to the Third Circuit opinion, the objectors argued that
the revised settlement bargained away the rights of former players
suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, those who have
had a stroke or other non-football injury or are at risk of those
injuries, and those who played in NFL Europe.

The objectors also said the proposed notice of settlement was
false and misleading, the claims process was so onerous and
confusing that it raised fairness concerns, the agreement was not
a product of "arm's-length negotiation" and the class counsel did
not conduct discovery to evaluate the claims and defenses, the
opinion said.

Judges Smith, Jordan and Ambro heard arguments on the objecting
players' right to appeal in September.  Just one day later, they
issued a one-page order denying the petition for leave to appeal,
which said that an opinion on the matter would be filed at a later
time.

During arguments, Judge Smith told the players' counsel that they
and any other objectors could take issue with the proposed
agreement at the fairness hearing about the settlement agreement.

That hearing took place Nov. 19.  A ruling from the fairness
hearing has yet to be issued.  Until that occurs, Judge Smith
wrote, there is no order that can be appealed in the Third
Circuit.

"The order specifically couched review of the settlement agreement
as 'preliminary' and the class was 'conditionally certified for
settlement purposes,'" Judge Smith wrote.

In the opinion, Judge Smith addressed each of five arguments from
the objectors, writing that none of them are persuasive.  The
court's counter to the arguments centered on the idea that the
district court has not made an official ruling or order.

"Objectors' fourth point is that we should evaluate a district
court's 'ruling on class certification' that is 'likely
erroneous,'" Judge Smith wrote.  "This position presumes that
there is a ruling available to analyze, which there is not."

In his dissent, Judge Ambro said he would also deny the appeal,
but for a different reason.

"As I believe Rule 23(f) authorized (and for sure nowhere limits
-- in word or intent) our review of the order Judge Brody entered,
I would deny the petition for review because granting it would
result in inefficient (indeed, chaotic) piecemeal litigation that
would interfere with the formal fairness hearing on the
settlement," Judge Ambro wrote.  "Though in either case
petitioners lose, I dissent from my colleagues' means to that
end."

Judge Ambro said his colleagues wrongly interpreted a 2003 change
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a way that precludes
the appeals court from considering a conditional class-
certification order appeal.

"My colleagues and I can agree that appellate courts should be
reluctant to review class-certification orders on an interlocutory
basis.  To me that is enough," he wrote.  "To go so far further by
holding that we lack even the power to do so here is a bridge too
far."

Bruce A. Birenboim -- bbirenboim@paulweiss.com -- of Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, the attorney representing the NFL
defendants, said the league had no comment on the decision.

Attorneys for the opposing class members could not be reached for
comment Dec. 24.


NAVISTAR INC: "Klinger" Suit Included in MaxxForce Engines MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Klinger v. Navistar, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-01914, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-10335 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Navistar MaxxForce Engines Marketing, Sales Practices and
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2590.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
alleged defects in Navistar's Advanced EGR emission control system
that was used in Navistar's MaxxForce diesel engines.  The
Plaintiffs allege that trucks or other heavy-duty vehicles in
which these engines were installed suffered repeated failures and
fault warnings, resulting in costly and time-consuming repairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          PEIRCE LAW OFFICES
          707 Grant St.
          2500 Gulf Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: jeff@Qulegal.com
                  richard@Qulegal.com

               - and -

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


NAVISTAR INC: Priority Suit Consolidated in MaxxForce Engines MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Priority Towing, Inc. v. Navistar,
Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-81202, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-10319
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Navistar MaxxForce Engines Marketing, Sales Practices and
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2590.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
alleged defects in Navistar's Advanced EGR emission control system
that was used in Navistar's MaxxForce diesel engines.  The
Plaintiffs allege that trucks or other heavy-duty vehicles in
which these engines were installed suffered repeated failures and
fault warnings, resulting in costly and time-consuming repairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS AND LEHRMAN
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (850) 727-0020
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: mark@pathtojustice.com
                  seth@pathtojustice.com
                  steve@pathtojustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barry Marshall Sabin, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          555 Eleventh Street NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2263
          Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
          E-mail: barry.sabin@lw.com


NEATO BURRITO: Faces "Ruggiero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arianna Ruggiero, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Neato Burrito, LLC and Jon Victor Rohrer, Case No.
1:15-cv-00021 (M.D. Pa., January 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate seven restaurants within the
Central Pennsylvania area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan M. Crist, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. CRIST
      226 West Chocolate Ave.
      Hershey, PA 17033
      Telephone: (717) 533-6600
      E-mail: jm-wac@msn.com


NEW YORK, USA: Sued for Collecting Info on Mental Health Patients
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jonathan Perlow reports that
New York state is collecting confidential information on mental
health patients to create a database of people it deems unfit to
carry a firearm, according to a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Donald Montgomery claims the state created a
reporting system, as part of the New York Secure Ammunition and
Firearms Enforcement Act (Safe Act), that forces health
professionals to transmit mental health patients' confidential
information to a database shared by various government agencies,
including law enforcement.  It was part of the state's response to
the rash of mass shootings over the past several years, in
particular, that in Newtown, Conn.

Montgomery estimates that medical providers have reported such
information on more than 60,000 people.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the lead defendant, signed the Safe Act into
law in January 2013.  Montgomery calls him "the principal
architect of the Act."

New York Mental Hygiene Law 9.46 compels health professionals to
report patients' data to the state if they feel the patients'
actions are "likely to result in serious harm to self or others,"
the complaint states.

"The personal health information amassed includes, but is not
limited to, any mental health diagnosis of a patient.  The
personal health information is shared by numerous agencies,
including, but not limited to law enforcement and non-state
agencies and offices," the lawsuit states.

"The state does not use a subpoena to obtain this confidential
personal health information.  The state has made the affirmative
misrepresentation to medical professionals and others that
transmitting this data is lawful."

Neither the state nor the treatment providers notify patients
about the information sharing, the lawsuit states.  It adds: "The
Office of Mental Health underplays and misrepresents the
seriousness of the personal health information being transmitted.
The state intends its operations around MHL 9.46 to be conducted
in a secretive and over-reaching manner."

The law defines mental health professionals as physicians,
psychologists, registered nurses and social workers, according to
the lawsuit.

Montgomery, a Navy veteran and retired police officer, claims
defendant Eastern Long Island Hospital incorrectly labeled him as
an "involuntary admission," leading to the revocation of his
pistol permit and his handguns being seized by the Suffolk County
Sheriff's Department, on orders from the New York State Police.

"The New York State Police sent a letter to the Suffolk County
Clerk's Office wrongfully stating that the plaintiff 'has been
adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily
committed to a mental institution' and that the plaintiff was
prohibited from possessing a firearm, rifle, or shotgun," the
complaint states.

"The NYS Police have taken the position of directing local law
enforcement agencies and offices to conduct warrantless searches
and seizures of the homes and personal properties of persons
reported through MHL 9.46 to seize all firearms and licenses."

Montgomery, who says he has no mental health history and no pre-
existing medical conditions, says he presented himself to Eastern
Long Island Hospital for sleep deprivation, and was released less
than 48-hours later.

Unbeknownst to Montgomery, the hospital labeled him an
"involuntary admission," disqualifying him from owning or carrying
a firearm under the new law.

He claims that when patients' information is sent to the state
police, they check it against other databases, including a
database of pistol permit holders.

Montgomery questions whether a person's mental health status is
related to a propensity to commit violence.  Neither federal law
enforcement agencies nor the state has developed a profile of the
"mass shooter," the complaint states.

It adds: "According to the American Psychological Association,
there is no study that predicts future violence."

The lawsuit cites testimony from a New York State Senate Committee
hearing after passage of the Act.  It claims that attorney Carla
Rabinowitz, public policy chair of the New York Association of
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, testified that people with
mental health issues "are 12 times more likely to become a victim
of a crime than to commit a crime, and are five times more likely
than a member of the general public to become a murder victim."

Rabinowitz testified that "there is no study demonstrating a
person facing mental health issues is any more likely than a
member of the general public to commit a violent crime," the
lawsuit states.

Montgomery claims the law could discourage people from seeking
treatment.  He claims that New York State Psychological
Association President Eric Neblung, Ph.D., testified that the
"chilling effect upon patients" includes "fear of triggering a
sudden and dramatic government intrusion into their private
lives."

"To report every person who seeks medical or mental health support
services through a government mandate or sponsored program is to
fuel the fire of the stigma of a class of persons who are more
likely to be victimized than to commit violent crimes with
firearms, such as mass shootings," according to the lawsuit.

Neblung said more powerful predictors of violence are active
substance abuse, the presence of environmental stressors and a
history of violence.

Montgomery wants the law declared unconstitutional, and its
enforcement enjoined.

Named as defendants are Gov. Cuomo; New York State Office of
Mental Health Commissioner Ann Marie Sullivan; Executive Deputy
Commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice
Services Michael Greene; Superintendent of New York State Police
Joseph D'Amico; Suffolk County Sheriff's Department Officer
Vincent Demarco; and Eastern Long Island Hospital.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paloma Capanna, Esq.
          PALOMA A. CAPANNA LAW OFFICE
          633 Lake Road
          Webster, NY 14580
          Telephone: (585) 377-7260


NIELSEN AUDIO: Has Until Feb. 13 to Respond to "Orea" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero signed a stipulation extending
the time for the defendant to respond to a first amended complaint
in ALFREDO LEON OREA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NIELSEN AUDIO, INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04235 JCS, (N.D. Cal.).

The Class Action Complaint for Damages in this matter was filed in
the Court on September 18, 2014, but was never served upon Nielsen
Audio, Inc. because the Complaint named an incorrect party as a
defendant.  After the Complaint was filed, the Parties conferred
regarding Plaintiff filing an amended complaint and Defendant
executing a waiver of service.

A First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages (FAC) was filed
in the Court on December 5, 2014 and, notwithstanding the Parties'
understanding that Defendant would execute a waiver of service,
the FAC was served on December 12, 2014.

On December 30, 2014, and in accordance with Northern District
Local Rule 6-1, the Parties stipulated to extend the time for and
Defendant Nielsen Audio, Inc. to respond to the FAC through and
including February 13, 2015.

A copy of court-approved stipulation signed December 31, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/InnOzOfrom Leagle.com

McGUIREWOODS LLP, Susan L. Germaise -- sgermaise@mcguirewoods.com
-- Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant. NIELSEN AUDIO, INC.

Todd M. Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Attorneys for Plaintiff ALFREDO
LEON OREA.


ONE STOP PERSONNEL: Removes "Rojas" Suit to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rojas, et al. v. One Stop
Personnel Services, LLP, Case No. GD-14-019003, was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to the U.S. District
Court from the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00010-AJS to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Evalynn B. Welling, Esq.
          Megan Wildman Walker, Esq.
          COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1705
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 434-6002
          E-mail: ewelling@cjplaw.org
                  mwalker@cjplaw.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marla N. Presley, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One PPG Place, 28th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 338-5148
          Facsimile: (412) 232-3441
          E-mail: marla.presley@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Patrick Richter, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1530
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 362-7100
          Facsimile: (512) 362-5574
          E-mail: Patrick.Richter@jacksonlewis.com


OPTICAL EXPRESS: 50 Patients Join Class Action Over Mplus X Lens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Spencer, writing for The Daily Mail, reports that hundreds of
patients could suffer impaired vision after receiving eye surgery
by a high street optician, experts fear.

Safety concerns have been raised over a type of replacement lens
implanted in patients by Optical Express, the UK's leading
commercial eye surgery provider.

More than 6,500 British patients are thought to have received the
Mplus X lens, manufactured by German company Oculentis, which went
on sale just over a year ago.

Oculentis and Optical Express both deny any fault with the lens,
which is used in a corrective procedure called refractive lens
exchange to fix minor sight problems usually associated with age.

But leading eye surgeons have contacted the Medical Health
Regulatory Authority after their patients complained of severe
loss of vision after receiving the implant.

Moorfields Eye Hospital in London flagged the problem to the MHRA
after two of its surgeons complained about the lens.

Separately, more than 50 patients have joined a class action law
suit against Optical Express over the safety fears.

Nick Grant of law firm Devonshires, who is representing the
patients, said: "I anticipate that we will reach 100 claims very
shortly.

There has been a sales culture at Optical Express where there has,
on occasions, been a failure to properly explain the risks of
surgery to patients."

Private surgeon Sheraz Daya, who runs the Centre For Sight, called
for far better regulation of High Street corrective eye clinics.
Mr. Daya said: "The major problem here is that model of care is
'pile them high, sell them cheap'.  You have eye surgery being
sold in heavily marketed, time-limited offers.  These are
complicated procedures, but they are being sold like they are TVs
or second-hand cars.

"The regulations are there but they are not being enforced."

Sasha Rodoy, 61, who has been campaigning for better regulation of
the corrective surgery industry, said: "The only reason anybody
should have these operations is if it is the only option that will
stop them going blind. They are just not safe."

A spokesman for Moorfields Eye Hospital said: "Two surgeons had
used these lenses in a very small number of patients, some of whom
developed visual problems and required replacement of the lens.
"Moorfields reported concerns with this particular make of lens
via the MHRA's yellow card scheme.  Moorfields Eye Hospital no
longer uses this lens."

A spokesman for the MHRA said: "We are currently investigating and
will take action if necessary.  If patients have any questions
they should speak to their optometrist or surgeon."

A spokesman for Optical Express said: "Every lens type that we use
has passed a rigorous and time-consuming evaluation to make sure
that it is both safe and effective.

"This includes the MPlus X lens, which is being used here in the
UK by many providers and around the world.

"It is vitally important to stress that there have been no safety
concerns whatsoever expressed about this lens.

"A tiny minority of patients are reported to have experienced
poorer than expected distance vision, but the overwhelming
majority have had their sight and their life significantly
improved by having this lens implanted."

A spokesman for Oculentis confirmed the firm had received four
"incident reports" from the MHRA.

He added: "We are currently in the process of analyzing the facts,
as all of these reports are very unspecific and unsubstantiated,
only basically mentioning poor distance vision as the main
complaint.

"The MplusX is considered to be one of the better balanced
intraocular lenses available and is used by many renowned surgeons
whose opinions are generally based on medical evidence.  We
believe very strongly in the concept and it is by no means a
'faulty' model of lens."


PACIFIC BELL: Class Cert. Denial in "Koval" Case Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Frank Koval, Mike Williams, Vanmark Strickland, and
Donald Washington filed a consolidated class action lawsuit
against their employer, defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company
(d.b.a. AT&T California) (Pacific Bell). They alleged Pacific Bell
violated California law by failing to relinquish control over
their activities during meal and rest break periods, and moved for
class certification.  Relying, in part, on Brinker Restaurant
Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Brinker), the
trial court concluded plaintiffs failed to show Pacific Bell's
allegedly restrictive policies had been consistently applied to
the putative class members. The court denied class certification
on the ground that common questions do not predominate over
individual questions, making the class action procedure an
inappropriate method for resolving this dispute.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One
affirms trial court's ruling saying the plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that the lower court abused its discretion in denying
certification.

A copy of the Appeals Court's December 31, 2014 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/kLSrGJfrom Leagle.com.

The case is FRANK KOVAL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO., Defendant and Respondent, NO. A139570.

Hoffman Libenson Saunders & Barba, Chad A. Saunders and H. Tim
Hoffman, The Cooper Law Firm: Scott B. Cooper -- scott@cooper-
firm.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP: Michael Rubin --
mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Counsel for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, George Stohner --
gstohner@morganlewis.com -- Thomas M. Peterson --
tmpeterson@morganlewis.com -- Rebecca D. Eisen --
reisen@morganlewis.com -- and Stephen L. Taeusch --
staeusch@morganlewis.com -- AT&T Services, Inc., Jennifer S.
Abramowitz, Counsel for Defendant and Respondent.


PAUL COMO: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Moran" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Moran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Paul Como Swimming Pools Inc. d/b/a Pool Doctor and
Paul Anthony Como, Jr., Case No. 2:15-cv-00043 (E.D.N.Y., January
6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendant services swimming pools and has a retail store
located at 317 Larkfield Road, East, Northport, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      500 Bi-county Blvd, 112N Farmingdale
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Telephone: (631) 756-0400
      Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
      E-mail: promero@laborlaws.com


PEARL RIVER: Trial Court Judgment in Crowe Case Amended in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit on December 30,
2014, rendered judgment in the case captioned ROGER AND DIANNE
CROWE, JAMES AND ERICA SPANO, DARLENE WOODS, AND DERRICK C. GUYOT
v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC, RICH ROSENKOETTER AND CHEMINEER,
INC. MAJORIE TOALSON AND JACKIE RAGSDALE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON
BEHALF OF HER MINOR DAUGHTER, KATELYN RAGSDALE, ET AL. v. PEARL
RIVER POLYMERS, INC., AND RICH ROSENKOETTER JOHN CAPPS, SR. AND
JOHN CAPPS, JR. v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC. AND RICH
ROSENKOETTER ROBERT PICKENS, SHIRLEY PICKENS, CYNTHIA VICTOR,
BARON VICTOR, SR., AND STEPHANIE PRICE v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS,
INC., RICH ROSENKOETTER AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY FLOYD WILLIAMS,
CRYSTAL WILLIAMS, GEORGE SINGLETARY, MARGIE SINGLETARY, GREGORY
WEISCOFF, EDDIE GUITERREZ, ET AL. v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC.,
AND RICH ROSENKOETTER DELORES GREEN, TOMMIE ROSCOE, JR., FANNIE
SMITH, KATHERINE HOPKINS, TROY RILEY, ET AL. v. PEARL RIVER
POLYMERS, INC., RICH ROSENKOETTER AND CHEMINEER, INC. DONNA
BLACKWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND O/B/O THE MINOR, STACEY BLACKWELL, ET
AL. v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., RICH ROSENKOETTER AND
CHEMINEER, INC. KEITHA BRAUCKHOFF, MICHAEL BRAUCKHOFF, ROBERT
FACIANE, REVERAND HENRY GAINES, ET AL. v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS,
INC., RICH ROSENKOETTER AND CHEMINEER, INC. GRETA BATISTE, JEROME
BATISTE, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILD,
BRANDON BALANCIER, ET AL. v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., RICH
ROSENKOETTER AND CHEMINEER, INC. ELAINE ACKER, ET AL. v. PEARL
RIVER POLYMERS, INC. AND CHEMINEER, INC. ELAINE ACKER, GROVER
ACKER, JOHN F. ACKER, LEONARD ACKER, CHRISTINE E. ADAMS, KELLY
ADOLPH, ET AL. v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC. AND CHEMINEER, INC.,
NO. 2012 CA 1323, CONSOLIDATED WITH NOS. 2012 CA 1324, 2012 CA
1325, 2012 CA 1326, 2012 CA 1327, 2012 CA 1328, 2012 CA 1329, 2012
CA 1330, 2012 CA 1331, 2012 CA 1332, 2012 CA 1333.

This case is a mass tort action resulting from chemical emissions.

According to the Louisiana Appeals Court, the trial court's
judgment entered in the case dated August 10, 2011, is amended in
the following respects:

The portion of the judgment providing that judgment be rendered
against PRP, Chemineer, and Richard Rosenkoetter is amended to
provide that judgment is rendered only against PRP and
Chemineer, all claims against Richard Rosenkoetter having been
dismissed prior to trial;

The portion of the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff,
Darlene Woods, and against defendants, PRP and Chemineer, jointly
and in solido, awarding her medical expenses in the amount of
$1,455.49 is amended to increase that award to $1,535.49,
resulting in a total award to Ms. Woods of $12,386.85;

The portion of the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, Joy
Nesbit, and against defendants, PRP and Chemineer, jointly and in
solido, awarding her medical expenses in the amount of $1,107.20
is amended to increase that award to $1,443.20, resulting in a
total award to Ms. Woods of $5,481.10;

The portion of the judgment rendered on behalf of plaintiff,
Briana Spano, and against defendants, PRP and Chemineer, jointly
and in solido, awarding her medical expenses in the amount of
$455.00 is amended to reduce that award to $450.00, resulting in
a total award to Ms. Woods of $950.00.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.

The costs of this appeal are assessed one-half to plaintiffs,
Roger Crowe, Briana Spano, Darlene Woods, Joy Nesbit, Sherman
Jordan, Felton Lathen, Larry Edmondson, Samuel Ferguson, Gerald
Craddock, Ottis Mitchell, Francisco Bullock, Roselee Dumas, and
Ronald Carver, and one-half to defendants, PRP and Chemineer,
ruled the Louisiana Appeals Court in its decision, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/cyDy7Gfrom Leagle.com.

Stephen B. Murray -- smurray@murray-lawfirm.com  -- Arthur M.
Murray -- amurray@murray-lawfirm.com -- Jessica W. Hayes --
jhayes@murray-lawfirm.com -- Suzette Bagneris --
sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com -- New Orleans, LA, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs/Appellees Dianne Crowe, Briana J. Spano (represented by
Erica Spano) and Derrick C. Guyot.

Ronnie G. Penton -- rgp@rgplaw.com -- Mary Anna Penton, Gair M.
Oldenburg, Bogalusa, LA, and Richard J. Arsenault --
rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- Alexandria, LA, and J. Robert Ates,
Randolph P. Russel, Mandeville, LA, and Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. --
dbecnel@becnellaw.com Reserve, LA, and Stephen R. Rue, Kenner, LA,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/2nd Appellants-Roger Crowe Darlene Woods,
Joy B. Nesbit, Larry G. Edmondson, Gerald E. Craddock, Ottis S.
Mitchell, Ronald Carver, Sam Ferguson Sherman Jordan, Felton
Lathen, Roselee Dumas, and Francisco Bullock.

Richard M. Simses -- rsimses@winstead.com -- Houston, TX, and Paul
M. Lavelle -- plavelle@winstead.com -- Leigh Ann Schell --
lschell@kuchlerpolk.com -- Deborah D. Kuchler --
dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Joseph H. Hart, IV --
jhart@kuchlerpolk.com -- Lawrence Abbott, New Orleans, LA, and
Ross F. Lagarde -- ross@joneslagarde.com -- Slidell, LA, Attorneys
for Defendant/1st Appellant-Chemineer, Inc.

Luis A. Leitzelar -- lleitzelar@joneswalker.com -- William L.
Schuette -- wschuette@joneswalker.com -- James C. Percy --
jpercy@joneswalker.com -- Michele W. Crosby --
mcrosby@joneswalker.com -- Daniel Davis --
markdavis@joneswalker.com -- Christopher D. Martin --
cmartin@joneswalker.com -- Sarah E. Stogner, R. Benn Vincent, Jr.,
Baton Rouge, LA, Attorneys for Defendants/1st Appellants-Pearl
River Polymers Inc., and Rich Rosenkoetter.

Shawn C. Reed -- sreed@howardandreed.com -- Kyle T. DelHierro --
kdelhierro@howardandreed.com -- Amy C. Yenari, Covington, LA, and
D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Roy F. Amedee, New Orleans, LA, Attorneys
for Plaintiffs/Appellees-Marjorie Toalson and Jackie Ragsdale (on
behalf of her minor daughter Katelyn Ragsdale)


PETSMART INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
PetSmart too cheaply through an unfair process to BC Partners, for
$83 a share or $8.7 billion, shareholders say in a class action in
Delaware Chancery Court.


PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Hofstatter, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Bureau of Collections of
Maryland, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00026 (E.D.N.Y., January 5, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROSSER HOLDINGS: Judge Won't Reverse Fee Order in EFTA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration in the case captioned MELANIE WALSH and LOUIE
WALSH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated ,
Plaintiffs, v. JOHN W. PROSSER, individually; PROSSER HOLDINGS LLC
d/b/a/A.C. FINANCIAL; and AUTOMOTIVE RESTYLING CONCEPTS INC. d/b/a
AUTOMOTIVE CONCEPTS, Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-2823 (PSJ/JJG) (D.
Minn.).

Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against defendant John W.
Prosser and his corporate alter egos claiming that in the course
of making car loans, Defendants violated the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act ("EFTA") and the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail
Installment Sales Act ("MMVRISA").

Eventually, the parties reached a settlement by agreeing that the
attorneys fees should not exceed $42,500. Unfortunately, Plaintiff
requested $75,000 in fees, hence, Defendants opposed a request for
fees to the extent that it exceeded $42,500. The court favored the
Defendants' argument and awarded only the uncontested portion of
plaintiffs' fee request. Hence, Plaintiff filed a letter request
for a motion for reconsideration.

Judge Schiltz denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration by
pointing out that plaintiffs sought fees under EFTA and the
MMVRISA, but violated the substantive provision of the respective
laws. In addition, Judge Schiltz pointed out that the Court had
made no finding that Defendants had acted unlawfully under the
terms of the settlement agreement. Finally, he concluded that
Plaintiffs had provided no authority to override the "American
Rule" that parties bear their own attorney's fees and costs.

A copy of the Order dated November 14, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/NRkneGfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas J. Lyons -- lyonst@hallevans.com -- CONSUMER JUSTICE
CENTER, P.A., for plaintiffs.


RELIANCE GOLD: Faces "Coley" Suit in New Jersey District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Coley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Reliance Gold Buyers, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00002-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., January 2, 2015) seeks relief
under the Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

               - and -

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

               - and -

          Laura S. Mann, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAURA S. MANN, LLC
          1618 Union Valley Road, Second Floor
          West Milford, NJ 07480
          Telephone: (973) 506-4881
          Facsimile: (973) 506-4883
          E-mail: laura@mannlegal.biz


RUFFALOCODY LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Anvar" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Anvar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ruffalocody, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00072 (C.D. Cal.,
January 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Ruffalocody, LLC owns and operates a telemarketing service for
hire.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


SAGESMITH CONSULTING: Sued in N.Y. for Making Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed A. Tipoo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sagesmith Consulting LLC and New York City Board of
Elections, Case No. 1:15-cv-00039 (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' unlawful action of using an
autodialer to call the Plaintiff on his residential telephone
using a prerecorded or artificial-voice to advertise the
Sagesmith's services.

Sagesmith Consulting LLC is the creator of the S-Elect suite of
election management software and the developers of The Election
Hub cloud-based web applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Telephone: (914) 358-5345
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
      E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces 18 Suits Arising From Sale of Toning Shoes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al., is facing 18 lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky:

   * Melody Adams v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00004-TBR;

   * Emma Westmoreland v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00003-TBR;

   * Joyce Anne Meador v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00010-TBR;

   * Cynthia Logan v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00009-TBR;

   * Renha Welch v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00012-TBR;

   * Joel Davis v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00002-TBR;

   * Pamela A. Young v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00014-TBR;

   * Jack Arager v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00005-TBR;

   * Donna Johnson v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00016-TBR;

   * Donna Davis v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00007-TBR;

   * Jeri Tyler v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00019-TBR;

   * Joyce Thomas v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00011-TBR;

   * Edith Wright v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00013-TBR;

   * Tammy Cardinal v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00006-TBR;

   * Avril Purvis v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00015-TBR;

   * Karen Espeland v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00018-TBR;

   * Kimberly Prater v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00017-TBR; and

   * Pauline Davis v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 3:15-cv-00008-TBR.

The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Skechers
intentionally made numerous misrepresentations, and continues to
make those representations, regarding the efficacy and health
benefits of its toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and
Tone-ups.

The cases are part of the multidistrict litigation known as In re:
Skechers Toning Shoe Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:11-
md-02308-TBR-LLK.  Upon the completion of all pretrial proceedings
applicable to the cases, each of the case will be transferred to
the federal district court in the district where the Plaintiff
allegedly was injured by use of Skechers shoes or where the
Plaintiff resides at the time of the transfer.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.  Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes to be
worn in place of other athletic shoes during daily activities,
exercise routines, and in the workplace.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, Ohio 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com


SONY PICTURES: Faces "Exum" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawon Exum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
00016 (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to adequately safeguard its current and
former employees' personal information including, names, home and
email addresses, Social Security numbers, visa and passport
numbers, account routing information, salary and retirement plan
data, and health insurance and medical information.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. is a multi-billion dollar
movie and television production and distribution company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Fiske, Esq.
      John H. Gomez, Esq.
      GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      655 West Broadway Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 237-3490
      Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
      E-mail: jfiske@thegomezfirm.com
              jgomez@thegomezfirm.com


SONY PICTURES: Faces 2nd "Exum" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawon Exum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00111 (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to adequately safeguard its current and
former employees' personal information including, names, home and
email addresses, Social Security numbers, visa and passport
numbers, account routing information, salary and retirement plan
data, and health insurance and medical information.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. is a multi-billion dollar
movie and television production and distribution company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Fiske, Esq.
      John H. Gomez, Esq.
      GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      655 West Broadway Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 237-3490
      Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
      E-mail: jfiske@thegomezfirm.com
              jgomez@thegomezfirm.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING: 3rd "Myart" Complaint Denied in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted in part and denied in part
plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in
the lawsuit JAMES W. MYART, JR., Plaintiff, v. JACQUELINE PARKER
GLOSSON, EDWIN NORMAN GLOSSON, AND SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-14-CV-831-XR (W.D. Texas).

For reasons stated in his Nov. 20, 2014 order available at
http://is.gd/4d0bu7from Leagle.com, the judge ruled that leave is
denied with respect to Paragraph 31, the breach of fiduciary duty
claim, and Paragraph 34, the class action claims. Paragraphs 31
and 34 are stricken from the third amended complaint and leave is
granted for all other paragraphs.

Myart's petition is mostly about an alleged fraud and theft
perpetrated on him by his ex-wife, Jacqueline Parker Glosson.
Myart alleges that Ms. Glosson conspired with her new husband,
Edwin, to deceive him into giving her the property located at 306
Preston Ave., San Antonio, Texas, by promising she would reunite
with him romantically.

Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS) is the holder of a loan
associated with the Property in 1988.  Myart further alleges that
Jacqueline entered into a loan re-modification with SLS relating
to the mortgage in July 2014, and that SLS failed to validate his
-- allegedly forged -- signature or take steps to confirm he
agreed to the modification.

The second amended complaint, construed liberally, states seven
causes of action against Defendant SLS: 1) negligence, 2) fraud,
3) predatory lending, 4) breach of contract, 5) consumer mortgage
fraud or "predatory mortgage lending," 6) violations of the ECOA,
and 7) racial and sexual discrimination.

As to the new class-action assertions, Myart alleged that
thousands of other mortgagees of SLS suffered the exact illegal
activities of SLS as he has, including but not limited to
predatory mortgage lending and servicing.

Judge Rodriguez, in his order, held that "the class-action
allegations against SLS as currently stated are not directly
related to this controversy, which heavily involves the Glossons'
alleged scheme and SLS's participation in it, or supported by
minimal alleged facts. . . . Paragraph 34 is a futile amendment
and leave to add it would not be in the interest of justice."

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC is represented by Branch Masterson
Sheppard -- bsheppard@jdkglaw.com -- & George Anthony Kurisky, Jr.
-- gkurisky@jdkglaw.com -- of Johnson DeLuca Kurisky & Gould,
P.C..


SPENCER & LIVINGSTON: Wash. Court Revives "Riverview" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington, sitting en banc, reversed the
dismissal of Riverview Community Group's lawsuit against Spencer &
Livingston, et al.  The suit is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.

Since the 1980s, a partnership formed by Charles Spencer and
George Livingston built the Meadows Golf Course Complex, platted
nearby lots into subdivisions, and sold those lots to private land
owners.  Over the years, ownership of unsold lots and the golf
course changed hands and since Spencer died, Livingston closed
down the golf course complex to plat the area into new residential
lots.

Some homeowners formed the Riverview Community Group, which filed
the lawsuit seeking to bar the defendants from selling off the
former golf course as individual homes, among other things.
Riverview named as defendants the original Spencer & Livingston
partnership, George and Sheila Livingston, the partnership's
alleged successors, and anyone else claiming an interest in the
golf course property.

In 2012, the trial judge issued a memorandum decision granting the
Livingstons' motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to join
indispensable parties.

The Court of Appeals largely reversed the trial court's legal
rulings, finding that Riverview had organizational standing and
the individual property owners were not essential parties, and
concluding that Washington recognized equitable covenants.
However, it affirmed summary judgment on the grounds that it would
be "irrational to require the defendants to rebuild and operate a
failing business."

The Supreme Court of Washington granted Riverview's petition for
review.  In its Nov. 20, 2014 order, the Supreme Court affirmed
most of the Court of Appeals' legal rulings but find its dismissal
was based on facts not found in the record.  A copy of the Supreme
Court's Nov. 20, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/0ME5Bn
from Leagle.com.

The case is captioned RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY GROUP, a non-profit
Washington Corporation, Petitioner, v. SPENCER & LIVINGSTON, a
Washington Partnership, and/or its successors-in-interest; GEORGE
T. and SHEILA LIVINGSTON, husband and wife, and the marital
community composed thereof; DEER MEADOWS, INC., a defunct
Washington Corporation, and/or its successors-in-interest; DEER
MEADOW DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Washington corporation, and/or its
successors-in-interest; S.O.S., LLC, a Washington Limited
Liability Company, and/or its successors-in-interest; DEER MEADOWS
GOLF, INC., an inactive Washington corporation, and/or its
successors-in-interest; also all other persons or parties unknown
claiming any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real
estate described in the complaint herein, Respondents, Case No.
88575-3

Counsel for Petitioner:

     David P. Boswell, Esq.
     BOSWELL LAW FIRM PS
     505 W. Riverside Ave Ste 500
     Spokane, WA, 99201-0518

Counsel for Respondents:

     David A. Kulisch, Esq.
     DAVID A. KULISCH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     1500 Bank of America Fin Ctr
     601 W. Riverside Ave
     Spokane, WA, 99201-0621
     E-mail: dak@randalldanskin.com

          - and -

     Michael Robert Grover, Esq.
     RANDALL DANSKIN PS
     601 W. Riverside Ave Ste 1500
     Spokane, WA, 99201-0653
     E-mail: mrg@randalldanskin.com

          - and -

     David Scott Mann, Esq.
     GENDLER & MANN LLP
     615 2nd Ave Ste 560
     Seattle, WA, 98104-2242
     E-mail: mann@gendlermann.com

          - and -

     Brendan Wesley Donckers, Esq.
     BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC
     1000 Second Avenue Suite 3670
     Seattle, WA, 98104
     E-mail: bdonckers@bjtlegal.com

          - and -

     Peter Guillum Scott, Esq.
     GOUGH, SHANAHAN, JOHNSON & WATERMAN
     682 S. Ferguson Ave Ste 4
     Bozeman, MT, 59718-6491


SYNGENTA CORP: "Collins" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Collins v. Syngenta Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03169, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02016-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM
          P O Box 904
          Hahnville, LA 70057-2104
          Telephone: (985) 783-6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Brister, Esq.
          BRISTER & BRISTER
          P O Box 266
          Lake Providence, LA 71254
          Telephone: (318) 559-5800
          Facsimile: (318) 559-5680

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Stein, Esq.
          ADAMS & REESE
          701 Poydras St., Suite 4500
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 585-0305
          Facsimile: (504) 566-0210
          E-mail: david.stein@arlaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Krielow" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Krielow v Syngenta Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-03061, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02014-JWL-JPO to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerald P. Block, Esq.
          Kendall John Krielow, Esq.
          BLOCK LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 108
          Thibodaux, LA 70302
          Telephone: (504) 446-0418
          Facsimile: (504) 446-0422

               - and -

          Roman A. Shaul, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          PO Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 951-7555
          E-mail: roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark C. Surprenant, Esq.
          ADAMS & REESE
          701 Poydras St., Suite 4500
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 581-3234
          Facsimile: (504) 566-0210
          E-mail: mark.surprenant@arlaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "McClain" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned McClain v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00133, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).
The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02013-
JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred F. Tom Thompson, III, Esq.
          Casey P. Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          1141 East Main Street, Suite 300
          Post Office Box 2595
          Batesville, AR 72503-2595
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com
                  scott@bohrerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad W. Pekron, Esq.
          John E. Tull, III, Esq.
          Joseph Wayne Price, II, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          Facsimile: (501) 379-3826
          E-mail: cpekron@qgtlaw.com
                  jtull@qgtlaw.com
                  ajprice@qgtlaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "McCorkle" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled McCorkle v. Syngenta Corporation,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00263, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02008-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Benjamin Finley, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          3535 Piedmont Rd., Bldg. 14, Suite 230
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 320-9979
          Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
          E-mail: BFinley@TheFinleyFirm.com

               - and -

          R. Walker Garrett, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          PO BOX 2645
          200 13th Street
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 323-7711
          Facsimile: (706) 322-6221
          E-mail: WGarrett@TheFinleyFirm.com

               - and -

          Roman Ashley Shaul, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          PO Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jaime L. Theriot, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          5200 Bank of America Plaza
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Telephone: (404) 885-3534
          Facsimile: (404) 962-6748
          E-mail: jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Neely" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Neely v. Syngenta Seeds Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00669, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02009-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Charles Williams, Esq.
          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: jwilliams@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Portera, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 754-1900
          Facsimile: (214) 754-1933
          E-mail: jportera@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Manmeet Walia, Esq.
          Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          First Interstate Bank Plaza
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
          E-mail: mwalia@susmangodfrey.com
                  vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3880
          E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
          654 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10065
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad W. Pekron, Esq.
          John E. Tull, III, Esq.
          Joseph Wayne Price, II, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          Facsimile: (501) 379-3826
          E-mail: cpekron@qgtlaw.com
                  jtull@qgtlaw.com
                  ajprice@qgtlaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: RJR Farms Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RJR Farms, et al. v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00415, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).
The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02006-
JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq.
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          The Rozelle-Murphy House
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com
                  scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad W. Pekron, Esq.
          John E. Tull, III, Esq.
          Joseph Wayne Price, II, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          Facsimile: (501) 379-3826
          E-mail: cpekron@qgtlaw.com
                  jtull@qgtlaw.com
                  ajprice@qgtlaw.com


SZ ENTERPRISES: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael P. Shea granted, in part, Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned RUTH DIXON,
ISHEA ANDERSON-RODRIGUEZ, ANDRE SMITH, MAHAGANY BIVENS, SHANTEEMA
PALLET, KENNYFORD, SAM HIRTH, NICHOLE GAMBACCINT, and EARL GLENN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT ZABKA, Individually, S.Z. ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and THE SCOTT FETZER COMPANIES d/b/a KIRBY, Defendants, CASE NO.
3:11-cv-982 (MPS) (D. Conn.).

Kirby manufactures high-end vacuum cleaners and sells them
exclusively through in-home product demonstrations with potential
customers. Kirby contracts with a network of local distributors,
which in turn contract with Independent Dealers who sell Kirby
vacuums door-to-door. The Named Plaintiffs worked for two of
Kirby's distributors in Connecticut.

Plaintiffs filed a nine-count class action complaint against Zabka
and Kirby claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") by failing to pay minimum wage  and overtime compensation
and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), and raising common
law claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking
determinations that: (1) they were employees, not independent
contractors of Kirby, and (2) Kirby is liable as their joint
employer under the FLSA.

In its defense, Defendant Kirby argued among others, that the
complaint must fail because Kirby was not the joint employer as a
matter of law and Plaintiffs are exempt under the outside sales
exemption. Further, Kirby argued that it is entitled to summary
judgment on the Independent Dealers' and Appointment Setters' FLSA
claims because it is not their joint employer.

Both parties raised their arguments and contention based on the
formal control factors identified by the Second Circuit which
include: "whether the alleged employer (1) had the power to hire
and fire the employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee
work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the
rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.

In his revised Memorandum of Decision, Judge Shea ruled the
existence of genuine issues of material fact as to three of the
four "formal control" factors, with only the fourth factor
weighing against joint employment while three of the six
"functional control" factors weigh in favor of joint employment,
two weigh against joint employment, and there are genuine issues
of material fact as to the "supervision" factor. Accordingly,
Judge Shea denied Kirby's motion for summary judgment on this
ground.

On the other hand, Judge Shea granted summary judgment to Kirby on
the point that the Independent Dealers would be classified as
exempt outside sales people, and not "employees," under the CMWA
and ruled that factors (2) and (3) weigh against joint employment
with respect to Appointment Setters. Thus, Kirby is not the joint
employer of Appointment Setters as a matter of law.

A copy of the Memorandum of Decision dated November 13, 2014, is
available at bit.ly/1zCd6UK from Leagle.com.

Ruth Dixon, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Klein --
atk@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, Cyrus E. Dugger --
cd@theduggerlawfirm.com -- Outten & Golden, James Bhandary-
Alexander, New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. Inc., Molly A Brooks,
Outten & Golden, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden, Sally J Abrahamson,
Outten & Golden, Shelley A. White, New Haven Legal Assistance &
Susan Nofi-Bendici, State of Connecticut.

Andre Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Klein, Outten &
Golden, Cyrus E. Dugger, Outten & Golden, James Bhandary-
Alexander, New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. Inc., Molly A Brooks,
Outten & Golden, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden, Sally J Abrahamson,
Outten & Golden, Shelley A. White, New Haven Legal Assistance &
Susan Nofi-Bendici, State of Connecticut.

Mahagany Bivens, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Klein, Outten &
Golden, Cyrus E. Dugger, Outten & Golden, James Bhandary-
Alexander, New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. Inc., Molly A Brooks,
Outten & Golden, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden, Sally J Abrahamson,
Outten & Golden, Shelley A. White, New Haven Legal Assistance &
Susan Nofi-Bendici, State of Connecticut.

Shanteema Pallet, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Klein, Outten
& Golden, Cyrus E. Dugger, Outten & Golden, James Bhandary-
Alexander, New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. Inc., Molly A Brooks,
Outten & Golden, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden, Sally J Abrahamson,
Outten & Golden, Shelley A. White, New Haven Legal Assistance &
Susan Nofi-Bendici, State of Connecticut.

Kenny Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Klein, Outten &
Golden, Cyrus E. Dugger, Outten & Golden, James Bhandary-
Alexander, New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. Inc., Molly A Brooks,
Outten & Golden, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden, Sally J Abrahamson,
Outten & Golden, Shelley A. White, New Haven Legal Assistance &
Susan Nofi-Bendici, State of Connecticut.

Ishea Anderson-Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Klein,
Outten & Golden, Cyrus E. Dugger, Outten & Golden, James Bhandary-
Alexander, New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. Inc., Molly A Brooks,
Outten & Golden, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden, Sally J Abrahamson,
Outten & Golden, Shelley A. White, New Haven Legal Assistance &
Susan Nofi-Bendici, State of Connecticut.

Sam Hirth, Plaintiff, represented by Cyrus E. Dugger, Outten &
Golden, James Bhandary-Alexander, New Haven Legal Assistance
Assoc. Inc., Molly A Brooks, Outten & Golden, Rachel Bien, Outten
& Golden, Sally J Abrahamson, Outten & Golden & Shelley A. White,
New Haven Legal Assistance.

Scott Fetzer Companies, doing business as Kirby, Defendant,
represented by Christopher M McLaughlin --
cmmclaughlin@jonesday.com -- Jones Day-OH, Emilie A. Hendee, Jones
Day, Matthew W Lampe, Jones Day & Patricia E. Reilly, Littler
Mendelson, P.C..


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Gori" Suit Over Defective Airbags
------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gori, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00011
(S.D. Ill., January 6, 2015), 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:

      Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
      Eric D. Holland, Esq.
      HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
      300 North Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-8111
      Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
      E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com
              eholland@allfela.com

         - and -

      D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
      GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      156 N. Main Street
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618)659-9833
      Facsimile: (618)659-9834
      E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com


TARGET CORP: Judge's Data Breach Class Action Ruling Significant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal judge's refusal to dismiss litigation brought by credit
card issuers against Target Corp. in the wake of 2013's massive
data breach is significant and could influence other courts to
hold retailers liable in similar cases.

However, there are elements of this lawsuit that are specific to
the Minneapolis-based discount retailer and would not apply to
other breach cases, experts say.

Court papers in the litigation filed by the financial
institutions, which are seeking class action status, say they have
suffered unspecified "substantial out-of-pocket losses" stemming
from the 2013 breach.

The Target breach, which cost the company more than $140 million
through Nov. 1, 2014, and exposed 110 million customers' payment
card numbers, thrust the danger of cyber breaches into the
national limelight a year ago.

In his Dec. 2 ruling, Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the U.S. District
Court in St. Paul, Minnesota, refused to dismiss the litigation
and said plaintiffs can proceed with charges, including
negligence, against the retailer.

"At this preliminary stage of the litigation, plaintiffs have
plausibly (pleaded) a general negligence case," according to the
memorandum Judge Magnuson issued.  "Although the third-party
hackers' activities caused harm, Target played a key role in
allowing the harm to occur.

"Indeed, plaintiffs' allegation that Target purposely disabled the
security features that would have prevented the harm is itself
sufficient to plead a direct negligence case," Judge Magnuson
wrote.

Litigation filed by consumers in connection with the data breach
case also have been consolidated, albeit separately, in Judge
Magnuson's court.  However, experts say his ruling in the
financial institutions case does not provide an insight into how
he is likely to rule in that case because different legal issues
are involved.

The next major steps in the litigation process will be discovery
and, if Target is unsuccessful in having the case dismissed,
possibly class certification of the financial institutions.

The ruling essentially holds that, based on the pleadings to date,
Target was responsible for the damages the hackers caused even
though there was no direct, contractual relationship between the
retailer and the credit card issuers.

Judge Magnuson concluded "that there can be a direct duty between
the issuing banks and the retailer, and that lets them get over
this motion to dismiss hurdle," said Joshua P. Gunneman --
jgunnemann@rh-law.com -- a partner at law firm Rogers & Hardin
L.L.P. in Atlanta.

In the absence of a contractual relationship, the judge focuses on
"a very traditional legal theory, which is negligence, to impose
liability on the company that is hacked," said Peter S. Selvin, an
attorney with Troy Gould P.C. in Los Angeles.

"It's really a significant opinion because, frankly, there's very
little case law on what the relationship is between a retailer and
the banks that ultimately issue the cards," said Michelle A. Reed,
-- mreed@akingump.com -- a partner with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld L.L.P. in Dallas.

Although Target had claimed it did not have a significant enough
relationship with the banks to be liable for the data breach, the
judge "essentially circumvented that whole analysis" and held this
was a direct negligence case, Ms. Reed said.

She said that "from a legal standpoint it shouldn't matter"; in
fact the larger the breach "the more likely the court will find
some kind of harm that is not just speculative resulting from the
data breach."

Brian T. Himmel -- bhimmel@reedsmith.com -- a partner with Reed
Smith L.L.P. in Pittsburgh, said with all the retailer data
breaches that have occurred over this past year, the ruling opens
the window to new liability exposure for retailers.

While there will not be as immediate an effect, he said financial
institutions may get "a little relief" from their underwriters on
this issue if the judge's view is eventually supported by the
appellate court or by courts in other jurisdictions.

He added, however, that the litigation is still only at the motion
to dismiss stage, "so we're a long ways away from being able to
assess" the case's effect.

Ruling may be case-specific

Meanwhile, attorneys say that at least to some extent, the judge's
ruling is based on the particular facts of the case, and that it
may not be widely applicable in other jurisdictions.

Barry Goheen, a partner with law firm King & Spalding L.L.P. in
Atlanta, said the judge based his ruling in part on a Minnesota
law, the Plastic Card Security Act, which forbids retaining credit
card information for more than 48 hours after the transaction is
authorized, and not all states have comparable statutes.

Ms. Reed said the ruling underscores the need for retailers to "be
prepared ahead of time and make sure they have a proper incident
response plan" in place and appropriate lines of authority so
there is an immediate response when a red flag appears.

The more reasonable steps retailers take -- and document -- to
protect consumer data, "the more likely they are to survive a
conduct-based challenge," Mr. Gunneman said.


TING HSIN: Consumer Foundation Mulls Class Suit Over Tainted Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Queena Yen, writing for The China Post, reports that The Consumer
Foundation (CF) was getting ready to file a class action lawsuit
on Jan. 5 representing 152 cases affected by tainted oil.  The
group had expected to receive at least 800 cases.  The CF reminded
citizens that people don't have to spend any money nor appear in
court in a class action suit in the hopes that more people would
stand up for their consumer rights.

To support consumers who were affected by the tainted oil scandal
last year, the Executive Yuan has entrusted two public
organizations with dealing with the class action suit against Ting
Hsin International Group, Cheng-I Food Co. Ltd., Chang Guann Co.
and Beei Hae Edible Co.

However, there were not as many cases as expected, according to
the CF.  Department of Consumer Protection Director-General Liu
Chin-fang also said that until the end of last year, only a few
people came to authorities requesting compensation.

According to Liu, there are 22 Consumer Ombudsman offices in local
governments around Taiwan.  However, they only received six cases
so far.

As for the CF, although 146 cases already reaches the legal amount
required for filing a class action suit, the CF is still
considering extending the time period for taking applications from
consumers.  According to the CF, it has never come across a
situation like this before when dealing with similar cases in the
past.  The CF presumed that it may be because most people have
already lost their receipts for tainted oil products and cannot
prove that they were victims of the tainted oil scandal.

Another Reason

According to the CF, there may be another reason for the low
participation rate: the result of similar cases in the past.  The
CF stated that the compensation money of similar cases in the past
was usually not as much as expected.

For example, in the class action suit for the food scare case in
2011 involving a plasticizer contaminant, although the CF sought
NT$2.4 billion in compensation at the time, the court only brought
in a verdict awarding NT$1.2 million to the plaintiffs.

As there have been many food scandals in Taiwan in recent years
and none of the businesses have really paid the price for
committing illegal actions, consumers have become less confident
in these kinds of lawsuits, said the CF.

The CF also stated that it was hard to file a class action lawsuit
in the past.  However, new amendments to the Act Governing Food
Safety and Sanitation passed last year will make it easier to ask
for reasonable compensation in the future.


TOP FINANCE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Guzman" Case Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In JOSE GUZMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TOP FINANCE CO. et
al., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B252068, Top Finance Inc.
appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion to compel
arbitration.

On December 19, 2012, Jose Guzman filed a complaint, alleging
fraud and the violation of various consumer protection laws in
connection with his purchase of a 2005 Volkswagen Toureg from 605
Auto.  Guzman alleged he saw the car advertised as a certified
pre-owned car for $14,995 with 12.99 percent APR financing.  When
Guzman and his wife went to see the car, they were informed they
did not qualify for the advertised price and finance rate due to
their poor credit.  They negotiated a sales price of $15,995 with
an APR of 23.99 percent and a $3,000 down payment. The Guzmans
signed a retail installment sales contract, which contained an
arbitration clause.  Soon after their purchase, the Guzmans began
to experience difficulty with the car.  The middle rear seatbelt
was not functional and various warning lights became illuminated.
Guzman's wife experienced trouble with the brakes and sudden
acceleration while driving on the freeway.  On a separate
occasion, she crashed into a neighbor's gate when the brakes
failed.  Guzman further alleged the car did not comply with
California's smog and safety pre-sale requirements. Guzman
attempted to have the car repaired multiple times under the 30 day
warranty with no success.

The complaint alleged individual claims as well as class claims on
behalf of: 1) persons who purchased a certified pre-owned vehicle
from 605 Auto without receiving a completed inspection report
indicating all the components inspected; 2) persons who purchased
a vehicle from 605 Auto who paid a price higher than that
advertised; 3) persons who purchased a vehicle from 605 Auto who
received a warranty different from that advertised. 605 Auto
assigned the sales contract to Top Finance on December 19, 2011.
Thus, the complaint was alleged against 605 Auto Sales, Top
Finance Co., Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and
the three individuals involved in selling the car to the Guzmans.

On appeal, Top Finance challenges the trial court's findings
regarding the enforceability of the arbitration clause. Top
Finance contends the trial court took an overly hostile view of
arbitration agreements by applying an "entirely different and
improperly stringent test to find arbitration agreements
unconscionable which is not applied to other contracts."

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Eight, on January 2, 2015, found the contract was not
unconscionable, and accordingly reversed the trial court's order
denying Top Finance's motion to compel arbitration.

A copy of the decision is available at http://is.gd/USffzffrom
Leagle.com.

Foell & Elder, and William N. Elder Jr. for Defendant and
Appellant.

Law Offices of Robert B. Mobasseri, Robert B. Mobasseri --
robert@lawyer.com -- and Amy L. Hajduk for Plaintiff and
Respondent.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: DoJ Mulls Blind Customers' Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. has drawn more than its share of attention this
year from regulators and public officials in the cities where it
operates.  Now, the federal government is eyeing a lawsuit that
accuses the transportation network company of discriminating
against blind customers with service dogs.

In a brief filed on Dec. 23 in the Northern District of
California, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice take issue
with a central prong of Uber's defense: that it is a software app
used to connect passengers and drivers, not a public accommodation
within the meaning of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

The federal lawyers take no position on the merits of the case,
which was filed in September by an advocacy group for the blind,
but contend it should not automatically be dismissed based on a
finding that Uber is not technically a public accommodation.  The
same section of the ADA that refers to public accommodations also
expressly applies to private entities that are primarily engaged
in providing transportation services, the brief states.

"While Title III is routinely characterized as the public
accommodations title of the ADA, its reach is much broader," write
lawyers with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of California and with the Justice Department's Civil Rights
Division.

An Uber spokeswoman did not respond directly to the DOJ brief but
wrote in an email that the Uber app is designed to "expand access
to transportation options for all, including users with visual
impairments and other disabilities."  The company has said it
deactivates the account of any driver who refuses to transport a
service animal.

In its suit, the National Federation of the Blind of California
claims that Uber drivers have ignored, shouted at and sped away
from blind customers accompanied by guide dogs.  Plaintiffs allege
on one occasion an Uber driver locked a passenger's service dog in
the trunk of a sedan.  In other cases, blind passengers have been
forced to pay cancellation fees after they were passed over by
Uber drivers, according to the group's lawyers with Disability
Rights Advocates and TRE Legal Practice.

"Sighted users of the UberX transportation service can reliably
request a car and receive a ride, while blind users with guide
dogs must engage in transportation roulette," they stated.

Uber is represented by Littler Mendelson shareholders John Fish
Jr. -- jfish@littler.com -- and Andrew Spurchise --
aspurchise@littler.com

Mr. Fish did not respond to a phone call or email message on Dec.
23.  In their motion to dismiss, the company's lawyers insist,
among other defenses, that Uber is not a taxi service and does not
operate a fleet of vehicles.  In fact, as a transportation network
company, it is barred under rules promulgated by the California
Public Utilities Commission from owning vehicles used in its
operations.

The company's role is merely to offer passengers and drivers a
means to connect "that is used to access the place of public
accommodation: the transportation providers' vehicles," Uber's
brief states.

That may be cutting it a bit finely for the Justice Department.
"Defendants appear to imply that, if the court determines that
they are not a public accommodation, then the court should dismiss
plaintiff's ADA claim (and the complaint) in full," the DOJ brief
states.  "Any such implication would reflect a misunderstanding
about the scope" of the ADA.

National Federation of the Blind v. Uber, 14-4086, is pending
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins.  A hearing on
Uber's motion to dismiss is scheduled for Feb 5.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Illegally Collects Safe Ride Fees, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Pappey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00064 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawful and unfair assessment and collection of an
undisclosed $1.00 Safe Rides Fee.

Uber Technologies, Inc. operates a ride sharing service, which
provides transportation services to consumers in cities throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Keith Custis, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
      1016 Palm Ave.
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (3100 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              kcustis@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com


UNARCO INDUSTRIES: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to E.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hernandez v. Unarco Industries,
LLC, Case No. CJ-14-00300, was removed from the Wagoner County
District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Oklahoma (Muskogee).  The Oklahoma District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00001-KEW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James G. Wilcoxen, Esq.
          WILCOXEN & WILCOXEN
          PO Box 357
          Muskogee, OK 74402
          Telephone: (918) 683-6696
          Facsimile: (918) 682-8605
          E-mail: jim@wilcoxenlaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Kirk Turner, Esq.
          NEWTON O'CONNOR TURNER & KETCHUM
          15 W Sixth Street, Suite 2700
          Tulsa, OK 74119-5423
          Telephone: (918) 587-0101
          Facsimile: (918) 587-0102
          E-mail: kturner@newtonoconnor.com


UNITED STATES: Accused of Denying Medicare Coverage to Recipients
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S. government denies
Medicare coverage to beneficiaries, in the face of final appellate
decisions that say they are "confined to the home" or "homebound,"
a Vermont federal class action alleges.


UNITED STATES: Flores' Suit v. FBI Dismissed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Irene M. Keeley dismissed the case captioned ERIC
FLORES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL and FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV19,
(N.D. W.V.).

Eric Flores filed this civil rights complaint seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief on January 27, 2014. He purported to bring a
class action on behalf of himself and other Mexican-American
citizens "to seek relief from imminent danger such as death
. . . ."  He alleged that the defendants are "unlawfully
interfering with religious practices, marriages, criminal
investigations, and freedom of speech."

United States Magistrate Judge John Kaull filed a report and
recommendation (R&R), which recommended that the Court dismiss Mr.
Flores' complaint as frivolous. He concluded that Mr. Flores'
claims "rise to the level of being irrational or wholly
incredible."

In an order entered December 30, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/ogPHfkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Keeley
agreed, adopted the R&R in its entirety, and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.

Eric Flores, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


UNITED STATES: Labor Dep't Sued Over Alleged Sex Bias Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Shuithol Moy v. Thomas E. Perez, Secretary, Department of Labor,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00032-WHP (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2015) is brought
to redress, inter alia, claims of disparate treatment and sex
discrimination, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Plaintiff is a federal employee of the Department of Labor.
He holds the position of Senior Investigator within the Wage and
Hour Division.

Thomas E. Perez is the Secretary of Labor of the U.S. Department
of Labor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chinyere Okoronkwo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHINYERE OKORONKWO
          375 Park Avenue, Suite 2607
          New York, NY 10152
          Telephone: (212) 634-6846
          Facsimile: (212) 987-6621
          E-mail: cokoronkwo@cyoesq.com


VERIZON COMMS: Judge Tosses Class Suit Accord in Vodafone Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that a
Manhattan Commercial Division judge has scuttled a non-monetary
settlement of a class action brought by shareholders objecting to
Verizon Communications' $130 billion acquisition of Vodafone's
stake in the American telecom's wireless business.  The decision
also wipes out $2 million in attorney fees and costs for
plaintiffs' law firm Faruqi & Faruqi.

In a highly critical opinion in Gordon v. Verizon Communications,
653084/2013, Justice Melvin L. Schweitzer said approving the legal
fees would be a misuse of Verizon's corporate assets and would
enable "an unwarranted divestiture of shareholder rights."

The case, Justice Schweitzer said, is an example of the rising
tide of litigation that comes with every public acquisition in
which a settlement benefits the class counsel financially and
helps the defense by ending the litigation.

"A body of law meant to protect shareholder interests from the
absence of due care by the corporation's managers has been turned
on its head to diminish shareholder value by divesting them of
valuable rights via the broad releases that plaintiffs have
fashioned at the demand of concerned defendants and their counsel
and imposing additional gratuitous costs" in the form of attorney
fees, the judge said.

Avi Szenberg -- avi.szenberg@szenok.com -- co-founder of Szenberg
& Okun in New York and who represented objector Jonathan M. Crist,
said that while his client only objected to paying $2 million in
legal fees, he thought the entire lawsuit was frivolous and a
waste of shareholder's resources.

"Lawyers should not be compensated for these type of actions and
obtaining these useless settlements," Mr. Szenberg said.

Even though the Delaware courts are the center of shareholder
litigation in the United States and have a reputation of being
tough toward shareholder lawsuits, Mr. Szenberg added Schweitzer's
decision shows that a New York judge can be as skeptical as any
Delaware judge. His co-counsel included firm co-founder Jacob Okun
and of counsel Moshe Balsam.

The plaintiffs said Verizon's board of directors breached its
fiduciary duty to stockholders by causing the company to pay "an
allegedly excessive and dilutive price" to acquire Vodafone
subsidiaries as well as the minority interest in Verizon Wireless.
The plaintiffs also said the duty of candor was violated because
the directors failed to disclose material information from their
financial advisors opining that the transaction was fair.

In exchange for settling the suit, the plaintiffs said Verizon
agreed to include supplemental disclosures about the transaction
ahead of a shareholder vote last January.  The plaintiffs also
said Verizon's board of directors agreed to obtain a fairness
opinion from an independent financial advisor for "any transaction
regarding assets of Verizon Wireless having a book value . . . in
excess of $14.4 billion," or approximately 5 percent of the book
value of Verizon Wireless.  A fairness opinion would ensure that
the telecom's management would not sell assets too cheaply after
paying a premium for them, the plaintiffs said.

Justice Schweitzer said that judges view fairness opinions
favorably when evaluating the actions of directors, but the
decision to obtain those opinions is up to the business judgment
of directors.  Moreover, mandating a fairness opinion for any
transaction involving 5 percent of Verizon Wireless' book value
"may actually operate to curtail the company's directors'
flexibility and ability to employ their collective business
experience in connection with minimal . . . asset dispositions,"
the judge said.

Justice Schweitzer said that the supplemental disclosures
negotiated by the plaintiffs would not increase shareholder value.
The disclosures included details of financial advisor JPMorgan's
comparative analysis of other companies in the industry, the
absence of which the judge called "a degree of administrative
mercy on analysts and shareholders who comb disclosure documents
for items of merit."

Sean Griffith, a law professor at Fordham University School of
Law, was the expert for objector Crist and spoke at the hearing,
along with counsel.

Gerald Walpin, a New York attorney and Verizon shareholder
representing himself, also argued the fees were excessive in light
of the return for stockholders in ownership of 2.86 billion
shares.

"This decision proves that shareholders do not have to accept a
settlement of a case, supposedly brought in their name by a
lawyer, where the shareholders receive nothing and the lawyer
sweeps in millions for himself," Walpin said in an email.

Managing partner Nadeem Faruqi -- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- and
partner Juan E. Monteverde -- jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com -- of
Faruqi & Faruqi did not respond to a request for comment.

Verizon's lawyers are partner Paul K. Rowe -- PKRowe@wlrk.com --
and associate Adam M. Gogolak -- AMGogolak@wlrk.com -- of
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York.  Mr. Rowe declined to
comment on the ruling.

In September 2013, Verizon announced its agreement with Vodafone
Group Plc and Vodafone 4 Limited to acquire Vodafone's 45 percent
indirect interest in Verizon Wireless.  In exchange, Verizon
agreed to pay $59 billion in cash financed by what was among the
largest corporate bond issuances in history.  Verizon also agreed
to pay $60 billion in Verizon stock, $5 billion in notes payable
to Vodafone 4, a 23.1 percent stake in Vodafone Omnitel N.V.
valued at $3.5 billion and other consideration of $2.5 billion.


WELLS FARGO: App. Ct. Affirms TRO v. ILG in "Lofton" Wages Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California upheld a temporary restraining
order on Initiative Legal Group, APC, in the distribution of
settlement proceeds in a wage violations class action against
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in a Nov. 20, 2014 order available at
http://is.gd/OF5Rsdfrom Leagle.com.

The appeal from the order granting intervention is also dismissed,
the Appeals Court ruled.

The class action is DAWN LOFTON et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO
HOME MORTGAGE, Defendant; DAVID MARK MAXON, Movant and Respondent;
INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP, APC, Objector and Appellant, Case No.
A136626.  It was brought by class counsel in San Francisco in 2005
on behalf of home mortgage consultants working for Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage seeking damages for unpaid wages.  In 2006,
Initiative Legal Group, APC, (ILG) filed a similar action in the
Los Angeles Superior Court.  The Los Angeles case was decertified
in 2010.

The actions were nevertheless joined as a practical matter -- they
were coordinated for mediation of a settlement, and agreements to
resolve all claims were reached before the same mediator on the
same day. A common fund was agreed upon to resolve the class
action and a separate common fund was agreed upon to resolve the
many individual actions filed on behalf of ILG's clients.

At the preliminary approval hearing for the class action
settlement, the court was told that ILG's clients would opt out of
the class action. Moreover, ILG informed the trial judge who
presided over the class action that ILG was concerned that if the
class settlement were approved, its clients would in effect become
represented by class counsel and ILG would be unable to
communicate directly with them about the class action case.
This theoretical difficulty was worked out at the hearing.

But contrary to the explanation of the settlement that had been
provided to the court, ILG assisted its class member clients in
securing the benefits of the class action settlement rather than
in opting out of the class and thereby seek recompense from the
$6,000,000 common fund ILG had obtained.

The question thus arose as to what was the import of the common
fund settlement obtained by ILG if its clients participated in the
class settlement?  According to ILG, the settlement was for its
attorney fees for services ILG performed on the aborted class
action and the 600 individual cases. ILG explained to its clients
that while it "thought" the $6,000,000 it obtained in settlement
represented attorney fees, it was willing to pay from the
settlement $750 to each plaintiff for a claim it said was arguably
not resolved in the class action. ILG later increased the amount
payable to its clients to $1,750 after intervenor David Maxon
objected to ILG's final proposed allocation of the settlement
proceeds. This proposal would still leave ILG with approximately
$4,950,000 of the $6,000,000 settlement as attorneys fees.

"It is manifest that ILG intended to effectuate distribution of
the almost $5 million in fees to itself without court approval.
Such a move by lawyers representing so many plaintiffs in a common
fund situation appears to us unprecedented. It is fraught with the
potential for conflicts of interest, fraud, collusion and
unfairness," the Appeals Court opined.

The trial court in the class action issued a temporary restraining
order requiring ILG to, among other things, deposit into a secure
escrow account under the control and supervision of the court the
settlement proceeds it contends represent attorney fees for the
actions it brought against Wells Fargo on behalf of its
approximately 600 former clients, one of whom is intervenor David
Maxon. On appeal, ILG argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to
issue the TRO, abused its discretion in issuing the TRO and relied
on inadmissible evidence in issuing the TRO.

On review, the Appeals Court held: "[W]e hold that the trial court
presiding over the class action properly enjoined ILG from
distributing or taking action to distribute the proceeds of its
settlement to itself. The court presiding over the class action
had concurrent exclusive jurisdiction to consider the propriety of
the settlement of class member claims, even for those class
members represented by ILG on class or related claims. Moreover,
the trial court had a duty to ensure the fees claimed by ILG were
reasonable in light of the overall result ILG achieved. The TRO is
affirmed."

Natalie P. Vance -- NVance@KlinedinstLaw.com , Gregory T. Fayard
-- GFayard@KlinedinstLaw.com & Leah A. Plaskin --
LPlaskin@KinedinstLaw.com of KLINEDINST PC, Sean M. SeLegue --
Sean.SeLegue@aporter.com -- of ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Counsel for
Objector and Appellant.

Mark A. Chavez -- mark@chavezgertler.com , Nance F. Becker --
nance@chavezgertler.com -- of CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP, Richard
Zitrin, ZITRIN LAW OFFICE, David C. Anderson -- DCALAW08@ATT.NET
-- ANDERSON LAW, Counsel for Intervener and Respondent.


WESTWOOD BOARDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eunice Justo Almaguer and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Westwood Boarding Home, Inc., TGL Residence
Corp., Doris Torres, Case No. 1:15-cv-20028 (S.D. Fla., January 6,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. David Kelly, Esq.
      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Ste. 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      E-mail: david.kelly38@rocketmail.com
              ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


WHOLE FOODS: "Frydman" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Frydman v. Whole Foods Market
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2014CA014864 (AB), was removed from
the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (West Palm Beach).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 9:15-cv-80007-KLR to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Whole Foods Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-mc-02588-SS.

The actions in the litigation share factual issues arising from
highly similar allegations that Whole Foods 365 Greek Yogurt
contains much more sugar than stated on its label, that the
Defendants' marketing of the Yogurt was false and deceptive, and
that the Defendants were negligent in testing the Yogurt, and in
ensuring that the label was accurate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry L. Davis, Esq.
          THORNTON DAVIS & FEIN
          Brickell Bay View Centre
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2900
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 446-2646
          Facsimile: (305) 441-2374
          E-mail: davis@tdflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexandre S. Drummond, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: adrummond@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Jay W. Connolly, Esq.
          Joseph J. Orzano, Esq.
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: jconnolly@seyfarth.com
                  jorzano@seyfarth.com


YESHIVA BNOS: "Cordoba" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Cordoba, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Yeshiva Bnos Aha Vas Israel, and David Ganz, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00046 (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Yeshiva Bnos Aha Vas Israel is a New York religious corporation
operating multiple schools in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZYNGA INC: "Lee" Securities Action May Proceed Against D&Os
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied, in
part, Defendants' Motion Dismiss in the case captioned, WENDY LEE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MARK PINCUS, JOHN SCHAPPERT, WILLIAM GORDON, REID
HOFFMAN, JEFFREY KATZENBERG, STANLEY J. MERESMAN, SUNIL PAUL, OWEN
VAN NATTA, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., AND
ZYNGA INC., Defendants, C.A. NO. 8458-CB (Del. Ch.).

Zynga, a Delaware corporation based in San Francisco, California,
is in the "social gaming" industry. Zynga produces interactive,
online games (e.g. FarmVille) that are accessible through
facebook.com and other platforms.

Lee filed a complaint against Zynga and the underwriters,
respectively, asserting two causes of action, namely: (1) that the
Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by
waiving the lockup restrictions to favor the Director Defendants
at the expense of other pre-IPO stockholders and (2) that the
Underwriter Defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.

Lee alleged that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by selectively releasing the lockups, waiving the blackout
policy, and authorizing the secondary offering to benefit
themselves. Further, she alleged that lockup waivers were approved
by a self-interested board of directors, acting to serve the
interests of its own members and the company's controlling
shareholder. Furthermore, she alleged that the Director Defendants
gave themselves an improper benefit inconsistent with their duty
of loyalty to her and the putative class.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, raising three arguments: (1)
that the cause of action is derivative and that Lee failed to
satisfy the pleading requirements of Court of Chancery Rule 23.1;
(2) that Lee's claim sounds in contract law and thus does not
state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) that even if
fiduciary duty principles govern the claim, it must be dismissed
because Lee has failed to rebut the business judgment rule.

Judge Bouchard concluded that Plaintiff has stated a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty against the director defendants because
it is reasonably conceivable that, when the members of the Zynga
board restructured the lockup restrictions, half of the directors
who approved that decision received an unfair benefit. Also, Judge
Bouchard concluded that plaintiff has not stated a claim for
aiding and abetting because plaintiff has failed to plead facts
from which it is reasonably inferable that the underwriters
knowingly participated in a breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly,
the motion to dismiss filed by Zynga was denied while the motion
to dismiss filed by Underwriters was granted.

A copy of the Order dated November 14, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1wWKBxU from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth M. McGeever and J. Clayton Athey --
emmcgeever@prikett.com and jcathey@prickett.com -- of PRICKETT,
JONES & ELLIOT, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Ethan D. Wohl of WOHL
& FRUCHTER LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Danielle Gibbs and Nicholas J. Rohrer of YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Jordan Eth, Anna Erickson White
and Kevin A. Calia of MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendants Mark Pincus, John Schappert,
William Gordon, Reid Hoffman, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Stanley J.
Meresman, Sunil Paul, Owen Van Natta, and Zynga Inc.

Gregory V. Varallo, Thomas A. Uebler and Robert L. Burns of
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Bruce D.
Angiolillo and Jonathan K. Youngwood of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT
LLP, New York, New York; Simona G. Strauss of SIMPSON THACHER &
BARTLETT LLP, Palo Alto, California, Attorneys for Defendants
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Goldman, Sachs & Co.


* Fax Ads Must Contain Opt-Out Notice Requirements Under JFPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Venable LLP, even in 2015, fax marketing by
associations, foundations, and nonprofits remains a viable and
frequently used communications tool.  In a recent order, the
Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") explicitly confirmed
that all fax advertisements must contain the opt-out notice
requirements set forth by the Junk Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA") and
FCC rules.  The FCC's order resolves long-standing industry
confusion on whether the JFPA's opt-out notice requirements
extended to fax advertisements sent with recipients' prior
permission.

As background, about ten years ago, Congress enacted the JFPA and
amended the fax advertising provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  Shortly after the revised statute went into
effect, the FCC adopted the Junk Fax Order, which required, in
part, the inclusion of an opt-out notice on "solicited" and
"unsolicited" fax ads alike. But the implementation of the
provision relating to "solicited" ads (i.e., those sent to persons
that have given prior express permission) in the ruling led to
confusion regarding the application of the opt-out notice.

In its most recent order, the FCC recognized many affected parties
reasonably misconstrued the original ruling.  The FCC blamed a
footnote in its original order that stated the opt-out notice only
applied to "unsolicited" fax ads.  The lack of reference to
"solicited" ads in the footnote created an internal inconsistency
within the order.  The FCC understood affected parties misplaced
confidence in the application of the rule to solicited fax ads,
and issued a new order clarifying that the opt-out notice
requirement under the JFPA extends to all fax advertisements, even
those that are "solicited" by recipients.

To comply with the new JFPA order, the opt-out notice included on
fax ads must (1) be clear and conspicuous and appear on the first
page of the ad; (2) state that the recipients can request to not
receive future fax transmissions from the sender, and that the
senders must honor that request within the shortest reasonable
period of time (not to exceed 30 days); and (3) contain a domestic
phone number and fax number that the recipient can contact to opt
out.  Opt-out notices without all of these elements will be
subjected to the same penalties as those fax ads that contain no
notice at all.

Notably, the FCC granted a "limited retroactive waiver" of the
opt-out requirement to certain fax ad senders. From the date the
opt-out notice took effect in 2006 to April 30, 2015, parties that
obtained waivers are relieved from any past obligation to provide
the opt-out notice to recipients that solicited the advertisement
by providing prior express permission.  The FCC will allow -- and
expects -- similarly situated parties to apply for retroactive
waivers by April 30, 2015, and encourages any organizations that
have not been strictly compliant to submit waiver requests as soon
as possible.  Beginning May 1, 2015, any sender that fails to
include the opt-out notice at all or uses a deficient notice risks
significant monetary liability from the FCC and/or private class
action litigants.

Importantly, the FCC's order leaves unchanged the prohibitions
against sending faxes to recipients who did not request them, did
not want them, or who had no established business relationship
with the sender.  Venable has previously noted the general
prohibition against sending unsolicited fax ads and the
requirement to include opt-out notices on fax ads sent pursuant to
an established business relationship.  The FCC's order explains
that the requirement to include opt-out notices on all fax ads
sent under an established business relationship remains in effect
and that the waivers will not relieve past obligations to include
the notices to EBR recipients.  Likewise, existing rules and
regulations governing certain technical aspects of sending faxes
remain unchanged.

Nonprofits utilizing fax transmission as a method of sending
advertising communications should (1) seek a waiver for previous
noncompliant fax communications and (2) develop an opt-out notice
to include on any future fax advertisements.


* Video Games Sector Target of Publicity Case Attorneys
-------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, report that video game
litigation is poised to be a hot area for entertainment lawyers in
2015, as more celebrities sue over being cast as game characters
without their permission.

The spree is driven by a pair of 2013 rulings that sided with
athletes depicted in college football games, lawyers said, as well
as by the overall boom in gaming sales which makes the industry a
rich target for plaintiffs lawyers.

Attorneys who specialize in right of publicity cases say they
don't see the pace of litigation slowing down in 2015.  But
they're also eyeing a handful of cases that could slow plaintiffs
momentum and expand First Amendment protections for the depiction
of real figures in creative works.

Kelli Sager -- kellisager@dwt.com -- a partner in Davis Wright
Tremaine's Los Angeles office who specializes in media and
entertainment litigation, said over the course of 30 years of
practice she was used to seeing an average of one right of
publicity claim every year or two.

"We're now defending, I can think of six off the top of my head,"
she said.  "So it's a huge amount of litigation."

Keller v. Electronic Arts in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals, and Hart v. Electronic Arts in the Third Circuit both
came down in 2013 in favor of athletes who claimed they were
depicted as video game avatars without their consent.  The courts
found EA Games' portrayal of plaintiffs -- the avatars looked just
like the real players and played football where and how the real
people played -- was not sufficiently transformative to warrant
First Amendment protection.

Cue a subsequent lawsuit filed this summer by former Panamanian
dictator Manuel Noriega, upset over his portrayal in video game
"Call of Duty: Black Ops II."  That suit, filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court against Activision Blizzard Inc., was dismissed in
October on the grounds that the video game maker was protected by
its right to free expression.  The court found Mr. Noriega's
character wasn't a central part of the game and "that the
marketability and economic value of the challenged work in this
case comes not from Mr. Noriega, but from the creativity, skill
and reputation of the defendants," wrote Judge William Fahey.

Right of publicity lawyers also wonder if the dismissal had
something to do with Mr. Noriega's notoriety. (He is incarcerated
in a Panamanian prison, serving a sentence for drug trafficking,
money laundering and killing political opponents.)

Meanwhile Rockstar Games, the maker of video game "Grand Theft
Auto V," continues to fight a suit filed by Lindsay Lohan in
New York state court over her alleged portrayal in the game.  And
in September intellectual property rights firm CMG Worldwide Inc.
sued the maker of a World War II video game over its depiction of
General George Patton, dead nearly 70 years.

In a blog entry following the Noriega decision, UCLA School of Law
Professor Eugene Volokh commented on the confusion around right of
publicity law.  "The trouble is that different courts have drawn
different lines," he wrote.  "Roughly speaking, there is authority
for at least five different rules."

Ms. Sager is optimistic more courts will follow the Noriega
ruling, and consider whether the depiction of real-life characters
in a video game is just an element of an otherwise original work.
Ultimately Ms. Sager expects the Supreme Court to weigh in.  "It's
going to take a high court decision to really clear up the law,"
she said.

Until then, she's finding it difficult to show her clients where
the line is between free expression and infringement.

The Supreme Court provides video games the same protection under
the First Amendment as books, films, and other forms of art.  But
as video games are a relatively new form of media, they have been
tricky for courts to figure out how to regulate, said Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro partner Leonard Aragon, a Phoenix lawyer who
argued for plaintiffs in Keller.  As graphics improve, video game
makers can create avatars that look increasingly like the public
figures they're intended to portray.  But they also have the
ability to build alternate universes that transform those public
figures in new ways.

"I think it creates unique circumstances," Mr. Aragon said, "where
you can basically create anything you want."

Sunnyvale solo Brian Henri, who represents retired NFL players
suing EA Games over its use of their likenesses, said it's become
clear this year that the courts view the "transformative use test"
as the accepted standard to judge publicity rights in video games,
just as in other forms of media.  A video game may use a celebrity
likeness if it sufficiently transforms the character, which EA's
hyper-realistic sports games do not, he said.

Mr. Henri made that argument before the Ninth Circuit in
September, while EA Games lawyers Alonzo Wickers IV of Davis
Wright Tremaine countered that test doesn't offer adequate
protection to the inherently expressive nature of a video game.
He argued a new test should be created that takes into
consideration the enormous amount of artistry and design that goes
into creating a video game.  The Ninth Circuit has yet to rule.

Mr. Henri said the courts have consistently rejected such "novel"
arguments.  The characters themselves aren't transformed at all
from their real-life inspirations, he said, and ever-improving
graphics just mean the characters become more and more lifelike.
"You just can't take someone's likeness and incorporate it into
your video game without permission," Mr. Henri said.

Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which champions
free expression, have found themselves in line with the video game
makers.  EFF staff attorney Daniel Nazer said the "transformative
use test" makes sense when talking about an appropriated song or
piece of artwork, but not a person.

"There's no reason why realistic speech or depiction should be
less protected under the First Amendment," he said.

A Ninth Circuit decision in a case over the war film "The Hurt
Locker" may make the balance between publicity rights and free
expression more clear.  In Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver v. Nicolas
Chartier, an Iraq war veteran claims a central character in the
2010 Academy Award winning Best Picture was drawn without his
permission from interviews about his experiences fighting in Iraq.

His suit was dismissed in 2011 under California's anti-SLAPP law.
The appeal, argued in May 2013, could have implications beyond
film, for how public and historical figures are used in video
games and other forms of media, said right of publicity lawyer
Lincoln Bandlow -- lbandlow@lathropgage.com -- of Lathrop & Gage
in Los Angeles.

"It could dramatically change the entire world of motion pictures,
biographies, docudramas," he said.  "The entirety of docudramas
will change if it is ruled that a historical person has the right
to stop depictions of themselves in films."


                             *********

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  * * *