---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 12


                             Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: $94MM Wage-and-Hour Verdict Reversed
ADVANCE AMERICA: Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action
AETNA INC: Chiropractor Not Required to Arbitrate ERISA Claim
BARRICK GOLD: Lawyers Seek Clarity on Carriage Motions
BAUER PUBLISHING: Obtains Final Approval of Halaburda Suit Deal

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Sharma" Suit
BRUCKNER FOREVER: "Mota" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BUILDING MATERIALS: "Ross" Suit Consolidated in GAF Materials MDL
CAESARS ACQUISITION: CEC Merger Class Action May Widen
CERAGON NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Over July 2014 IPO

CHENMED LLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CIGNA CORP: 2nd Circuit Affirms Pension Plan Class Action Ruling
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Orders Document Production in "Strauch"
CREDIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gallego" Suit Claims
CVS PHARMACY: 1,000+ Pharmacists File Overtime Class Action

DAP PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Water Hose
DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Sued in Texas Over Unlawful Merger Practices
DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
EISEN & SON: Faces "Melchor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FACEBOOK INC: Sued Over Private Message Scanning

FUQI INTERNATIONAL: February 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: "Ballesteros" Suit Transferred to Georgia
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of No-Poach Class Action
GTS HOLDINGS: "Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HARBINGER GROUP: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over False Financial Reports

HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Garbage Collection Privatization
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Fax Machine Class Action
HONEST TEA: "Salazar" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
INDIANA: Bureau of Prisons Sued Over Muslim Inmate Hem Lengths
INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Report

JACKSON COUNTY, MO: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices
LAND O'LAKES: Protective Order Entered in "Salgado" Class Action
MACH MINING: High Court to Hear Argument in Discrimination Suit
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Preliminary Injunction Blocks Worksite Raids

MC KITCHEN: Faces "Ordonez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
MCDONALDS CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Sued in Mich. Over Illegal Sale of Company
MERITER HEALTH: Judge Approves $82-Mil. Class Action Settlement
MOL GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Mulls Global IPO Class Action

NESTLE WATERS: 3rd Cir. Upholds Ruling in "Ciser" Fraud Case
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
PENNYMAC LOAN: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collections Law
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
PHILIP MORRIS: Summary Judgment Ruling in Damianakis Case Flipped

PILOT FLYING: Judge Seeks More Information in Fuel Rebate Suit
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Faces "Auman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RIGHT CHOICE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RINCON ECUATORIANO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ROGER CUNNINGHAM: "McBride" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

ROYAL CANADIAN: Class Action to Proceed Despite Firm Dissolution
SAVORY KITCHEN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
SINGING RIVER: Faces Second Class Action Over Pension Plan
SIRUS XM: Faces "Trenz" Suit in Cal. for Making Unsolicited Calls
SOBERLINK INC: Falsely Marketed Alcohol Testing Device, Suit Says

SONY PICTURES: Faces "Rodriguez" Data Breach Class Action
SYNGENTA CORP: "Guth" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: Rail Transfer Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: Rye Farms Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Bader" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TASNEEM ENTERPRISE: "Vanhorn" Case to Proceed as Collective Suit
TGI FRIDAY'S: Questions Timeline of Events in Class Action
TGI FRIDAY'S: Paid Worker in Attempt to Settle Class Action
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Sued Over Collection of Overdraft Fees
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Trenz" Suit Over Making Unsolicited Calls

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Driver Background Checks
UNITED STATES: Judge Tosses Home Health Care Worker Wage Rules
USP LEWISBURG: Dismissal of Shelton's FTCA Claim Affirmed
UXC LIMITED: Settles Bushfire Class Action
VIACOM: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Internships

VITAMIN SHOPPE: Sued Over Misleading Product Advertisement
WHOLE FOODS: "Richards" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
WYNDHAM VACATION: Sued by Ex-Sales Staff Over Violations of FLSA
XCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Martinez" Suit Says


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH to Have "Unmanifested" Fibro Claims Bar Date
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EEI Unit Indemnifies Denver for Fibro Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,250 Fibro & Silica Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Denies Reargument Bid in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Court Flips Ruling in "Moreau" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. App. Reverses Ruling in "Robertson" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Opinions in La. PI Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amicus Brief Allowed in "Dummitt" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Flips Summary Judgment in "Wiacek" Suit


                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: $94MM Wage-and-Hour Verdict Reversed
----------------------------------------------------
Zacks.com reports that the California Court of Appeal, Second
District, recently repealed a $94 million verdict related to a
wage-and-hour class action against multinational ABM Industries
Incorporated.  The judgment was initially granted by a California
trial court in 2012.

The class action lawsuit was seeking compensation in wages,
interest and penalties to a class of around 15,000 former and
present security guards.  The lawsuit alleged that the company
violated California law as the security guards were deprived of
off-duty rest breaks.

The plaintiffs claimed that ABM Industries transgressed wage-and-
hour laws by asking some employees to carry radios and remain "on
call" during rest breaks.  Consequently, the trial court passed a
ruling on the grounds that "California law requires employers to
relieve their workers of all duty during rest breaks".

However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the trial court's basis of
judgment, asserting that being on call does not amount to
performing work.  It emphasized that the Californian law only
stipulates that employees should not be required to work during
rest break, and thus the rest breaks were legitimate even when
workers were responsible for some duties, like remaining on call
during breaks.

The Court of Appeal also observed that the security guards got
involved in several non-work actions during their rest breaks,
like tending to personal business, reading, surfing the internet,
etc.

The Court of Appeal's reversal of the trial court's faulty grant
of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs substantiated that
ABM Industries complied with the law with regard to workers' rest
breaks.

ABM Industries has been facing pressure in increasing earnings
despite strong growth in revenues.  The company has been
undergoing restructuring for a considerable period of time, and
that might have contributed to its stressed margins and earnings
volatility.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by BuckleySandler LLP at JD Supra,
on December 29, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware dismissed a class action accusing a payday lender of
consumer fraud. Zieger v. Advance America, No. 13-cv-1614 (D. Del.
Dec. 29, 2014).  Filed in 2013, the suit sought damages on behalf
of borrowers who obtained loans from the lender on allegedly
"unconscionable and incomprehensible" terms.  Among these terms,
from which the plaintiff had opted out, was a dispute resolution
provision that effectively prohibits a borrower's right to a jury
trial.  In its order, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims
of the lender's misrepresentations lacked specificity and that
general attacks on payday lending were not sufficient to support
fraud claims.  The Court granted the lender's motion to strike the
class allegations and also granted the plaintiff leave to amend
the complaint with class allegations pertaining to those similarly
situated borrowers who may have also opted out of the dispute
resolution clause.


AETNA INC: Chiropractor Not Required to Arbitrate ERISA Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a chiropractor who obtained assignment of an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act claim from his patient is not required to
arbitrate a dispute with Aetna Inc., over retroactive benefit
determinations, a federal judge in Newark has ruled.

The judge rescinded his previous ruling compelling the doctor to
arbitrate based on a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit in a similar case, CardioNet Inc. v.
CignaHealth Corp.  In CardioNet, the appeals court said in May
2014 that health care providers may obtain standing to sue by
assignment from an insurance plan participant.

The CardioNet ruling represents an intervening change in law,
because it was the first decision in the Third Circuit to hold
that a patient-assigned ERISA claim is not subject to arbitration
pursuant to an agreement between a health care provider and an
insurance company, U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp said Dec. 31
in Association of New Jersey Chiropractors v. Aetna Inc.  The
change in jurisprudence required the court to reconsider its prior
ruling and to vacate its prior order compelling arbitration, Judge
Shipp said.

The chiropractor, Peter Manz, of Columbus, Ohio, is a plaintiff in
a putative class action claiming Aetna makes retroactive benefit
determinations that violate ERISA, according to court papers.  He
and another plaintiff, surgeon Leon Egozi of Miami, Fla., moved
for reconsideration of a June 2011 ruling compelling them to
arbitrate billing disputes with Aetna.  In 2011, the court found
Dr. Manz and Dr. Egozi were bound by arbitration provisions in
their respective provider agreements with the company.

Dr. Manz is challenging Aetna's retroactive denial of coverage for
his patients of certain therapeutic exercises and chiropractic
treatment by way of mechanical traction.  Dr. Egozi challenged
Aetna's retroactive determinations that his patients' plans do not
cover certain surgery for excessive sweating.

Dr. Egozi withdrew his motion for reconsideration after Aetna
opposed it.  Aetna, however, cross-moved to enforce a release it
obtained from Dr. Egozi in settlement of his claims.  But Judge
Shipp declined to enforce the settlement and dismissed the cross-
motion as moot, since Dr. Egozi is no longer a party.

Regarding the Manz motion, Judge Shipp said the facts were
"factually indistinguishable" from the portion of CardioNet
holding that the provider's claims were not subject to arbitration
because the patients themselves were not required to arbitrate
disputes.  In addition, in the present case, as in CardioNet, the
provider agreement does not explicitly require arbitration of
assigned claims, Judge Shipp said.

The ruling allows Manz to continue as an individual plaintiff in
the class action along with three other physicians.  The
Association of New Jersey Chiropractors and the New York
Chiropractice Council are also plaintiffs.  The suit was brought
on behalf of all health care providers nationwide, and it makes
claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act as well as ERISA.

The plaintiffs allege they were the subject of post-payment audits
by Aetna's Special Investigations Unit.  About 80 percent of
Aetna's post-payment audits are of claims submitted by and paid to
providers, the suit claims.  Dr. Manz says Aetna ordered him to
repay $20,290 for services he provided from 2006 to 2008 as a
result of a post-payment audit.  The plaintiffs are sent
"threatening correspondence" from the Special Investigations
Unit's lawyer, pressuring them to pay, the suit alleges.

The suit seeks a declaration that Aetna denied class members a
"full and fair review" of their claims under ERISA, and that it
violated disclosure requirements and federal claims procedures.
Plaintiffs' lawyer John Leardi -- vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com -- of
Buttaci & Leardi in Princeton, N.J., said he was pleased with the
decision but he declined to comment otherwise.

Liza Walsh -- lwalsh@connellfoley.com -- and Edward Wardell --
ewardell@connellfoley.com -- of Connell Foley in Roseland, N.J.,
representing Aetna, did not return calls seeking comment.


BARRICK GOLD: Lawyers Seek Clarity on Carriage Motions
------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that class
action lawyers are hoping the Divisional Court ruling will bring
some much-needed clarity to carriage motions after it agreed to a
hearing on the tightly contested battle to lead the multibillion-
dollar claim against Barrick Gold Corp.

On Dec. 11, Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba awarded
carriage of the Barrick class action to a group of law firms led
by Toronto's Rochon Genova LLP and also including Rosen Naster LLP
and Saskatchewan-based Merchant Law Group.

However, just 12 days later on Dec. 23, Ontario Superior Court
Justice Ian Nordheimer granted the losing coalition of law firms
leave to appeal Justice Belobaba's decision at the Divisional
Court.  That group consists of four more class action
heavyweights: Koskie Minsky LLP, Sutts Strosberg LLP, Siskinds
LLP, and Groia & Co.

Barrick faced a host of claims in the United States and Canada
after publicly announcing local courts had suspended its Pascua-
Lama mining project in Chile in April 2013, a move that
precipitated a dramatic drop in the company's share price.

In his ruling, Justice Belobaba said it "was not a difficult
decision" to award carriage to the Rochon Genova group, noting it
"clearly and decisively came out ahead" over its opponents in
terms of both its theory of the case and its state of preparation.

By pleading additional claims over the Koskie Minsky group, which
opted for a more streamlined case focused on environmental
violations, Justice Belobaba concluded the Rochon Genova group
better favored the interests of the class by not putting "all its
eggs in" one basket.

The judge also looked favorably on the advanced level of
preparation by the Rochon Genova group that included a trip to
Chile for meetings with potential witnesses as well as
governmental and legal officials.

Within weeks, Justice Nordheimer had granted the Koskie Minsky
group leave to appeal after it convinced him there were "good
reasons to doubt the correctness" of Belobaba's decision.

In his decision, Justice Nordheimer said Justice Belobaba had "set
up" an "asserted conflict" in previous case law centered on a
judge's ability to assess a claim's likelihood of success when
deciding a carriage motion.  "Assuming that this conflict exists,
it is important that it be resolved by the Divisional Court,"
wrote Justice Nordheimer.

He also raised concerns about the weight Justice Belobaba gave to
the relative experience of counsel in making his decision since it
acknowledged the losing Koskie Minsky group had more experience in
securities class actions than the successful Rochon Genova team.

Jim Orr -- jo@kimorr.ca -- a co-founder of plaintiff class action
firm Kim Orr Barristers PC, says he's happy the Divisional Court
will get a chance to flesh out the rules for carriage motions
considering the dearth of existing case law in the area.

Having won and lost major carriage battles, he finds the
unpredictability of the process frustrating.

"From the perspective of counsel, I couldn't tell you who's going
to win carriage, even in a case I have intimate knowledge of,
until you tell me who the judge is," he says.

"Some like a broader, more inclusive case and some like a more
focused case.  I have a great deal of sympathy for the judges
because it puts them in a very difficult position where they're
trying to assess things that courts don't normally want to get
into, such as the competence of counsel and the merits of the
claim.  It's impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy
which is the better case at a point when there is virtually no
discovery or anything."

David Klein, head of the class action group at Toronto- and
Vancouver-based Klein Lyons, agrees it's important to have a
"clear understanding" of the factors at play in a carriage motion
"so we can govern ourselves accordingly."

"When you look at the amount of money the Rochon Genova group must
have spent without even knowing if they have carriage, that
concerns me from an access to justice point of view.  There are
already very few plaintiff class action firms because the barriers
to entry are so high, and this certainly raises them even
further," says Klein.

Brian Radnoff, a partner in the Toronto office of Lerners LLP,
says the trend of experienced class action law firms teaming up on
specific claims makes appellate guidance all the more urgent.

"Both sides really know what they are doing, which makes it very
difficult to say that either one lacks expertise," he says.

"These carriage battles are getting more common, so I'd say the
more direction the courts can give, the better."

Mr. Orr says he would like to see Canada look south to the United
States for guidance on settling carriage of class actions.  Courts
there have developed a system for securities class actions in
which they presumptively award carriage to the law firm acting for
the representative plaintiff with the largest losses.

"It doesn't have to be ironclad but generally it allows the
marketplace to decide who gets carriage rather than the judge,"
says Orr.

"It also brings in large institutional players into the litigation
on the plaintiff side. I'm not saying it will be the answer in all
cases but it makes the whole thing less of a crapshoot."

A hearing has yet to be set for the Barrick carriage appeal, but
Justice Nordheimer suggested the process should move forward
quickly. David Rosenfeld, a lawyer with Koskie Minsky involved in
the case, says the firm was happy to get a full hearing for the
appeal.

"We certainly think there should be greater appellate direction
because there hasn't been a lot," he says.

Joel Rochon -- jrochon@rochongenova.com -- of Rochon Genova
expressed disappointment that Justice Belobaba's "quite decisive"
judgment didn't settle the carriage motion but says he respects
the appellate process and hopes it will add clarity to the
carriage issue.

Mr. Rochon says he's looking forward to putting the issue behind
him in the Barrick case since he'd "rather be sharing a beer with"
fellow plaintiffs' counsel than facing them in court.


BAUER PUBLISHING: Obtains Final Approval of Halaburda Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh entered on January 6, 2015,
final judgment in, and order of dismissal with prejudice, of the
case captioned CINDY HALABURDA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAUER PUBLISHING CO., LP,
a Delaware Partnership, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-12831-GCS-RSW,
(E.D. Mich.).  A copy of the order is available at
http://is.gd/m5p28hfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Steeh granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement in
the case, and concluded that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement
Class.

According to Judge Steeh, the Settlement is finally approved in
all respects, except that (i) the second sentence of Paragraph
2.1(c) shall be deleted ("Defendant shall use its commercially
reasonable best efforts when negotiating, renegotiating,
extending, or renewing contracts with third party companies
authorized to sell Bauer Publications subscription(s) to require
such companies to provide the notice required under this Paragraph
to the extent practicable."); and (ii) Paragraph 2.1(e) shall be
replaced with the following sentence after the phrase "In lieu of
Paragraphs (a)-(d) above": "Bauer agrees not to disclose any
Michigan customers' Subscriber Information for the four-year
period provided for in the Class Action Settlement Agreement."

The Court held that the payment of $232,500.00 in attorneys' fees
to Class Counsel is reasonable in light of the multi-factor test
used to evaluate fee awards in the Sixth Circuit, using either a
lodestar or percentage-of-the-fund approach.

The Court also held that payment of an incentive award in the
amount of $5,000.00 to the Class Representative, Cindy Halaburda,
to compensate her for her efforts and commitment on behalf of the
Settlement Class, is fair, reasonable, and justified under the
circumstances of this case.

All payments made to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement that are not cashed within 90 days of
issuance shall revert to the Michigan Bar Association's Access to
Justice Fund, which the Court approves as an appropriate cy pres
recipient.

Cindy Halaburda, Plaintiff, represented by Ari J. Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Brian C. Summerfield --
bsummerfield@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman, James Dominick Larry --
nlarry@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C. & Christine E. Ficks --
cficks@bodmanllp.com -- Bodman.

Bauer Publishing Co., LP, Defendant, represented by Arthur Thomas
O'Reilly -- aoreilly@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller, Collin
Peng-Sue, Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, Robert M. Jackson --
rjackson@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller & Sharon Schneier,
Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Sharma" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss the case captioned MONITA SHARMA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, NO. C-13-2274
MMC, (N.D. Cal.).

According to Plaintiffs' complaint, they each experienced problems
with electrical components, resulting from water intrusion, and
were required to pay for repairs performed by a BMW dealership.
Plaintiffs allege that although BMW knew of the asserted defect
prior to the dates on which Plaintiffs purchased their respective
vehicles, BMW did not advise them of the defect.  Based on these
allegations, Plaintiffs allege three claims for relief,
specifically, a claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750-1784, a claim under Section
17200 of the California Business & Professions Code, and a claim
under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Sections 1790-
1795.8.

On August 25, 2014, Defendant BMW moved to dismiss the case for
failure to state a claim.

Judge Chesney's January 6, 2015 ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/UEivlffrom Leagle.com, provides that:

     1. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of the Third
Claim for Relief, the motion is granted, and the Third Claim for
Relief is dismissed without leave to amend.

     2. In all other respects, the motion is denied.

Judge Chesney also entered a separate order on January 6, denying
defendant's motion to strike class allegations saying BMW has
failed to show that:

     * class allegations should be stricken for lack of standing
on the part of some putative class members.

     * at this stage of the proceedings, individual issues
necessarily will predominate over common issues.

     * at this stage of proceedings, the named plaintiffs cannot
meet the typicality requirement.

A copy of that order is available at http://is.gd/HcwRwMfrom
Leagle.com.

Monita Sharma, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart C. Talley --
stalley@kcrlegal.com -- Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP, Amy
Elisabeth Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
Ian James Barlow -- ibarlow@kcrlegal.com -- Kershaw, Cutter &
Ratinoff LLP, Stephen Massong Harris -- smh@kpclegal.com -- Knapp,
Petersen & Clarke & William Alter Kershaw -- wkershaw@kcrlegal.com
-- Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP.

Eric Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw
Cutter & Ratinoff LLP, Amy Elisabeth Keller, Wexler Wallace LLP,
Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP, Ian James Barlow, Kershaw,
Cutter & Ratinoff LLP, Stephen Massong Harris, Knapp, Petersen &
Clarke & William Alter Kershaw, Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP.

BMW of North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami
Yoshino -- tyoshino@cbmlaw.com -- Carroll, Burdick & McDonough
LLP, Aengus Hartley Carr -- carr@cbmlaw.com -- Carroll, Burdick &
McDonough LLP & Eric J. Knapp -- eknapp@cbmlaw.com -- Carroll,
Burdick & McDonough, LLP.


BRUCKNER FOREVER: "Mota" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Mota, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Bruckner Forever Young Social Adult Day Care Inc., and
Eastchester's Forever Young Social Adult Day Care Inc., and Queens
Forever Young Social Adult Day Care Inc., and Forever Young Social
Adult Day Care, Inc., and Felix Gershkovitch, in his individual
and professional capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-00064 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 7, 2015), seeks to recover to recover unpaid overtime
wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate day care centers in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      Vivian Victoria Walton, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              vw@employmentlawyernewyork.com


BUILDING MATERIALS: "Ross" Suit Consolidated in GAF Materials MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ross v. Building Materials
Corporation of America, Case No. 4:14-cv-01067, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark).  The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-00073 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF
Materials Corporation Product Liability Litigation, MDL No 2577.

The litigation arises out of the design, manufacture, and sale of
allegedly defective GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking by Defendant
Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF
Materials Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas M. Weems, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE LLP
          1000 Walnut St., Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
          Telephone: (816) 292-8264
          Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
          E-mail: dweems@spencerfane.com


CAESARS ACQUISITION: CEC Merger Class Action May Widen
------------------------------------------------------
GGrasia reports that a class action by investors in Caesars
Acquisition Co seeking to challenge the company's recently
announced merger with Caesars Entertainment Corp (CEC) could be
set to grow in size.

Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders across the U.S., on
Jan. 5 said it was offering representation to any other investors
in Caesars Acquisition that have not yet retained attorneys.  The
merger of the Caesars' parent with a unit it previously spun off
is part of a restructuring of the group's debts.  Caesars
Acquisition shareholders are being offered a stock-only
consideration of 0.664 of a share in CEC for each full share of
Caesars Acquisition.

Andrews & Springer said in its statement: "As several news outlets
have already indicated, the merger is not in the best interests of
shareholders since the deal is merely intended to place Caesars
Entertainment [Operating Co] in a better position to restructure
its US$18.4 billion debt load in preparation for bankruptcy.  The
consideration shareholders are expected to receive is
significantly inadequate and does not currently reflect the
company's value."

Caesars Entertainment Operating Co is CEC's biggest unit and
responsible for more than 80 percent of the firm's total debt.

CEC said in a filing on December 28 that it needs 60 percent
support from its first-lien debt holders by Jan. 9 in order for
the current restructuring deal to become effective.

A consortium -- including a South Korean unit of CEC -- on
December 28 made a conditional deal to acquire the land for a
casino project at Incheon, in South Korea, for just under US$95.9
million.


CERAGON NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Over July 2014 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Staley, writing for Benzinga, reports that Ceragon Networks
Ltd., a wireless hauling specialist, was served on Jan. 6 with a
motion to approve a purported class action, naming the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer and its directors as defendants.  The
motion was filed with the District Court of Tel Aviv (Economic
Department), on behalf of holders of ordinary shares, including
those who purchased shares during the period following the
Company's follow on public offering in July 2014.

The purported class action alleges breaches of duties by making
false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and
public statements.  Although the motion has just been brought to
the Company's attention, based on an initial review, the Company
believes that the District Court should deny the motion and
intends to aggressively oppose it.


CHENMED LLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Martinez, and similarly situated individuals v. Chenmed,
LLC, a Florida Corporation, Stephanie Chen, and James Chen, Case
No. 1:15-cv-20039 (S.D. Fla., January 7, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a health care facility in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Andrew Costales, Esq.
      GARY A. COSTALES, PA
      1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1230
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 375-9510
      Facsimile: (305) 375-9511
      E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


CIGNA CORP: 2nd Circuit Affirms Pension Plan Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge's ruling in a long-running class action over Cigna
Corp.'s 1998 pension plan switch has been affirmed by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case, Amara v. Cigna
Corp., to U.S. District Court in Connecticut, finding that the
lower court had erred in granting relief to the plaintiffs under
Chapter 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, which enforces the terms of a pension plan.

Cigna had communicated in a newsletter that the switch between a
defined-benefit pension plan and a lump-sum system would not be a
cost-saving measure that might reduce employees' pensions.

The district court applied 502(a)(1)(B) to rule in 2008 that Cigna
should pay class members the pension benefits they had accrued
under the first plan before the switch, in addition to the amounts
accrued under the second plan in subsequent years.

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had misused that
chapter of ERISA and remanded the case.  The lower court granted
similar relief in 2012, but invoking another section of ERISA.
The court said that Cigna should pay the same combination of the
two plans, but this time under Section 502(a)(3), which guarantees
"appropriate equitable relief" to redress ERISA violations.

The two parties appealed to the Second Circuit, which had also
approved the district court's first ruling.  Cigna sought to
challenge the court's refusal to dismiss class certification,
while the plaintiffs argued that the court should have restored
the initial pension plan entirely.

On Dec. 23, Judge Debra Ann Livingston affirmed the district
court's ruling, more than a decade after the case originated in
2001.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Orders Document Production in "Strauch"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis granted in part and denied
in part plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents in
JOSEPH STRAUCH, ET AL v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP., NO. 3:14 CV 956
(JBA), (D. Conn.).

Plaintiffs Joseph Strauch and Timothy Colby filed this proposed
class action lawsuit on July 1, 2014, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ["FLSA"], 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and under the
parallel state wage and hour statutes in Connecticut, CONN. GEN.
STAT. Sections 31-60, 31-76c, 31-71b & 31-71c, and in California,
CAL. LABOR CODE Sections 510, 1194, 226, 1174, 1774.5, 218.5,
226.7, 512 & 2698-2699.5, and Cal. Wage Order 4-2001, on behalf of
defendant's information technology support workers (and in
particular System Administrators ["SAs"]), who allege that they
have been misclassified as exempt, even though they perform
primarily nonexempt work.

As of early January 2015, more than seventy individuals have filed
Notices of Filing of Consents to Become Party Plaintiffs.  On
November 12, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production
of Documents, and brief and declarations in support.  U.S.
District Judge Janet Bond Arterton referred this motion to
Magistrate Judge Margolis.

In her ruling entered January 6, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/xZT6ydfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge
Margolis said pre-certification of discovery of some identifying
information regarding putative class members is appropriate.
However, the information sought by plaintiffs is too excessive and
intrusive.  Second, by plaintiffs' accounts, the size of the
putative class is significant (approximately 3,000), and there is
uncertainty as to the various categorizations created by
defendant.  Thus, before defendant is put to the task of providing
detailed information about 3,000 people, it should first provide a
global breakdown of the number of putative class members who fall
within each category and subcategory, including precise job titles
or levels, and the location and state in which they work.  Once
that information is obtained, the parties may have an easier time
reaching an agreement as to which categories and/or subcategories
require production of individual identifying information, or in
the absence of such an agreement, the Court will be able to make a
more informed decision based upon this additional information.

"And lastly, given the uncertainty of these various
categorizations, with respect to the now seventy opt-in
plaintiffs, plaintiffs are entitled to the following information:
their full names, job titles, job levels or salary grades, and job
locations; dates of hire, transfer to a new location or job
position, or termination; all information regarding compensation
earned by or paid by defendant to each individual, including the
individual's hourly rate; all last known contact information,
including current and former home addresses, telephone numbers,
and e-mail addresses; and information reflecting each individual's
location within defendant's organization, including team, group,
division, organizational unit, and other detailed organizational
information," she added.  "Defendant shall comply with this ruling
on or before February 6, 2015."

Joseph Strauch, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Lah, Lewis,
Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Daniel M. Hutchinson --
dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
Jahan C. Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden
LLP, Kelly M. Dermody -- kdermody@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Lin Y. Chan -- lchan@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Michael Caesar, Lewis, Feinberg,
Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Michael N Litrownik --
mlitrownik@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, Michael J. Scimone
-- mscimone@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, Sudarsana
Srinivasan -- dsrinivasan@lchb.com --Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Berstein, LLP, Todd F. Jackson, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker &
Jackson, P.C. & Karen Baldwin Kravetz -- kkravetz@susmanduffy.com
-- Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Timothy Colby, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Lah, Lewis,
Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Daniel M. Hutchinson,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Jahan C. Sagafi, Outten &
Golden LLP, Kelly M. Dermody, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, Lin Y. Chan, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
Michael Caesar, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C.,
Michael N Litrownik, Outten & Golden, Michael J. Scimone, Outten &
Golden, Sudarsana Srinivasan, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Berstein,
LLP, Todd F. Jackson, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson,
P.C. & Karen Baldwin Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Stephen King, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz --
kkravetz@susmanduffy.com -- Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Hassell D. Stacy, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Christian G. Rothrock, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin
Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Grover C. Boone, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin
Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Stephan A. Cheney, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin
Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Brandon Kimas, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Chris Lamer, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Pierre J. Wills, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Shaun King, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Kevin Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Scott Schneeberg, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Timothy J. Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Joe A. Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Marlon Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Jason M. Nice, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Anthony C. Fantetti, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin
Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Raymond Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Richard Conway, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Cheri L. Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Gigy S. Kunnath, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Thomas W. Laughlin, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin
Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Rocky Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Isaac Owusu, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Anita Soule, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

David L. Brunmeier, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin
Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Frank T. King, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Chad W. Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Joseph H. Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin
Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Dennis Farkas, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Samuel Fleming, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Angela Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Nash Jasmine, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Baldwin Kravetz,
Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

Computer Sciences Corp, Defendant, represented by Brett M. Anders
-- AndersB@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Cary G. Palmer
-- PalmerC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Nathan W.
Austin -- AustinN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., David
R. Golder -- GolderD@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, David C.
Salazar-Austin -- David.Salazar-Austin@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis, Kristi Rich Winters -- RichK@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis & William Joseph Anthony -- AnthonyW@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis.


CREDIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gallego" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey J. Gallego, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v.  Credit Collection Services and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00065 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants engaged in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices of
collecting a debt.

Credit Collection Services is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
      Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
              jkj@legaljones.com


CVS PHARMACY: 1,000+ Pharmacists File Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that more than
1,000 pharmacists are owed unpaid overtime wages from CVSone of
the top pharmacy retail stores in the United States, according to
a federal class action suit filed at the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Junius Baugh, a former assistant pharmacist for several stores in
the Philadelphia area, is the lead plaintiff in a complaint that
accuses CVS Pharmacy of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law by requesting him to work more than 40
hours per week but failing to compensate the time-and-a-half
overtime rate.

According to the complaint, Baugh worked as an hourly paid
Subordinate Pharmacist from October 2011 to October 2012.  During
that time, Mr. Baugh would clock in for shifts at several
different local stores as a floater, filling in for sick or absent
pharmacists on an as-needed basis.

The claim says that Baugh would speak to a CVS scheduler on the
phone and receive the work assignment for the coming week,
including locations, days and times.  The floaters had the
opportunity to choose overtime shifts immediately available, pick
up hours as the week progressed or be forced to work an overtime
shift if another employee failed to show up.

Mr. Baugh estimates that hourly paid pharmacists would work an
average between 40 to 50 hours a week and personally logged
between 100 and 130 hours in a two-week pay period.  According to
the claim, Baugh earned an hourly rate of $58.93 for the entire
shifts and claims he should have earned $88.40 per overtime hour.

The eligible members of the federal and state class group are
defined as subordinate or floater pharmacists who worked overtime
hours for CVS during the October 2011 and October 2012 period.
The claim estimates more than 1,000 potential plaintiffs would be
eligible under the federal complaints, and several hundred from
the 406 CVS stores located in Pennsylvania would qualify for the
state class.

Attorneys from Kolman Ely, P.C. in Penndel, Pa., and Stephan
Zouras, LLC in Chicago are acting as the class counsel.

The federal case ID is 2:15-cv-00014-GAM.


DAP PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Water Hose
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against a
manufacturer of a popular water hose alleges the product is
defective and did not perform as advertised.

Plaintiffs Michael Carton, Cynthia Finnk, Rocco Lano, Laurina
Leato, Marilyn Listander and Roger Mammon filed the lawsuit on
Dec. 24 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Maryland against Dap Products, Inc., which manufacturers the Xhose
and the Xhose Pro.  The suit also names National Express and RPM
International as defendants.

The hose is advertised as an alternative to standard garden hoses
because it is lightweight and can contract without "kinking," the
lawsuit said.  The hose is made out of a thin plastic internal
tube with a thin cloth layer on the outside.

"Defendants' marketing and packaging states that the XHose is
tough, durable, and long-lasting," the lawsuit said.  "Contrary to
defendants' representations, however, the XHose is defective and
predisposed to leaking, bursting, seeping and dripping due to no
fault of the consumer."

Ms. Finnk claims she purchased two XHose Pros in December 2013 and
both eventually exploded while she used them.  The company sent
her a total of eight replacement hoses after the products
continued to explode when in use, according to the lawsuit. The
company allegedly refused to give a refund because the 90-day
refund period had expired.

The plaintiffs are seeking class status for the suit, which more
than $5 million in damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by James P. Ulwick --
julwick@kg-law.com -- of Kramon & Graham, P.A., and Katrina
Carroll and Kyle A. Shamberg of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Maryland
case number 1:14-cv-04015.


DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Sued in Texas Over Unlawful Merger Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Speese, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Dawson Geophysical Company, Stephen C. Jumper, Craig
W. Cooper, Gary M. Hoover, PhD., Mark Vander Ploeg, Ted R. North,
Tim C. Thompson, TGC Industries, Inc., and Riptide Acquisition
Corp., Case No. 7:15-cv-00005 (W.D. Tex., January 7, 2015), arises
out of Defendants' proposed merger transaction between Dawson
Geophysical Company and TGC Industries, Inc., for the unfair price
after a flawed process.

Dawson Geophysical Company provides onshore seismic data
acquisition and processing services in the United States and
Canada.

TGC Industries, Inc. provides geophysical services to companies in
the oil and gas industry in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, LLP
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com


DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Locke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. DriveTime Automotive Group Inc. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00026 (D. Ariz., January 7, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant negligently, knowingly, and willfully placed automated
calls to the Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

DriveTime Automotive Group Inc. is a technology-based, privately
held finance company that specializes in the acquisition and
servicing of prime to subprime automotive retail installment
contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192
      Phoenix, AZ 85028
      Telephone: (480) 247-9644
      Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
      E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com


EISEN & SON: Faces "Melchor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plutarco Melchor, Jose Hernandez and Emigdio Cruz, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Eisen & Son Inc.
d/b/a Lasagna Ristorante, Vadim Honig, Bernard Lipton and Riki
Honig, Case No. 1:15-cv-00113 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own, operate, and control an Italian restaurant
located at 196 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Sued Over Private Message Scanning
------------------------------------------------
Eric David, writing for Silicon Angle, reports that inside
Facebook's journey from web based to native mobile app development
Facebook Inc. has come under fire again over privacy concerns,
this time for allegedly scanning personal information in private
Facebook messages that is then used for targeted advertising.

Facebook's bid to dismiss a class-action lawsuit originally filed
in 2013 was shot down by U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton,
meaning the social media giant must face the lawsuit in court.
The lawsuit claims that Facebook used mentions of websites in
private messages as a tally of "Likes," which the site then used
to display targeted advertising to those users.

Facebook is not the first service to use the content of messages
to cater advertising to users.  Google Inc.'s Gmail would scan
emails for key words to display unobtrusive text ads in a banner
above the message.  But Google's method for scanning information
and displaying ads was automatic and was not stored for future
use.  There was no personal file for each user saying what sorts
of website they talked about.  Google's system would catch certain
words in the message and display ads relating to those words, but
it did so on-the-fly without storing the information.

Where Facebook's systems supposedly differs, and the reason it is
currently under scrutiny, is the information taken from the
private messages is saved and used to create a "user profile" to
cater ads over time.  Effectively, this means that Facebook kept
the tallies of the websites each person talked about on file and
used that information to display ads on a longer time frame.

Technically, this tactic could be permitted by the Terms of
Service to which Facebook users must agree when they sign up for
an account.  Facebook claimed that their actions were allowed
under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which
permits the use of private user information as required in the
daily course of business.

But Judge Hamilton denied this reason for dismissal.  "[Facebook
has] not offered a sufficient explanation of how the challenged
practice falls within the ordinary course of its business," Judge
Hamilton said.

Facebook no longer scans private messages in this way for
advertising, but it does still track them for anti-virus purposes.


FUQI INTERNATIONAL: February 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, on
Jan. 6 disclosed that a settlement has been reached, subject to
Court approval, in a class action lawsuit against Fuqi
International, Inc. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, 10 Civ. 2515 (DAB).

This announcement of the proposed Settlement is being given to all
persons or entities who purchased or acquired Fuqi International,
Inc. common stock between May 15, 2009 and March 27, 2011,
inclusive, and/or who purchased or acquired Fuqi International,
Inc. common stock pursuant to or traceable to the secondary
offering on or about July 22, 2009.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an
Order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, a hearing will be held on February 19, 2015,
at 3:00 p.m., before The Honorable Deborah A. Batts, at the Daniel
P. Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 24B, New
York, New York, for the purpose of determining:  (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") for the principal sum of $7,500,000 in
cash, plus accrued interest, should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate to Members of the Class; (2)
whether, thereafter, this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated as of September 8, 2014 (the
"Settlement Agreement"); (3) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the Settlement proceeds (the "Plan of Allocation") is
fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved;
and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Action should be approved and reimbursement awards to Lead
Plaintiffs should be approved.

If you purchased or acquired Fuqi International, Inc. ("Fuqi")
common stock between May 15, 2009 and March 27, 2011, inclusive,
and/or purchased or acquired Fuqi common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the Secondary Offering on or about July 22, 2009, and
were damaged thereby, your rights may be affected by this
Settlement.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof
of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to In re
Fuqi International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Angeion Group, 1801 Market Street, Suite 660,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, or you can download a copy at
www.fuqiclasssettlement.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than April 21, 2015, establishing that
you are entitled to a recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by January 29, 2015, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above.  All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly
request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered, in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above, such that it is received by each of the following no later
than January 29, 2015.

CLERK OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK
Daniel P. Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

LEAD COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Mitchell M.Z. Twersky
Lawrence D. Levit
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL DESIGNEE:
Robert W. Brownlie
DLA Piper LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4297

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above or go to the
following website: www.fuqiclasssettlement.com

Contact:

Fuqi International, Inc. Securities Litigation Settlement:
c/o Angeion Group
1801 Market Street, Suite 660
Philadelphia, PA 19103
877-351-0335
www.fuqiclasssettlement.com


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: "Ballesteros" Suit Transferred to Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Marissa Ballesteros v. Galectin
Therapeutics, Inc., James C. Czirr, Peter G. Traber and Jack W.
Callicutt, Case No. 3:14-cv-00399, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).  The Georgia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00029-SCJ to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the litigation captioned In Re
Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The litigation
arises from Galectin's alleged violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Plaintiffs are Galectin shareholders
claiming that it engaged in securities fraud.

Plaintiff Marissa Ballesteros is represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. O'Mara, Esq.
          William "Bill" O'Mara, Esq.
          THE O'MARA LAW FIRM
          311 E. Liberty St.
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 323-1321
          Facsimile: (775) 323-4082

Plaintiff David L. Hasbrouck is represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com

Plaintiff Sui Yip is represented by:

          Brett D. Stecker, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677
          E-mail: bds@weiserlawfirm.com
                  jjc@weiserlawfirm.com
                  rw@weiserlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael R. Smith, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, 40th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5140
          E-mail: mrsmith@kslaw.com

Movant Rene Castillo is represented by:

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: ramzia@csgrr.com

Movant Leong J. Trung is represented by:

          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of No-Poach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon and Allissa Wickham, writing for Law360, report that
Oracle Corp. urged a California federal judge on Jan. 5 to grant
it a quick victory in a proposed class action accusing it of
conspiring to suppress employee pay through an anti-poaching
agreement with Google Inc., arguing that the case is based on an
outdated document.

In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Oracle claims that
former employee Greg Garrison's complaint is far too flimsy to
move forward because he relies on just a single document dated
from 2008 that does not show Oracle was involved in restricted
hiring practices of any kind.

"There is not a single, original factual allegation in the
complaint that describes Oracle's involvement in the formation or
enforcement of the alleged restricted hiring agreement, including
who at Oracle or Google entered into the alleged agreement, where
or in what context the agreement was reached, how it was enforced,
or even when this purported conspiracy started or ended," the
motion said.

In his suit filed Oct. 14, Garrison alleges Oracle, Google,
Microsoft, Novell Inc. and Sun Microsystems Inc. agreed not to
pursue any manager-level or higher employees from each other and
were part of a larger Silicon Valley conspiracy among technology
companies to limit wages.

Mr. Garrison, who worked at Oracle from December 2008 to June
2009, claims Oracle and Google's deal began in May 2007 but placed
no restrictions on engineering employees.  He also alleges Oracle
entered into the agreement with knowledge of a larger conspiracy.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh agreed to take on the case shortly
after Garrison filed his complaint in October, finding that the
suit was related to a consolidated suit accusing Apple Inc.,
Google and other tech companies scheming to restrain worker pay
through agreements meant to stifle employee poaching.

Mr. Garrison persuaded Judge Koh to relate the class action
against Oracle with the broader high-tech employee antitrust
litigation, successfully arguing the cases concerned the same
"overlapping conspiracies" that stemmed from the alleged anti-
recruitment agreement between Google and other companies.

Oracle is now trying to convince Judge Koh to shut down the case,
arguing that Garrison has failed to provide the court any good
reason to toll the four-year statute of limitations for antitrust
claims.  The single document presented by Mr. Garrison does not
show that Oracle has committed any fraudulent concealment or that
the company is part of a "continuing conspiracy," according to the
motion.

Mr. Garrison also doesn't have standing to pursue his claims
because he has not suffered any injury as a result of the alleged
restricted hiring agreement, according to Oracle.

"The only facts plaintiff alleges are that he worked as a senior
account manager at Oracle for six months from December 2008 to
June 2009 in Colorado," the motion says.  "He does not allege that
he ever applied to work for Google, desired to work for Google, or
that opportunities at Google (real or hypothetical) ever played
any role in his personal circumstances.  His generic and
speculative assertions of injury are therefore legally
insufficient."

Attorney Tyler Jay Belong, who is representing Mr. Garrison, told
Law360 on Jan. 6 that he would vigorously fight Oracle's motion,
but he declined to comment further.

"We're going to be opposing this for reasons that will be made
obvious when our opposition is filed," Belong said.  "We strongly
oppose it."

Mr. Garrison is represented by Jeffrey Lee Hogue --
jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com -- Tyler Jay Belong --
tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com -- and Bryce Aaron Dodds of Hogue &
Belong.

Oracle is represented by Daniel M. Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com --
Sarah M. Ray -- sarah.ray@lw.com -- and Elyse M. Greenwald of
Latham & Watkins LLP, and by in-house counsel Dorian Daley,
Deborah K. Miller and James C. Maroulis.

The case is Greg Garrison v. Oracle Corp., case number 5:14-cv-
04592, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GTS HOLDINGS: "Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean E. Pierre, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. GTS Holdings Group, LLC, Empire International, Ltd., EmpireCLS
Worldwide Chauffeured Services and other related entities, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00143 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an engineering and construction
company engaged in plant installations, demolition, materials
handling, paint finishing and a range of bespoke technological
service and recruitment solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212)943-9080


HARBINGER GROUP: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over False Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Harbinger Group, Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life
Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re
(Cayman), Ltd., Case No. 4:15-cv-00011 (W.D. Mo., January 7,
2015), arises out of the Defendants' false representations of F&G
Insurance's security and financial strength.

The Defendants own and operate insurance companies doing business
across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Diane A. Nygaard, Esq.
      KENNER NYGAARD DEMAREA KENDALL, LLC
      117 W. 20th St., Suite 201
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 531-3100
      Facsimile: (816) 531-3600
      E-mail: diane@kndklaw.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Sean R. Matt, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              sean@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      Francis J. Balint Jr., Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      235 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
              fbalint@bffb.com

         - and -

      Erin Dickinson, Esq.
      Chuck Crueger, 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: edickinson@hrdclaw.com
              ccrueger@hrdclaw.com


HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Garbage Collection Privatization
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Shimogawa, writing for Pacific Business News, reports that a
union representing more than 100 public workers in Hawaii is suing
the City and County of Honolulu over the city's recent decision to
privatize garbage collection services for about 111 condominiums
and 70 private schools, churches and other nonprofit organizations
across Oahu.

The change is a result of a City Council decision to stop funding
for future purchases of front-loading trucks for these trash
services, and with no trucks to replace the old ones, the program
is shutting down, as first reported by PBN.

A class-action lawsuit recently filed by employees of the city's
Department of Environmental Services, Refuse Division, who are
represented by the United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646,
AFL-CIO, claims that the city broke the law by privatizing the
collection and disposal services.

It cites a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling in 1997 that said that the
privatization of services customarily and historically done by
civil servants, including garbage collection and disposal services
done by landfill worker positions, violates the State
Constitution.

The plaintiffs also noted in the lawsuit that because of that 1997
ruling, the UPW and the counties entered into agreements stopping
the privatization of these trash collection and disposal services,
including Honolulu.

In 1998, the UPW and the City and County of Honolulu agreed that
they would restore refuse collection services for the city, which
had been privatized, and to expand to businesses, condos and
churches.  The agreement also said that the city would compete
with private haulers to do the work for military bases and schools
as part of the overall plan to convert from manual to automated
refuse collection, and to implement phases five, six and seven of
the automated refuse collection process without displacement of
civil servants, according to court documents.

This 1998 agreement, which was finally instituted in 2005, did not
allow for any changes.

Now the UPW and its employees of this unit claim that the city has
violated civil service laws and the state Constitution, among
other issues.

On Jan. 31, schools, churches and organizations such as Iolani
School, Kawaiahao Church and Bishop Museum, will lose their city-
paid trash pickup, which means they have to turn to private
haulers to pickup their garbage.  The 181 condos, schools,
churches and organizations that had been getting their trash
collected for free will need to look to private trash collectors
starting in February for trash pick-up service.  More than 4,000
Oahu condos and nonprofits currently have to pay for private waste
haulers.

Herbert Takahashi of Honolulu-based Takahashi and Covert, who is
one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, told PBN on
Jan. 5 that it is asking the court to stop privatization of the
trash pickup services.  No date has been set yet, although he
noted that it has to happen before the Jan. 31 deadline.

The City and County of Honolulu, through a spokesman, told PBN
that it "intends to vigorously defend its decision to end front-
end loader services, based on policies and considerations of
fiscal responsibility and as a function of its management rights."

"There are a total of 13 employees affected by this change," said
Jesse Broder Van Dyke, spokesman for the city, in an email to PBN.
"There will be no changes to their wages, benefits or hours of
work, and they will continue to perform work representative of the
same job class."


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Fax Machine Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
proposed class action alleging that Hewlett-Packard Co. continued
to sell fax machines it knew were a fire hazard has survived a
motion to dismiss.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis of the Northern District of
Illinois on Dec. 17 denied Hewlett-Packard's move to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint brought by Illinois consumer Nector
Stavropoulos, who has tried since 2010 to hold the company liable
for selling allegedly defective HP 1040 fax machines.

Judge Ellis allowed the plaintiff to pursue his claim that HP
violated Illinois' consumer fraud and deceptive practices statute
and that it allegedly engaged in unjust enrichment.

In Stavropoulos v. Hewlett-Packard, originally filed on July 16,
2013, Mr. Stavropoulos alleged that HP failed to recall its 1040
and 1050 fax machines even though it knew that they contained a
defective design similar to the one that led to the 2008 recall of
the company's 1010 and 1010xi machines.  The recalled devices had
a faulty power supply and electrical components, which caused some
to overheat and catch fire, the complaint alleged.

Even though the company allegedly had found the same defect in its
1040 and 1050 series, HP did not recall them until Jan. 31, 2012,
according to the complaint.

In its motion to dismiss, the company alleged that the overheating
problem occurred in a tiny fraction of the 1.1 million machines
recalled.  At the time of its 2012 recall, HP had received just
seven reports of fax machines overheating.  "HP initiated the
recall as part of [its] continued commitment to safety and the
highest quality service to all of [its] customers," the motion
says.

The company also challenged Stavropoulos' complaint for failing to
state a claim, since his fax machine never exhibited a problem,
the motion says.

Mr. Stavropoulous, who bought his 1040 machine in 2010 for $119,
said he would not have purchased it if he had known it had a
dangerous flaw.  Nowhere on the packaging or instructions did he
see any mention of the problem.  Nor did the company provide
warnings in its advertising or on packaging before the recall that
the machines could be dangerous, the complaint alleges.

The only alert HP issued, Mr. Stavropoulous complained, was via a
letter on its website advising owners to "stop using the HP Fax
1040 or HP Fax 1050 immediately and disconnect the unit from the
electrical power source.  HP considers this product failure to be
a potential safety hazard."

The company offered rebates of between $19 and $100 to owners of
the recalled machines, which sold for between $89 and $119, the
complaint alleges.

Stavropoulos seeks injunctive relief along with compensatory and
punitive damages, among other requests for relief.

HP's counsel includes attorneys with the firm Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius.  Mr. Stavropoulos is represented by attorneys with the
firm DiTommaso Lubin.


HONEST TEA: "Salazar" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned SARAH A. SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HONEST TEA, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-02318-KJM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.).

In the Complaint, plaintiff alleges Defendant Honest Tea, Inc.
"has made unauthorized antioxidant nutrient content claims on
Honey Green Tea's label since 2008."  Defendant have sought a
dismissal of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

According to Judge Mueller, the court finds that plaintiff has
alleged sufficient similarity between the product she purchased
and the product she did not. Specifically, plaintiff challenges
the same Honey Green Tea that was in circulation from 2008
throughout 2013. All the variations of the label relate to the
content of antioxidants in the Honey Green Tea product.  Finally,
plaintiff alleges she and the proposed class members suffered
essentially the same injury as a result of defendant's allegedly
unlawful and untruthful acts. Questions concerning any material
differences between the labels should be addressed at the class
certification stage rather than the Rule 12(b)(6) motion stage.
Therefore, as to the 2008 label, the court finds the standing
requirement satisfied for purposes of a motion to dismiss. With
respect to defendant's argument that plaintiff's claims based on
2008 press release statements should be dismissed because she
never saw them, the court need not address the argument in light
of plaintiff's clarifications she "does not allege that those
statements are independently actionable".

For these reasons, the court denies defendant's motion, and
ordered the Defendant to file an answer to the Complaint within
21 days.

A copy of the January 6, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/AZ59yXfrom Leagle.com.

Sarah A. Salazar, Plaintiff, represented by Annick Marie Persinger
-- apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yeremey
Olegovich Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A. & Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor
and Fisher, PA.

Honest Tea, Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven A Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Tammy
Beth Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Travis
J Tu -- tjtu@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.


INDIANA: Bureau of Prisons Sued Over Muslim Inmate Hem Lengths
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
fresh from winning certification for his class action targeting
strip searches, Yahya Lindh is pressing a second action alleging
the prison is violating Muslim inmates' rights by not allowing
them to hem their pants higher.

Mr. Lindh, formerly known as John Walker Lindh and dubbed the
"American Taliban," claims the federal prison system's refusal to
allow the inmates to raise the hems or cuffs of their uniforms
above their ankles violates the federal Religious Freedom
Restoration Act.

Mr. Lindh, 33, is serving a 20-year sentence at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Ind., for aiding the
Taliban during the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.  He was
captured by U.S. troops that year and in 2002 pleaded guilty to
supplying services and carrying explosives for the now-defunct
Taliban government.  In his proposed class complaint, Mr. Lindh
says he has been disciplined for shortening his pants.

In a Dec. 29 motion in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Mr. Lindh asks the court to enjoin federal
prisons from barring any of the estimated 9,600 incarcerated
Muslims who want to follow the shorter-pants-leg practice from
doing so.

In Lindh v. Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, filed with the
assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana,
Mr. Lindh argues that both the Koran and the Hadith, or sayings of
the Prophet Muhammad, prohibit pants below the ankles.

"There are some who believe that this prohibition arose out of the
fact that at the time of the Prophet, wearing one's garments long,
so that they were easily soiled, was deemed to be a sign of
arrogance and excessive pride -- flaunting the fact that the
persons did not care that the garment would get dirty," the
complaint says.

In response, the Federal Bureau of Prisons argues the proposed
class is too broad and cannot be sufficiently defined.  "Indeed,
plaintiff offers no evidence to establish how many Muslims within
the Bureau of Prisons agree with plaintiff's sincerely held
religious beliefs, and, therefore, plaintiff cannot establish that
his proposed class members suffer the same injury or burden upon
their religious exercise as alleged by plaintiff," the bureau
contends in its opposition to certification.

The defense also presents a declaration from Bureau of Prisons
Chaplain Osama Said, a Muslim imam, arguing that "there is no
uniformity of opinion or practice in the Muslim jurisprudence
regarding the claims made by inmate Lindh."  The bureau's counsel
also contends that the complaint fails to meet the numerosity
requirement for class certification.

To refute that, Mr. Lindh's motion is accompanied by declarations
from 45 inmates who say they are Muslims and want their pants to
rise above their ankles.

On Dec. 19, Mr. Lindh won certification for his class challenge to
the policy requiring inmates in his high-security "communications
management unit" to be strip-searched before visits that do not
involve physical contact. U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
of the Southern District of Indiana granted certification in Lindh
v. Warren, which alleges the policy violates the inmates' Fourth
Amendment rights.

In the high-security Communications Management Unit, where
Mr. Lindh is being held, extra precautions are taken to control
inmates' communications with the outside world. Prisoners must
strip and undergo a visual and body-cavity search both before and
after "no contact" visits, even though they never leave the unit,
are escorted and under constant observation, and are separated
from the visitors by a plexiglass window and communicate via a
telephone, according to the complaint.

The searches, Mr. Lindh contends, are unnecessary and unduly
humiliating.  He seeks injunctive relief to discontinue those
conducted without cause.

Mr. Lindh is represented in both actions by Kenneth Falk and Gavin
Rose of the ACLU of Indiana.  The prisons bureau's counsel are
assistant U.S. attorneys Thomas Kieper and Jonathan Bont of the
U.S. attorney's Indianapolis office.


INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McMillan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi and Alan Krock, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00084 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 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.

Invensense, Inc. designs, develops, markets, and sells MEMS
gyroscopes for motion tracking devices in consumer electronics.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of
Invensense, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: swilliams@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (6310 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com


JACKSON COUNTY, MO: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Barry L. Harris, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Jackson County, Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00012 (W.D. Mo., January 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Jackson County is a municipal corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Hodgson, Esq.
      THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      6 NW Main St
      Lee's Summit, MO 64063
      Telephone: (913) 890-3529
      E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com


JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Snider, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reports that
a federal class action lawsuit was filed on Jan. 6 in Jacksonville
against Jimmy John's, alleging that the sandwich chain illegally
underpaid assistant store managers throughout the country.

According to the complaint, "Regardless of the number of hours
worked, Jimmy John's fails to pay [assistant store managers] any
overtime compensation."

The company requires assistant store managers to perform food
preparation and provide customer service as their primary duty,
but classifies them as "executives" exempt from the overtime pay
provisions, the lawsuit alleges.

"We're not saying they didn't perform any managerial duties," said
Justin Swartz of Outen & Golden of New York, part of a three-firm
law team that has brought the complaint.  "But their primary duty
is making sandwiches and serving customers."

A spokeswoman for Jimmy John's declined comment via email.
The legal team will seek to have the suit certified as a
collective action to recover unpaid wages, service awards,
interest and attorneys fees for eligible assistant store managers
who worked at Jimmy John's since January 2012.  Lawsuits under the
Fair Labor Standards Act allow for up to double damages.

In FLSA suits, plaintiffs must opt in to a class, or collective,
action.  Mr. Swartz said the legal team will ask the judge to
compel Jimmy John's to hand over names and addresses of people
eligible to join the suit, then reach out to them and see if they
care to join.  He estimated that the potential plaintiffs number
in the thousands, and that cases such as this one generate an opt-
in rate of 20 to 30 percent.

Three plaintiffs -- Jay Rodriguez in Jacksonville, and one each in
Chicago and Tuscaloosa, Alabama -- brought suit in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.
They are represented by Outten & Golden's New York office; Shavitz
Law Group of Boca Raton; and Klafter Olsen & Lesser of Rye Brook,
N.Y.


LAND O'LAKES: Protective Order Entered in "Salgado" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder signed on January 6, 2015, a
joint stipulated protective order concerning discovery and
confidential information in the case captioned ARTURO SALGADO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LAND O'LAKES, INC., KOZY SHACK ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00798-LJO-
SMS, (E.D. Cal.).

This is a putative wage and hour class action.  The Court has
noted that disclosure and discovery activity in the case will
likely involve production of confidential, proprietary, trade
secret, or private information for which special protection from
public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than
litigating this matter would be warranted. The information and
documentation likely to be sought includes, not exclusively,
putative class members' personal contact information, compensation
and payroll information, personnel records, employee data, and
internal policies and procedures. The parties have sought a
Stipulated Protective Order from the Court based upon the status
of this Action as a putative class action on behalf of numerous
individuals from whom it would be difficult or impossible to seek
permission or consent to enter into such stipulation with regard
to their rights and privacy and in compliance with the Court's
Order issued on December 18, 2014.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/fSHd9wfrom Leagle.com.

NEAL J. FIALKOW -- njfialkow@sbcglobal.net -- LAW OFFICE OF NEAL
J. FIALKOW INC., Pasadena, CA, AARON C. GUNDZIK --
agundzik@gghslaw.com -- REBECCA G. GUNDZIK -- rgundzik@gghslaw.com
-- GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP, Los Angeles, CA, SAHAG MAJARIAN
II -- sahagii@aol.com -- LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II,
Tarzana, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, ARTURO SALGADO.

JOAN B. TUCKER FIFE -- jfife@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN LLP,
San Francisco, CA, EMILIE C. WOODHEAD -- ewoodhead@winston.com --
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Attorneys for Defendant, LAND O'LAKES, INC.
and KOZY SHACK, ENTERPRISES, LLC (erroneously sued, and served as
Kozy Shack Enterprises, Inc.)


MACH MINING: High Court to Hear Argument in Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Supreme Court could put the brakes on the Obama administration's
growing crackdown against companies facing claims of
discrimination against women, minorities and other protected
groups.

Justices will hear arguments on Jan. 13 in a case that considers
whether employers can defend discrimination lawsuits by asserting
that government lawyers did not try hard enough to settle claims
before going to court.

Companies are complaining increasingly about the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's "systemic litigation" program, which
turns individual complaints of bias into high-stakes class-action
cases on behalf of dozens or even hundreds of workers.

The enforcement strategy has netted over $100 million in legal
judgments and settlements from more than 50 companies since 2011,
including $20 million from Verizon Inc. to settle allegations that
the company unfairly fired or disciplined hundreds of disabled
workers for missing work.

EEOC general counsel P. David Lopez has said the bigger cases send
a stronger message to all employers about complying with the law.
But employer groups deride the strategy as "sue first and
negotiate later."  They complain of government bullying tactics
and unfair take-it-or-leave-it offers that do not allow for
meaningful settlement talks.

Many employers confronted with claims of workplace bias would
rather negotiate a minimal settlement with the EEOC and pledge to
fix the problems than mount a costly legal defense in court.

The case before the high court involves an Illinois mining company
sued by the EEOC in 2011 for failing to hire any female workers
despite receiving applications from many qualified women.  Mach
Mining says the suit should be thrown out because the commission
did not try in good faith to reach a settlement before taking the
company to court.

A federal judge agreed to look into whether the EEOC's attempt to
settle the case was "sincere and reasonable."  But the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed that, saying a court
has no business peering into the EEOC's private settlement talks.

Federal law does require the EEOC to attempt to halt unlawful
employment practices by "informal methods of conference,
conciliation and persuasion."  But the EEOC may choose to sue if
it is unable to reach a settlement that is "acceptable to the
commission."

Lower courts have struggled to determine exactly what that means.
Some courts have required a minimal showing of "good faith," while
other courts probe more deeply.

But the 7th Circuit is the first to reject the inquiry altogether.
It said there was no clear standard of "how many offers,
counteroffers, conferences or phone calls" would be needed to
satisfy a court.

Lawyers for Mach Mining argue that judicial review of the
conciliation process is needed to find out whether the EEOC
complied with basic steps such as giving an employer enough
information about the charges or providing enough time to respond
to settlement offers.

In an unusual move, the EEOC also asked the Supreme Court to take
up the case.  The Justice Department argues that allowing
employers to question the government's settlement efforts at all
undermines law enforcement and only encourages companies to drag
out settlement talks.

If the high court affirms the decision, it would help the EEOC
overturn nearly four decades of case law that has allowed courts
outside the 7th Circuit to get a look at the settlement process
and derail EEOC suits.

Some federal judges have thrown out EEOC class-action cases after
inspecting the settlement process.  Last year, for example, a New
York judge dismissed most of the EEOC's pregnancy bias charges
against financial news company Bloomberg LP.  The judge ruled that
the EEOC did not adequately identify the class members or provide
other important details to the company during settlement talks
before suing.

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the
EEOC is shortchanging the settlement process in favor of
litigation to pursue a policy agenda.

"The feeling among employers is that it's very unfair when the
weight of the federal government comes down on you and says, 'We
want millions of dollars,' but won't put its cards on the table
and negotiate with you," said Gerald Maatman, a Chicago lawyer who
filed a brief on behalf of the American Insurance Association.

A brief filed on behalf of more than a dozen women's rights
organizations, including the National Organization for Women,
argues that letting a judge review informal and confidential
settlement discussions will burden courts and make it easier for
companies to avoid liability.

Systemic cases now make up nearly 25 percent of the EEOC's
litigation docket, up sharply from less than 5 percent before
Obama took office, according to the agency and lawyers familiar
with the caseload.

In a recent case, JPMorgan Chase & Co. paid nearly $1.5 million
last year to settle charges of sexual harassment against 16 female
mortgage bankers at an Ohio office.  Also in 2014, McCormick &
Schmick's Seafood Restaurants Inc. paid $1.3 million to settle
allegations that hundreds of African-Americans were denied jobs
for "front of the house" positions at restaurants in Baltimore.
Neither company admitted wrongdoing.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Preliminary Injunction Blocks Worksite Raids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gonzalez, Megan Cassidy and Michael Kiefer, writing for The
Arizona Republic, report that a federal judge issued a preliminary
injunction on Jan. 5 blocking Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio
and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery from enforcing two
state laws that make it a felony for undocumented immigrants to
use stolen identities to obtain work.

The injunction essentially prevents Sheriff Arpaio from continuing
to conduct his controversial worksite raids to arrest undocumented
workers and Mr. Montgomery from prosecuting them.

However, Sheriff Arpaio had already announced in December that he
planned to disband his worksite unit at the end of January or in
early February once they completed an ongoing investigation.

Since 2008, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has conducted
more than 80 worksite raids, which have resulted in the arrests of
more than 700 undocumented workers.

The workers typically agreed to plead guilty to felony charges
after being held behind bars for weeks under another state law
that made undocumented immigrants charged with serious crimes
ineligible to be released on bond.  That law also has been thrown
out in federal court.

Many of the arrested immigrants were turned over to federal
immigration officials and deported.  Their felony convictions
virtually destroyed any chance of ever being able to return to the
U.S. legally.

In the Jan. 5 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell
said that the two state laws that criminalize the act of identify
theft for the purpose of obtaining employment are likely
unconstitutional because they are pre-empted by federal law.

"We are thrilled that the ruling recognizes that the Maricopa
County sheriff and Maricopa County attorney are not above the
law," said Jessica Bansal, litigation director for the National
Day Labor Organizing Network, one of several groups that filed a
federal lawsuit challenging the ID theft laws.

"And we are very happy that the court has recognized the harm the
raids were causing to the migrant community and offers them some
protection" until the case is concluded, Ms. Bansal said.

In a statement, Mr. Montgomery said "the ruling underscores yet
again the consequences of federal inaction and the Obama
Administration's indifference to the effects of unlawful
immigration practices.  While pretending to address the concerns
of people admittedly violating the law, the victims of identity
theft are deprived of the State of Arizona's protection."

He said his office is reviewing an appeal of the preliminary
injunction.

Attorneys representing immigrant-rights group Puente, the American
Civil Liberties Union and several other plaintiffs filed the
motion for a preliminary injunction shortly after filing a class-
action lawsuit in June, which seeks to eliminate the last legal
footing Sheriff Arpaio has to conduct his own brand of immigration
enforcement using workplace raids.

The motion sought to preclude the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
and County Attorney's Office from enforcing two state provisions
in identity-theft laws that critics say are intended to target
undocumented immigrants.

The two state laws in question, "taking identity of another person
or entity" and "aggravated taking identity of another person or
entity," were frequently cited as the legal backing behind
Sheriff Arpaio's workplace raids.

The suit alleges that the statutes, while purporting to enforce
all varieties of identity theft, are thinly veiled mechanisms used
to promote a broader, anti-immigration agenda.

Sheriff Arpaio defended his practices and said that his
investigations target identity thieves regardless of their
immigration status.

But last month, Sheriff Arpaio voluntarily disbanded the
controversial criminal employment unit -- a decision that
plaintiffs hailed as a direct result of the lawsuit.

Earlier, Arpaio's office said the sheriff will disband the unit in
early 2015 after "careful consideration" with command staff.

"The grant money issued to his office from the state of Arizona
will be returned to the state, and the deputies assigned to the
unit will be reassigned to other duties," the statement said.
"Sheriff Arpaio stresses that ID theft and ID fraud remain
criminal offenses under Arizona Revised Statutes.  Deputies and
detectives will continue to investigate these crimes."


MC KITCHEN: Faces "Ordonez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Carlos Montalvo Ordonez, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. MC Kitchen LLC, Dena Marino, Case No.
1:15-cv-20060 (S.D. Fla., January 8, 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 an Italian restaurant 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


MCDONALDS CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisol Sardina a/k/a Alejandra Arredondo, et al., v. Bob Charles
d/b/a McDonalds Restaurant, The Charles Organization, Long Peak
Arches, Inc., Mile High, Inc., McDonalds Corporation, Lorena
Estrada And Cliff Pete in their individual and corporate
capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-00054 (D. Colo., January 8, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants are owners and operators of a McDonald's restaurant
located at 245 South Main Street, Longmont, Colorado 80501.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Colleen Therese Calandra, Esq.
      THE RAMOS INJURY FIRM, LLP
      801 East 17th Avenue
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 733-6353
      Facsimile: (303) 865-5666
      E-mail: ccalandra@ramosinjuryfirm.com


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Sued in Mich. Over Illegal Sale of Company
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-10057 (E.D. Mich., January 7, 2015), arises out
of Defendants' announced agreement to sell Meadowbrook Insurance
Group, Inc. to Fosun International Limited, for the unfair price
after a flawed process.

Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. is a specialty niche focused,
commercial insurance underwriter and insurance administration
services company that markets and underwrites specialty property
and casualty insurance programs and products on both an admitted
and non-admitted basis through a broad and diverse network of
independent retail agents, wholesalers, program administrators,
and general agents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Allen Sr., Esq.
      ALLEN BROTHERS, PLLC
      400 Monroe Street, Ste. 620
      Detroit, MI 48226
      Telephone: (313) 962-7777
      Facsimile: (313) 962-0581
      E-mail: jamesallen@allenbrotherspllc.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jreiger@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

     Peter Safirstein, Esq.
     Roger A. Sachar, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
     28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
     New York, NY 10036
     Telephone: (646) 863-5704
     Facsimile: (212) 273-1128
     E-mail: psafirstein@morgansecuritieslaw.com
            rsachar@morgansecuritieslaw.com


MERITER HEALTH: Judge Approves $82-Mil. Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Wahlberg, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that
a judge on Jan. 5 approved an $82 million settlement of a class
action lawsuit over Meriter Health Services' pension plan.

U.S. District Judge William Conley approved the settlement,
reached in July, but reduced attorneys fees and costs from about
$25.6 million to about $24.3 million.  Under the original terms,
4,000 Meriter employees were to get an average of $14,000.  A
dozen named plaintiffs were to get an additional $5,000.  Another
2,000 people were to get about $250 each.

Those affected by the settlement have been notified.

The lawsuit, filed in 2010, alleged that Meriter's pension plan
miscalculated benefits beginning in 1987.


MOL GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Mulls Global IPO Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney and Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, report
that Levi & Korsinsky LLP is investigating potential missteps made
by MOL Global Inc. ahead of its recent disappointing initial
public offering and plans to file a putative class action suit
against the company, according to a press release from the firm.

The announcement was made in a Jan. 2 press release that indicated
a suit will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that MOL failed to disclose
pertinent information in its registration statement, causing many
investors to participate in the October IPO without full knowledge
of updates to MOL's recent financial statements.

Specifically, the press release noted that the firm is looking
into claims that MOL -- a Southeast Asian e-payments company
controlled by Malaysian billionaire businessman Vincent Tan --
overstated the revenue and profit generated by Vietnamese
subsidiary Nganluong Joint Stock Co. when it released financial
statements on Nov. 1.

The registration statement did not include the fact that financial
statements for the Vietnamese unit had originally been reported
incorrectly, and the company didn't reveal that its financial
statements had to be restated until Dec. 1, almost two months
after the IPO took place, the press release said.

Investors have until Jan. 23 to appoint themselves as lead
plaintiff in the putative class action, although they can choose
to simply opt in and not serve as lead plaintiff as well.  The
proposed class action is open to all investors who purchased MOL
American depositary shares between the Oct. 9 IPO and Nov. 20, the
press release said.

Even without Levi & Korsinsky's probe, it's safe to say that MOL's
IPO did not go smoothly, as the company was forced to slash its
share price and number of shares ahead of the offering.  The IPO
raised almost $169 million, almost $158 million less than the
original target of $324.5 million.

Where the company had originally planned to sell more than 19
million shares at $14.50 a pop, it ended up selling about 13.5
million shares at $12.50 apiece.  The company's shares, which are
trading on Nasdaq under the symbol MOLG, were selling at less than
$3 each as of Jan. 5, 2015, and haven't climbed above $4 since
late November.

Levi & Korsinksy is not the first firm to decide that MOL may be
legally liable for its actions.  Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
and Pomerantz LLP each filed proposed class actions alleging the
same things in mid-December and late November, respectively.

MOL Global operates a payments platform to facilitate online and
mobile commerce providing a network of channels to accept payment
in cash and online. It has a physical distribution network of over
970,000 locations in 13 countries.


NESTLE WATERS: 3rd Cir. Upholds Ruling in "Ciser" Fraud Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed a
district court order in GARY CISER, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA
INC. GARY CISER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Appellant, NO. 13-4509.

Gary Ciser appealed a final order of the District Court for the
District of New Jersey, dated October 24, 2013, granting summary
judgment in favor of defendant Nestle Waters North America, Inc.
("Nestle").

Ciser filed his initial complaint on August 31, 2011 and his first
amended complaint on November 18, 2011.  Ciser filed his second
amended complaint on March 5, 2013, alleging violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the Third Circuit, Mr. Ciser's claims amount to
unsupported legal conclusions based upon unwarranted inferences.
Mr. Ciser has further failed to provide any information that would
suggest a dimension of deception permitting a challenge under the
CFA. Mr. Ciser has likewise failed to plead facts sufficient to
show that Nestle's retention of a benefit from Ciser -- the late
fee payments -- would result in an injustice.

A copy of the Third Circuit's January 7, 2015 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/SHMuCBfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellant:

     J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
     Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
     WITTELS LAW, P.C.
     18 Half Mile Road
     Armonk, NY 10504
     E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com
             slw@wittelslaw.com

Counsel for Appellee:

     Jeffrey M. Garrod, Esq.
     Craig A. Ollenschleger, Esq.
     ORLOFF, LOWENBACH, STIFELMAN & SIEGEL
     101 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 400
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     E-mail: JMG@OLSS.COM
             CO@OLSS.COM

Counsel for Petitioner Amicus Appellants:

     Julie Nepveu, Esq.
     AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION
     Consumer Action
     Room B4-245, 601 E Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20049
     E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org

          - and -

     Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
     WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY
     1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     E-mail: mquirk@wcblegal.com


PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peikoff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00068 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2015), alleges that
certain policies and practices followed by the Defendants in
furnishing, using, procuring, and causing to be procured consumer
reports for employment purposes violate the provisions of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act specifically by, failing to make proper
disclosures required before procuring or causing to be procured
consumer reports for employment purposes.

Paramount Pictures Corporation is a US film studio, television
production company and motion picture distributor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Roald Dion-Kindem, Esq.
      THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
      21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 883-4900
      Facsimile: (818) 429-4902
      E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com


PENNYMAC LOAN: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collections Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Araujo v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00062 (E.D.N.Y., January 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.

Pennymac Loan Services, LLC is engaged in the business of debt
collection with an office at 6101 Condor Drive, Suite 200,
Moorpark, CA 93021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      M. HARVEY REPHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      Facsimile: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louis Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Petroleo Brasileiro Petrobras S.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00093 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 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.

Petroleo Brasileiro Petrobras S.A. is an integrated oil and gas
company that is involved in the exploration, development,
production, refining, marketing, transportation, and distribution
of oil and gas products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com
              lglancy@glancylaw.com
              mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory Bradley Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      77 Water Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (646) 722-4180
      E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Summary Judgment Ruling in Damianakis Case Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Damianakis, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Nikitas Damianakis, appeals a final judgment in favor of Philip
Morris USA, Inc., which followed the trial court's grant of Philip
Morris's motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted
Philip Morris's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the
statute of limitations barred Mrs. Damianakis's claims, based on
its prerequisite finding that Mr. Damianakis was not a member of
the common class of plaintiffs that had been established in R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev.
denied, 682 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1996) (Engle I).  The trial court
reluctantly determined that, in accordance with Rearick v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 68 So.3d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and Bishop
v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 96 So.3d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012),
both of which interpreted the Florida Supreme Court's decision in
Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), cert.
denied, 552 U.S. 941, reh'g denied, 552 U.S. 1056 (2007) (Engle
III), it was required to grant the motion.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, on
January 7, 2015, held that Mr. Damianakis was a citizen and
resident of Florida on or before the cut-off date of November 21,
1996, and that Philip Morris has conceded for the purpose of this
litigation that Mr. Damianakis's smoking-related illness
manifested before the cut-off date. Accordingly, the Florida
Appeals Court reversed the order granting summary judgment and the
final judgment in favor of Philip Morris and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion.  It certified conflict
with Rearick and Bishop to the extent that the holdings in those
cases are inconsistent with its opinion.

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

The case is ELAINE DAMIANAKIS, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Nikitas Damianakis, Appellant, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA
INC., Appellee, CASE NO. 2D13-246.

Kent Whittemore of The Whittemore Law Group, P.A., St. Petersburg;
Bruce Denson of Bruce H. Denson, P.A., St. Petersburg; Steven L.
Brannock, Celene H. Humphries, Sara C. Pellenbarg, Tyler K.
Pitchford of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; and Howard M. Acosta,
St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Daniel F. Molony -- dmolony@shb.com -- Terri L. Parker  --
tparker@shb.com -- Kristopher Verra -- kverra@shb.com -- Emily R.
Fedeles -- efedeles@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.,
Tampa; Geoffrey J. Michael -- Geoffrey.Michael@aporter.com -- of
Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC; and Joseph H. Lang, Jr. --
jlang@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, Tampa, for
Appellee.


PILOT FLYING: Judge Seeks More Information in Fuel Rebate Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Schreiner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge said on Jan. 9 he wants more information about
business arrangements between the truck-stop company owned by
Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam and Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam
and several trucking companies that claim they were cheated by the
retail giant.

U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar asked attorneys to provide more
details about what Pilot Flying J had promised the trucking
companies.  The request came as attorneys wrangled over Pilot's
motion asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuits -- the latest
round in the retailer's legal woes.

The trucking companies claim they were cheated out of fuel rebates
and discounts promised by Pilot Flying J, the nation's largest
diesel retailer with annual revenues of about $30 billion.

The Haslams were not mentioned during the two-hour hearing, which
drew a dozen attorneys to the Kentucky courtroom.

Leonard Leicht, an attorney for National Retail Transportation and
Keystone Freight, said afterward that the additional information
requested by the judge would shed more light on the scope of the
scheme.

"We look forward to Pilot actually coming clean and giving us the
exact information, which will enable us to calculate damages based
on the actual cost of the fuel," Mr. Leicht said.

Pilot attorney Glenn Kurtz declined to comment afterward.

During the hearing, he disputed plaintiffs' claims that Pilot had
committed fraud.  Arguments by the trucking companies that they
didn't receive what they were entitled to under their contracts
with Pilot are "not enough" to justify the fraud claims, Mr. Kurtz
said.

The trucking companies' allegations against Pilot include breach
of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Another plaintiffs' attorney, Erik Clark, said Pilot never
intended to keep the promises it made in the contracts, which
would constitute fraud.

Jimmy Haslam, Pilot's CEO, has said he had no knowledge of the
scheme.  Bill Haslam holds an undisclosed ownership share in the
company but has said he is not involved in Pilot's day-to-day
operations.

Ten former employees have pleaded guilty to a scheme to defraud
customers since federal agents raided Pilot's headquarters in
Knoxville, Tennessee, in April 2013.  Jimmy Haslam has not been
charged with any crime.

Pilot agreed to pay $92 million in fines and accept responsibility
for the criminal conduct of its employees while the government
agreed not to prosecute the company. The agreement required Pilot
to comply with several conditions, including cooperation in the
investigation of people who may have been involved in the fraud.
It did not protect any individual at Pilot from prosecution.

Most of the lawsuits against Pilot were resolved by a class-action
settlement, in which Pilot agreed to pay out nearly $85 million to
5,500 customers.  But the trucking companies involved in the
Jan. 9 court hearing opted out of the settlement to pursue their
own suits.

"The class-action settlement grossly undersold the amount of the
damages," Mr. Leicht said after the Jan. 9 hearing.

The remaining lawsuits were consolidated in U.S. District Court
for Kentucky's eastern district.  The judge did not indicate how
soon he would rule on the dismissal motion.

An FBI special agent said in an affidavit filed in federal court
that sales team members reduced the amount of money that was due
to trucking company customers they considered too unsophisticated
to notice.  Court records said the scheme lasted from at least
2007 until the FBI raid in April 2013.


PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Faces "Auman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Auman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Progressive Waste Solutions of TX, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00013 (E.D. Tex., January 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

Progressive Waste Solutions of TX, Inc. specializes in providing a
range of recycling and waste management support services to
various residential and commercial businesses throughout the
country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


RIGHT CHOICE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Thomas and Alan Queen, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, Downriver
Staffing Group, LLC, Autoline Transportation, Inc., Timothy
Schultz, and Tracy Shaffer, Case No. 4:15-cv-10055 (E.D. Mich.,
January 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are in the business of moving automobiles,
primarily for Chrysler Group LLC, from one location to another
within the State of Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maia E. Johnson, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW
      2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 275-5200
      Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
      E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com


RINCON ECUATORIANO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Penafiel, Nancy Montero and Modesta Ramos, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Rincon Ecuatoriano, Inc.
(d/b/a Rincon Ecuatoriano) and Carlos Alonzo, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00112 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a restaurant located at
767 E. 137th Street, Bronx, New York 10454.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROGER CUNNINGHAM: "McBride" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer McBride and Christina Molina, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated employees v. Roger Cunningham d/b/a The Bed
Store, and Roger Cunningham, Case No. 3:15-cv-00010 (E.D. Tenn.,
January 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, non-pecuniary damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a mattress retail stores throughout
East Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL CANADIAN: Class Action to Proceed Despite Firm Dissolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that a major
class-action suit involving female Mounties alleging gender-based
discrimination, bullying and harassment is going ahead despite the
dissolution of the law firm that is handling the case.

David Klein, who filed the class-action suit on behalf of ex-Royal
Canadian Mounted Police officer Janet Merlo, said the Merlo case
is proceeding in June and all other files with Klein Lyons will be
unaffected.

"I don't expect there to be any adverse impact on any of the
clients," he said on Jan. 5.

Mr. Klein's comments came as his partner, Mark Lyons, was in B.C.
Supreme Court seeking to have a receiver appointed to deal with
the dissolution of the longtime partnership.

Mr. Klein said he decided to break up the firm because he and
Mr. Lyons had for a number of years a difference in philosophy and
approach.  He said all 10 of the associates of the firm had agreed
to come to his newly formed firm, which he says will be called
Klein Lawyers.

In a petition filed in court, Mr. Lyons said that Mr. Klein's
decision to dissolve the firm required the appointment of a
receiver to deal with a number of issues, including disposition of
the assets of the partnership, most particularly its accounts
receivable.  Those accounts include an estimated $10 million in
active motor-vehicle accident files and another $24 million in
class-action files.

In the petition, Mr. Lyons said there was a risk of the
"dissipation" of the assets, but Mr. Klein said the appointment of
a receiver did not make any sense and was not necessary.

"For us the most important thing is to make sure the clients'
interests are advanced, and we're going to make sure that
happens," said Mr. Klein.

In addition to a dozen lawyers, the firm also employs about 40
support staff.  Its practice has been divided into two groups --
the motor-vehicle and class-action cases.  Mr. Lyons practices
almost exclusively with the motor-vehicle files, while Mr. Klein,
though he supervises some practitioners in the motor-vehicle
cases, is the only lawyer participating in the class-action side
of the firm, according to the petition.  The firm, which was
formed in January 1993, has 1,200 active motor-vehicle files and
about 2,000 class-action cases.


SAVORY KITCHEN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Savory Kitchen Inc. d/b/a Savory
Kitchen, a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00046-WHP (S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2015) is an action for injunctive
relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
entitling the Plaintiff to attorneys' fees, litigation expenses
and costs expended in pursuing the action.

The Plaintiff suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele.  He is permanently disabled and
confined to a wheelchair.

Savory Kitchen Inc., doing business as Savory Kitchen, is the
operator of a food establishment located in New York County, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com


SINGING RIVER: Faces Second Class Action Over Pension Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Anita Lee, writing for Sun Herald, reports that a second lawsuit
has been filed in U.S. District Court against Singing River Health
System, current and former members of its board of trustees, and
the current and former CEOs.

Attorneys filed the lawsuit on behalf of three former employees
who want actual and punitive damages because of the health
system's failed pension plan.  The lawsuit also asks a federal
judge to grant class-action status to cover those enrolled in the
retirement plan at any time since Oct. 1, 2007, when the health
system began to decrease pension funding.

The health system stopped funding the pension altogether in 2010,
the lawsuit says.  Employees continued to contribute a mandatory 3
percent of pay.

Annual benefit statements mailed to employees while Chris Anderson
was CEO, and an email new CEO Kevin Holland sent employees in
March, led them to believe the health system was still funding the
retirement plan, the lawsuit says.

The federal lawsuit accuses both Messrs. Anderson and Holland of
fraud.

In October, Holland told employees the plan was woefully
underfunded.  On Nov. 20, the health system's Board of Trustees
voted without informing employees to terminate the plan.  Ongoing
action in state Chancery Court has temporarily prevented the
health system from completing plan termination.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to decide whether the health
system and its trustees:

   -- should be stopped from withholding pension benefits,

  -- misrepresented the pension plan's condition,

  -- violated the constitutional rights of plan participants by
taking their pensions without due process,

  -- violated federal pension regulations,

  -- or breached its contract with plan participants.

The lawsuit asks the judge to determine actual and punitive
damages, plus attorneys' fees and other interest, owed to each
defendant.  Pascagoula attorneys Dustin Thomas, Monte Tynes and
Keith Miller filed the lawsuit with the law firm of Branstetter,
Stranch and Jennings of Nashville, Tenn., which specializes in
class-action lawsuits, specifically those involving pensions.


SIRUS XM: Faces "Trenz" Suit in Cal. for Making Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Trenz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sirus XM Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00044 (S.D. Cal., January 8, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff's on the cellular phone without prior
express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Sirus XM Holdings, Inc. is a provider of satellite radio.

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. sells new and used automobiles
through its local dealerships across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KIRA RUBEL
      555 West Beech Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (800) 836-6531
      E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com


SOBERLINK INC: Falsely Marketed Alcohol Testing Device, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Lomonaco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Soberlink, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00015 (C.D. Cal.,
January 6, 2015), alleges that the Defendant made false and
misleading representation of its breath alcohol testing device
that it allows third-parties to monitor a Testing Device user's
alcohol consumption remotely because the it is portable,
automated, and upload results to the internet in real-time, when
in fact the Testing Devices frequently return error messages and
fail to upload reports to the internet.

Soberlink, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells several models of
breath alcohol testing devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 South Beverly Drive #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              adam@attorneyzim.com
              matt@attorneyzim.com


SONY PICTURES: Faces "Rodriguez" Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that another ex-employee
has filed a class action suit against Sony Pictures Entertainment,
claiming that the studio was negligent in protecting personal
information from the Nov. 24 hacking attack.

At least seven class action suits have been filed against the
studio, raising the prospect that they will be consolidated before
a single federal judge.

Anastasio Garcia Rodriguez, a former software engineer for SPE,
contends that his Social Security number, immigration information
and visa, and passport information were posted on the Internet
after the security breach.  He is seeking unspecified damages.

"Sony's recent history with negative audits and data breaches
underscore that Sony knew or should have known that its security
protections and protocol for sensitive information were woefully
inadequate," he states in his lawsuit, filed on Jan. 2 in U.S.
District Court in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit cites, among other things, a 2007 article in CIO
Magazine revealing that SPE's then-executive director of
information security, Jason Spaltro, "had been told by an external
auditor that Sony had insufficiently strong access controls and
that passwords used by Sony employees did not meet best practice
standards."

In an interview with the magazine, Mr. Spaltro said that companies
do cost-benefit analyses in determining how to protect data.  He
offered a hypothetical example, in which the cost of notifying
customers of a breach was $1 million but better securing a system
to protect a breach would cost $10 million.  "I will not invest
$10 million to avoid a possible $1 million loss," he told the
magazine.

(Not mentioned in the class action complaint was that Spaltro also
said in the same interview that the studio took "protection of
personal information very seriously and invests heavily in
controls to prevent it.")

A spokeswoman for SPE said they had no comment.

Rodriguez is represented in the lawsuit by Steven Tindall --
stindall@rhdtlaw.com -- and Valerie Brender --
vbrender@rhdtlaw.com -- of Rukin Hyland Doria & Tyndall.  SPE has
retained the law firm of Wilmer Hale to defend it in the suit, but
it has not yet provided a formal answer to any of the suits.  The
studio's CEO, Michael Lynton, has described the attack as
unprecedented for an American corporation.


SYNGENTA CORP: "Guth" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Guth v. Syngenta Corporation,
et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04464, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02023-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:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          650 Northstar East
          608 Second Ave. South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: 612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, PLC
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: dhedlund@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          GRIES & LENHARDT, PLLP
          12725 43rd St. NE, Suite 201
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Telephone: (763) 497-3099
          Facsimile: (763) 497-3639

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas W. Peters, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          1650 Farnam St.
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: Douglas.Peters@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas K. Klosowski, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          220 South 6th Street, Suite 1750
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 334-5017
          Facsimile: (612) 334-5050
          E-mail: Thomas.Klosowski@KutakRock.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Rail Transfer Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Rail Transfer, Incorporated v.
Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04477, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-02024-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:

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Caleb LH Marker, Esq.
          RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
          555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 216-7380
          E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas W. Peters, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: Douglas.Peters@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas K. Klosowski, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          220 South 6th Street, Suite 1750
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 334-5017
          Facsimile: (612) 334-5050
          E-mail: Thomas.Klosowski@KutakRock.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Rye Farms Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rye Farms Partnership, et al. v
Syngenta Corp., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03240, 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-
02019-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:

          John R. Whaley, Esq.
          NEBLETT BEARD & ARSENAULT
          PO Box 1190
          2220 Bonaventure Court
          Alexandria, LA 71390-1190
          Telephone: (318) 487-9874
          Facsimile: (318) 561-2591
          E-mail: jrwhaley@nbalawfirm.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Bader" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Bader, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00026 (C.D. Cal.,
January 8, 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:

      Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
      Ara Jabagchourian, Esq.
      Stewart R. Pollock, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com
              ajabagchourian@cpmlegal.com
              spollock@cpmlegal.com

         - and -

      Megan A. Richmond, Esq.
      Alexander E. Papaefthimiou, Esq.
      MEGAN A. RICHMOND, APC
      9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 500
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (858) 622-7878
      Facsimile: (858) 622-0411
      E-mail: megan@therichmondfirm.com
              alexander@therichmondfirm.com


TASNEEM ENTERPRISE: "Vanhorn" Case to Proceed as Collective Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Vanhorn filed a collective action complaint seeking relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FSLA") and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA") for himself and "others similarly
situated" who are or have previously been employed by Tasneem
Enterprises, Inc. and Muhammed Tasneem, at the Shell Superstop #53
located at 3100 JFK Boulevard in North Little Rock, Arkansas.

This case has been pending as a purported collective action since
December 17, 2013. In that time, Plaintiff has not filed a motion
to conditionally certify the class in spite of having had the name
and address of all potential class members since April 14, 2014.
No other employee has given consent to join this action. The case
is set for trial during the week of April 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

District Judge James M. Moody, Jr., in an order dated January 8,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/4sBAvMfrom
Leagle.com, held that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
supported by the affidavits of four former and current employees
of Defendants stating affirmatively that they do not consider
themselves to be similarly situated to Plaintiff regarding his
claims against Defendants under the FLSA. Other than his own
affidavit, Plaintiff has not offered evidence of any potential
class action members to support his bringing this action as a
collective action. The discovery deadline of December 19 has
passed. The Court found that Defendants are entitled to certainty
in the nature of the action as the trial is only a few months
away.

The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is, therefore, granted
in part and denied in part; it is granted as to the collective
action claims and denied as to the individual claims of Randy
Vanhorn.

The case is RANDY VANHORN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. TASNEEM ENTERPRISE, INC. and
MUHAMMED TASNEEM, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OWNER/MANAGER OF TASNEEM
ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13CV722, (E.D. Ark.).

Randy Vanhorn, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Holleman --
jholleman@johnholleman.net -- Holleman & Associates, P.A., Timothy
A. Steadman, Holleman & Associates, P.A. & Matthew Michael Ford,
Holleman & Associates, P.A.

Tasneem Enterprise Inc, Defendant, represented by Marie Bernarde
Miller -- mmiller@williamsanderson.com -- Williams & Anderson,
PLC.

Muhammed Tasneem, Individually and as Owner/Manager of Tasneem
Enterprise, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marie Bernarde Miller,
Williams & Anderson, PLC.


TGI FRIDAY'S: Questions Timeline of Events in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that T.G.I. Friday's is questioning whether
a plaintiff and his attorneys who filed a class action lawsuit
over its drink prices had a plan to do so before visiting the
restaurant.

T.G.I. Friday's takes issue with the timeline of events occurring
before Michael Grace filed a class action lawsuit against the
company and two other defendants in October.  Mr. Grace claims he
did not realize he was drinking a mixed drink that cost more than
$10 until he received his check and that the restaurant should
have disclosed the price on its menu.


TGI FRIDAY'S: Paid Worker in Attempt to Settle Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Foster, writing for The Sun Chronicle, reports that a
Mansfield worker for a popular chain restaurant reportedly was
paid $82,000 as part of an attempt to settle a national class
action wage lawsuit, according to a lawyer in the case.

Justin Swartz, a lawyer representing workers suing T.G.I. Friday's
said offers of payment to the employee and other workers is part
of a strategy to limit the number of plaintiffs in the case.

Mr. Swartz said almost $500,000 has been offered to as many as 25
workers.

"This is like a game of Whack-a-Mole in which every time a new
plaintiff pops up, they try to knock them down hoping additional
workers will stop appearing," said Mr. Swartz, who made the
allegations in a letter to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in
New York.

Judge Torres is due to decide soon whether 30,000 employees of the
nationwide chain can join the lawsuit.

Mr. Swartz said the Mansfield employee worked at the Mansfield
Crossing location.  A second Mansfield store employee accepted an
offer of approximately $47,000, he said.

The lawsuit, filed in April, alleges that tipped workers are not
paid fair wages.  It also alleges that the management shaves hours
from employees' work records and requires tipped staff to share
tip proceeds with non-tipped workers, Mr. Swartz said.

The legal action seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime pay,
tips, unlawful deductions and other wages from current and former
Friday's workers.


TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Sued Over Collection of Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Goodall, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Toronto-Dominion Bank and TD Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00023 (M.D. Fla., January 8, 2015) arises out of
the unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with
Defendants' assessment and collection of improper and excessive
overdraft fees.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank with its designated main office
in the State of New Jersey.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank is a Canadian-chartered bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Frederick Wagner, Esq.
      Jason Kyle Whittemore, Esq.
      WAGNER, VAUGHAN & MCLAUGHLIN, PA
      Suite 910, 601 Bayshore Blvd
      Tampa, FL 33606
      Telephone: (813) 225-4000
      Facsimile: (813) 225-4010
      E-mail: AlanWagner@WagnerLaw.com
              jason@wagnerlaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Trenz" Suit Over Making Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Trenz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sirus XM Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00044 (S.D. Cal., January 8, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff's on the cellular phone without prior
express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Sirus XM Holdings, Inc. is a provider of satellite radio.

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. sells new and used automobiles
through its local dealerships across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KIRA RUBEL
      555 West Beech Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (800) 836-6531
      E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Driver Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit alleges a
popular riding service performed background checks that weren't as
extensive as advertised.

Matthew Philliben and Byron McKnight filed the lawsuit Dec. 23 in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Uber Technologies alleging the background checks don't
require fingerprints and don't take enough steps to ensure that
employment applicants are in fact who they represent to be.

Uber claims its background check process is "industry-leading" and
is "more rigorous" than taxi driver applicants, the lawsuit said.

"Unlike many background checks, Uber's process does not utilize
fingerprints or even require the applicant to appear in person,"
the lawsuit said.

Uber asks applicants to give their name, address, driver's license
number and Social Security number through a web page. The
information is given to a company, Hirease, Inc., that performs
the background check, the lawsuit said.

Hirease includes a statement in its report that stating the "final
verification of an individual's identity and proper use of report
contents are the user's responsibility," the lawsuit said.

"In contrast, many taxi regulators, such as those in Uber's
hometown of San Francisco, employ a fingerprint identification
technology known as 'Live Scan,'" the lawsuit said.  "This process
is essential in preventing fraud and abuse of the most basic sort
in background checks: applicants who could not otherwise pass a
background check borrowing or stealing the identity of another
person in order to pass."

The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mike Arias -- marias@aogllp.com
-- and Alfredo Torrijos -- atorrijos@aogllp.com -- of Arias,
Ozzello & Gignac, LLP and Steven D. Liddle --
SLiddle@ldclassaction.com -- and Nicholas A. Coulson --
NCoulson@ldclassaction.com -- of Liddle & Dubin, P.C.

United States District Court Northern District of California case
number 4:14-cv-05615.


UNITED STATES: Judge Tosses Home Health Care Worker Wage Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gruenberg, writing for People's World, reports that a Dec. 22
decision by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., throwing out the
Obama Labor Department's new rules ordering third-party employers
of home health care workers to pay the workers the minimum wage
and overtime, again emphasizes that men and women in black robes
can in the blink of an eye yank away what workers win in the
executive branch, on Capitol Hill or at the bargaining table.

In this case, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon voided the
administration's attempt to counter a seven year-old U.S. Supreme
Court decision denying the minimum wage and overtime pay to those
workers.  DOL spokesman Carl Fillichio said the agency may appeal
Leon's ruling.  Third-party agencies employ 90 percent of all home
health care workers, Judge Leon noted.

In the Supreme Court case, which the Service Employees brought,
the GOP-named majority ruled home health care workers are the
legal equivalent of babysitters, and don't have to be paid the
minimum wage or overtime, no matter how many hours they work
caring for the elderly or the disabled.  Legislation to overturn
that case has gone nowhere since.

So DOL wrote new rules, which would have begun on Jan. 1, to cover
the workers.  The lobbies for the home health care firms sued to
kill the rules -- and won.

Judge Leon called DOL's rules "a thinly veiled effort to do
through regulation what could not be done through legislation."
He denounced the Labor Department's "arrogance" and its "attempt
to seize unprecedented authority to impose overtime and minimum
wage regulations in defiance" of 40 years of law.

Judge Leon's ruling symbolizes how the federal courts often decide
workers' lives and pay -- or will be called on to do so in coming
months.


USP LEWISBURG: Dismissal of Shelton's FTCA Claim Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Norman Shelton appealed a district court's denial of class
certification and grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants
on his claims for alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment and
the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, however, agreed
with the district court's ruling granting the defendants' motion
to dismiss the FTCA claim based on its conclusion that Shelton's
failure to exhaust deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear that
claim.  Accordingly, the order denying Shelton's motion for class
certification and the order granting summary judgment to
defendants on Shelton's Eighth Amendment claims will be vacated.
The case will be remanded for the district court to consider both
issues in a manner consistent with its opinion, and the district
court's dismissal of Shelton's FTCA claim will be affirmed.

A copy of Appeals Court's January 7, 2015 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/qQBJZufrom Leagle.com.

The case is NORMAN SHELTON, Appellant, v. BRYAN A. BLEDSOE, Warden
of USP Lewisburg; THOMAS A. KANE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF
PRISONS; JOSEPH NORWOOD, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NORTHEAST BUREAU
OF PRISONS; CHUCK MAIORANA, Associate Warden at USP Lewisburg;
KRISTA BAHRE, Associate Warden at USP Lewisburg; JAMES
DUNKELBERGER, Case Manager Coordinator at USP Lewisburg; JOHN
ADAMI, Unit Manager at USP Lewisburg; J FOSNOT, Acting Captain of
Security at USP Lewisburg; F. PERRIN, Corrections Officer at USP
Lewisburg with ranks of Lieutenant and Special Investigation
Supervisor; S. HEATH, Corrections Officer at USP Lewisburg with
ranks of Lieutenant and Special Investigation Supervisor; NELSON
DREES, Corrections Officer at USP Lewisburg with ranks of
Lieutenant and Special Investigation Supervisor; WHITAKER,
Corrections Officer at USP Lewisburg; RUPERT, Correction Officer,
Corrections Officer at USP Lewisburg; ZERDES, Corrections Officer
at USP Lewisburg; ROOP, Corrections Officer at USP Lewisburg;
WELLS, Corrections Officer at USP Lewisburg; POTTER, Corrections
Officer at USP Lewisburg; KULAGO, Corrections Officer at USP
Lewisburg; FISHER, Corrections Officer at USP Lewisburg; MOFFIT,
Corrections Officer at USP Lewisburg; COMBE, Corrections Officer
at USP Lewisburg; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, through its
department, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS JOHN DOE CORRECTION
OFFICERS, NO. 12-4226.

Stephen D. Brown, Esq. -- stephen.brown@dechert.com -- Christine
C. Levin, Esq. -- christine.levin@dechert.com  --(ARGUED),
Jennifer L. Burdick, Esq. -- jennifer.burdick@dechert.com --
Francis J. Demody, Esq. -- francis.dermody@dechert.com -- Sean P.
McConnell -- sean.mcconnell@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Cira
Centre, 2929 Arch St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, Attorneys for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael J. Butler, Esq. (ARGUED), Office of United States
Attorney, 228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 11754, 220 Federal Building
and Courthouse, Harrisburg, PA 17108, Attorney for Defendants-
Appellees.


UXC LIMITED: Settles Bushfire Class Action
------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that UXC Limited says a
settlement has been reached between parties in the Kilmore East
Class Action and a discontinued UXC business known as Utility
Services Corporation.


VIACOM: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
----------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Viacom is about to become the latest media giant to stage an exit
from the messy litigation over unpaid internships.  On New Year's
Eve, attorneys informed a New York federal judge that the company
had come to a deal in principle to settle a class action lawsuit
challenging whether its old intern program violated minimum wage
and other labor laws.

Viacom is about to become the latest media giant to stage an exit
from the messy litigation over unpaid internships.  On New Year's
Eve, attorneys informed a New York federal judge that the company
had come to a deal in principle to settle a class action lawsuit
challenging whether its old intern program violated minimum wage
and other labor laws.

Terms of the settlement haven't yet been disclosed, but following
the deals made in recent months for ex-interns at NBCU, Conde Nast
and ICM, the tentative agreement signals another turning of the
page on a tradition once seen as untouchable.  The significance of
the latest settlement goes beyond money: By reaching peace with
Viacom, the plaintiffs have scored a mini cultural milestone.
Viacom is owner of MTV, a bastion of youth culture.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Viacom was Casey O'Jeda,
who was an unpaid intern at MTV from September 2011 to January
2012, working on the network's mobile website.  Since the lawsuit
was filed, more than 300 other individuals gave their consent to
join the collective action against Viacom.

In April, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman granted conditional
class certification in this lawsuit and gave a green light to
issue a notice to those covered by the litigation.  The judge
wrote that for certification purposes, attorney Lloyd Ambinder had
offered sufficient generalized proof that plaintiffs were "victims
of a common policy to replace paid workers with unpaid interns."

Viacom could have challenged the ruling as Fox will be doing soon
at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.  But Viacom has already made
the corporate decision to pay all the interns at its various
divisions.

Although the parties now tell the judge there are a number of
material terms that remain to be reconciled, the deal in principle
has progressed far enough that the attorneys involved are asking
for a magistrate judge to assist the parties in effectuating the
settlement.

The overall monetary value of the deal will be revealed in a
future court filing -- the proposed settlement will need to be
approved by the judge -- but it will likely cover all interns who
worked at Viacom after August, 2010 or three years prior to when
the lawsuit was filed.


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Sued Over Misleading Product Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Scheuerman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc., d/b/a
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00025 (S.D. Cal., January
7, 2015), arises out of the Defendants false and misleading
advertising, promotion, marketing and packaging of Reservie Trans-
Resveratrol products.

Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc. is a producer and retailer of
health supplements in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


WHOLE FOODS: "Richards" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Richards v. Whole Foods Market
Group Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02221, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas (Austin).  The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00004-SS 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:

          Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          651 Nicollet Mall, #501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Sued by Ex-Sales Staff Over Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Pierce v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., and Wyndham
Vacation Ownership, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00003 (E.D. Tenn.,
January 6, 2015) is an action for alleged unlawful employment
practices brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Tennessee Public Protection Act
and the Tennessee Disability Act.

Mr. Pierce is a resident of Knox County, Tennessee, and a former
employee of the Defendants.  He worked for the Defendants in
various locations in Tennessee as a sales representative, sales
mentor, manager, and director of sales from May 2003 until he was
discharged on July 25, 2014.

On October 23, 2013, Mr. Pierce and his brother, Michael Pierce,
filed a collective action against the Defendants in this Court,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00641, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated for violations of the FLSA.

Defendants Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., and Wyndham Vacation
Ownership, Inc., are Delaware corporations with their principal
place of business located in Orlando, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Janney III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS B. JANNEY III
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 742-5900
          Facsimile: (615) 742-5958
          E-mail: doug@janneylaw.com


XCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Martinez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria del Rosario Cota Martinez, Mario Rincon Rosales, and Araceli
Zavala Ramirez, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Xclusive Management LLC d/b/a Xclusive
Staffing, Xclusive Staffing, Inc., Xclusive Staffing of Colorado,
LLC, Omni Interlocken Company, LLC, Omni Hotels Management
Corporation, Christina Chavez, and Humberto Patron, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00047 (D. Colo., January 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

Xclusive Management LLC, Xclusive Staffing, Inc., and Xclusive
Staffing of Colorado own and operate a staffing aganecy with a
principal street address of 8774 Yates Drive, Suite 210,
Westminster, Colorado 80031.
Interlocken Company, LLC and Omni Hotels Management Corporation
operate the Omni Interlocken Hotel at 500 Interlocken Blvd,
Broomfield, Colorado 80021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward Frank Siegel, Esq.
      TOWARDS JUSTICE-BOULDER
      1434 Spruce Street, Suite 100
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (970) 343-4464
      Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
      E-mail: ed@towardsjustice.org

         - and -

      Alexander Neville Hood, Esq.
      TOWARDS JUSTICE-GOLDEN
      601 16th Street, Suite C-207
      Golden, CO 80401
      Telephone: (720) 239-2606
      Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
      E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org

         - and -

      Rajasimha Raghunath, Esq.
      RAGHUNATH LAW FIRM LLC
      P.O. Box 372299
      Denver, CO 80237
      Telephone: (720) 808-1231
      E-mail: raghunathlawfirm@gmail.com

         - and -

      Andrew Schmidt, Esq.
      ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
      97 India St.
      Portland, ME 04101
      Telephone: (207) 619-0320
      E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.org


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH to Have "Unmanifested" Fibro Claims Bar Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Court Christopher S. Sontchi granted the request of
Energy Future Holdings Corp. and its affiliated debtors to
establish a deadline for the filing of so-called "Unmanifested"
claims.

Judge Sontchi said an order establishing the bar date and
specifying notice thereof will be entered after further
proceedings before the Court.

The Debtors had asked the Court to establish a bar date for claims
of unknown persons that have yet to manifest any sign of illness
from exposure to asbestos.  The Unminifested Claimants were
(allegedly) exposed to asbestos at one of the Debtors' facilities
prior to the petition date, yet, to date, do not know, even with
appropriate due diligence, that they will become ill, due to the
potential for a long latency period between asbestos exposure and
illness. The Debtors have requested that a bar date be established
for these Unmanifested Claims.

The United States Trustee had previously appointed a committee of
unsecured creditors or so-called "T-side Committee".  None of the
members of the T-side Committee, however, are asbestos claimants.
The T-side Committee is composed of creditors of Energy Future
Competitive Holdings Company LLC ("EFCH"), EFCH's direct
subsidiary, Texas Competitive Holdings Company LLC ("TCEH"),
TCEH's direct and indirect subsidiaries, and EFH Corporate
Services Company. This committee represents the interests of the
unsecured creditors of the debtors and no others.

The Debtors in July 2014 filed a motion seeking a bar date for
prepetition claims.  Certain asbestos personal injury law firms
filed an objection to the Bar Date Motion.  The Debtors filed a
reply to the PI Law Firm's Objection in which the Debtors modified
its bar date request.  At a hearing on August 13, 2014, the Court
heard the Bar Date Motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Court approved the Bar Date Motion as it related to non-asbestos
claims and continued the Bar Date Motion (solely as it related to
asbestos claims) to a hearing scheduled for September 16, 2014.

In September, the U.S. Trustee announced that it would solicit
asbestos claimants to determine whether an asbestos claims
committee should be formed.  In light of the potential for the
formation of an asbestos committee, the Court granted a final
continuance of this matter.

On October 27, 2014, the U.S. Trustee formed a statutory committee
of unsecured creditors whereon two of the five members are
asbestos claimants or so-called E-side Committee.

The PI firms that objected to the Debtors' Bar Date Motion are
Gori Julian & Associates, P.C., Simmons Hanley Conroy, Paul Reich
& Meyers, P.C., Kazan McClain, Satterley & Greenwood, a
Professional Law Corporation, and Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney &
Meisenkothen.  The PI Law Firms represent over 125 asbestos
claimants.

According to the PI Law Firms, both nuclear and electric power
generation produces extreme amounts of heat. The presence of this
heat necessitates the installment of insulation throughout power
plants including in the walls, wires, pipes, boilers and
generators. As such, historically, power plants were depositories
of asbestos and asbestos-laden materials and products. In addition
to its presence throughout the plant and equipment, workers
responsible for building and maintaining the plants and equipment
would wear insulated clothing or gear to do their jobs. For years,
these pants, coats, aprons, mitts and masks contained asbestos.
Asbestos exposure was virtually unavoidable in power plants built
prior to 1980. EECI, one of the Debtors, was at one time known as
Ebasco, which was at various times affiliated with Boise Cascade,
Halliburton and Raytheon Corporation (all of which have had
asbestos-related personal injury liability).

The Debtors scheduled 392 asbestos-related cases against the
Debtors, including approximately 121 cases being defended (20 of
which are related to the Debtors' electricity generation
activities) and approximately 270 cases where the Debtors have
rejected indemnification demands. The Debtors believe that
litigation and settlement expenses incurred in connection with
asbestos claims against the Debtors are not material. The Debtors
estimate that their asbestos expenses average up to $3 million
annually.  The Debtors further believe that their restructuring is
unlikely to be driven by asbestos claims or result in a channeling
injunction under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The
Debtors assert that the purported asbestos claims against the
Debtors, like all of the Debtors' liabilities, reflect a point of
due diligence for parties participating in the ongoing marketing
process of EFH Corp. Thus, the Debtors and potential bidders seek
to use the tools available in the Bankruptcy Code to gather
information regarding their outstanding liabilities and to bar all
"claims" that are not properly and timely filed.

A copy of the Court's January 7, 2015 Opinion is available at
http://bit.ly/1Ks4KWgfrom Leagle.com.

                     About Energy Future

Energy Future Holdings Corp., formerly known as TXU Corp., is a
privately held diversified energy holding company with a portfolio
of competitive and regulated energy businesses in Texas.  Oncor,
an 80 percent-owned entity within the EFH group, is the largest
regulated transmission and distribution utility in Texas.

The Company delivers electricity to roughly three million delivery
points in and around Dallas-Fort Worth.  EFH Corp. was created in
October 2007 in a $45 billion leverage buyout of Texas power
company TXU in a deal led by private-equity companies Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG Inc.

On April 29, 2014, Energy Future Holdings and 70 affiliated
companies sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del.
Lead Case No. 14-10979) after reaching a deal with some key
financial stakeholders to keep its businesses operating while
reducing its roughly $40 billion in debt.

The Debtors' cases have been assigned to Judge Christopher S.
Sontchi (CSS).  The Debtors are seeking to have their cases
jointly administered for procedural purposes.

As of Dec. 31, 2013, EFH Corp. reported total assets of $36.4
billion in book value and total liabilities of $49.7 billion.  The
Debtors have $42 billion of funded indebtedness.

EFH's legal advisor for the Chapter 11 proceedings is Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, its financial advisor is Evercore Partners and its
restructuring advisor is Alvarez & Marsal.  The TCEH first lien
lenders supporting the restructuring agreement are represented by
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP as legal advisor,
and Millstein & Co., LLC, as financial advisor.

The EFIH unsecured creditors supporting the restructuring
agreement are represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
as legal advisor, and Centerview Partners, as financial advisor.
The EFH equity holders supporting the restructuring agreement are
represented by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, as legal advisor,
and Blackstone Advisory Partners LP, as financial advisor.  Epiq
Systems is the claims agent.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, the successor trustee for
the second-lien noteholders owed about $1.6 billion, is
represented by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.'s William P. Bowden, Esq., and
Gregory A. Taylor, Esq., and Brown Rudnick LLP's Edward S.
Weisfelner, Esq., Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq., Andrew P. Strehle, Esq.,
Jeremy B. Coffey, Esq., and Howard L. Siegel, Esq.

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been appointed in
the case.  The Committee represents the interests of the unsecured
creditors of ONLY of Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company
LLC; EFCH's direct subsidiary, Texas Competitive Electric Holdings
Company LLC; and EFH Corporate Services Company, and of no other
debtors.  The Committee has selected Morrison & Foerster LLP and
Polsinelli PC for representation in this high-profile energy
restructuring.  The lawyers working on the case are James M. Peck,
Esq., Brett H. Miller, Esq., and Lorenzo Marinuzzi, Esq., at
Morrison & Foerster LLP; and Christopher A. Ward, Esq., Justin K.
Edelson, Esq., Shanti M. Katona, Esq., and Edward Fox, Esq., at
Polsinelli PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself
against an increased number of asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increase in the number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In
these claims we are not the sole defendant, and the claims name as
defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety
of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly
disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend
against them vigorously. It is possible that the number of these
claims will continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving
asbestos related claims could become more significant in the
future. We have also been named a potentially responsible party
("PRP"), in conjunction with other parties, in a number of cases
arising under an environmental protection law, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, popularly
known as the "Superfund" law. These cases involve sites that
allegedly received wastes from current or former Company
locations."

Navistar International Corporation (NIC) is a holding company,
whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and
Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a
manufacturer of International brand commercial and military
trucks, IC Bus (IC) brand buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines,
Workhorse Custom Chassis (WCC) brand chassis for motor homes and
step vans, and Monaco RV (Monaco) recreational vehicles (RV), as
well as a provider of service parts for all makes of trucks and
trailers. In addition, it is a private-label designer and
manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck, van and sport
utility vehicle (SUV) markets. It also provides retail, wholesale,
and lease financing of trucks and parts. NIC operates in four
segments: Truck, Engine, Parts and Financial Services. In February
2013, Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd purchased the Navistar Group's
stake in Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd (MNAL) and Mahindra
Navistar Engines Pvt Ltd (MNEPL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EEI Unit Indemnifies Denver for Fibro Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology and Environment, Inc.'s Walsh Environmental Scientists and
Engineers, LLC, has put its professional liability and general
liability carriers on notice of its indemnification claim by the
City and County of Denver, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2014.

On September 21, 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (the "Department") issued a proposed Compliance
Order on Consent (the " Proposed Consent Order") to the City and
County of Denver ("Denver") and to Walsh Environmental Scientists
and Engineers, LLC ("Walsh"). Walsh is a majority-owned subsidiary
of Ecology and Environment, Inc. The Proposed Consent Order
concerns construction improvement activities of certain property
owned by Denver which was the subject of asbestos remediation.
Denver had entered into a contract with Walsh for Walsh to provide
certain environmental consulting services (asbestos monitoring
services) in connection with the asbestos containment and/or
removal performed by other contractors at Denver's real property.
Without admitting liability or the Department's version of the
underlying facts, Walsh on
February 13, 2013, entered into a Compliance Order on Consent with
the Department and paid a penalty of less than $0.1 million and
paid for a Supplemental Environmental Project to benefit the
public at large in an amount less than $0.1 million. Denver was
served with a final Compliance Order and Assessment of
Administrative Penalty against Denver alone for approximately $0.2
million. Under Walsh's environmental consulting contract with
Denver, Walsh has agreed to indemnify Denver for certain
liabilities where Walsh could potentially be held responsible for
a portion of the penalty imposed upon Denver. Walsh has put its
professional liability and general liability carriers on notice of
this indemnification claim by Denver. The Company believes that
this administrative proceeding involving Walsh will not have an
adverse material effect upon the operations of the Company.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., ("EEI" or the "Parent Company") was
incorporated in 1970 as a global broad-based environmental
consulting firm whose underlying philosophy is to provide
professional services worldwide so that sustainable economic and
human development may proceed with acceptable impact on the
environment. Together with its subsidiaries (collectively, the
"Company"), EEI has direct and indirect ownership in 19 wholly
owned and majority owned operating subsidiaries in 12 countries.
The Company's staff is comprised of individuals representing more
than 80 scientific, engineering, health, and social disciplines
working together in multidisciplinary teams to provide innovative
environmental solutions. The Company has completed more than
50,000 projects for a wide variety of clients in more than 120
countries, providing environmental solutions in nearly every
ecosystem on the planet.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,250 Fibro & Silica Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. has unresolved legal matters relating to product
liability including approximately 3,250 asbestos and silica
related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal matters that arise in the ordinary course
of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including approximately 3,250 asbestos and silica
related cases), employment and commercial matters. We and our
subsidiaries also become involved from time to time in proceedings
relating to environmental matters and litigation arising outside
the ordinary course of business."

Joy Global Inc. is a manufacturer and servicer of high
productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
minerals and ores. The Company's equipment is used in mining
regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil
sands, and other minerals. The Company's underground mining
machinery segment (Joy Mining Machinery) is a manufacturer of
underground mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
bedded minerals and offers service locations near mining regions
worldwide. The Company's surface mining equipment segment (P&H
Mining Equipment) is a producer of surface mining equipment for
the extraction of ores and minerals and provides operational
support for many types of equipment used in surface mining. In
June 2014, the Company purchased certain assets of Mining
Technologies International Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Denies Reargument Bid in PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul R. Wallace of the Superior Court of Delaware, New
Castle County, denied a motion for reargument in the asbestos-
related personal injury styled IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating
to JAMES MUSE and CLARICE ROBERTS-MUSE, Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. NO. N13C-06-232ASB
(Del. Super.), after determining that the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that the Court has misapprehended the law or facts so
that the outcome of the Court's summary judgment ruling in favor
of defendant Honeywell International Inc., would have been
different.  A full-text copy of Judge Wallace's order dated
Dec. 31, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/aEeNEvfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Court Flips Ruling in "Moreau" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Montana, in an opinion dated Jan. 6, 2015,
reversed an April 8, 2014, order of the Workers Compensation Court
dismissing Cristita Moreau's petition seeking a determination of
an insurance carrier's liability for the costs of her husband's
medical care.

Cristita's husband, Edwin, worked at the W.R. Grace mine from 1963
until 1992.  He died of asbestos-related lung cancer in 2009.  In
2010, Cristita, as personal representative of Edwin's estate,
filed a claim for occupational disease benefits with Grace's
worker's compensation insurance carrier, Transportation Insurance.
Transportation denied the claim.

In 2012, Cristita filed a petition in Workers' Compensation Court
seeking a determination of Transportation's liability for the
costs of Edwin's medical care.  In 2013, Transportation accepted
liability for Edwin's medical expenses, and Moreau and
Transportation entered a settlement agreement.  Transportation
reimbursed Medicaid, other providers, and Moreau individually for
medical expenses they had paid for Edwin's care.

The Libby Medical Plan paid slightly over $95,000 of Edwin's
medical expenses.  Both the Plan and W. R. Grace refused to accept
any reimbursement from Transportation for the medical expenses the
Plan had paid on Edwin's behalf.  Moreau then demanded that the
amount of the reimbursement declined by the Plan and W. R. Grace
should be paid either to Edwin's Estate or to a charity selected
by the Estate.  Transportation refused to pay the money and Moreau
filed a second petition to the Workers' Compensation Court to
resolve the dispute.

The Workers' Compensation Court denied the petition, concluding
that it lacked jurisdiction to hear it under Section 39-71-2905,
MCA.  The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that since Edwin
received the medical care and the care was paid for by the Plan,
any further recovery would result in a double payment.  Moreau was
not liable to providers for the prior payments that the Plan made
on Edwin's behalf, and she had no right to any payment from
Transportation.  The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that
Moreau lacked standing to proceed and that it therefore lacked
jurisdiction over the matter.

In its decision, the Montana Supreme Court held that plain
language of Section 39-71-2905, MCA, entitles Moreau, as personal
representative of the Estate, to bring the matter before the
Workers' Compensation Court for a decision.  The Supreme Court
added that the Estate had standing and was entitled to have its
petition determined on the merits.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Znmo0Kfrom Leagle.com.

Laurie Wallace, Bothe & Lauridsen, P.C., Columbia Falls, Montana;
Jon Heberling, McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & Lacey PC,
Kalispell, Montana, for Appellant.

Todd A. Hammer, Angela K. Jacobs, Hammer, Jacobs & Quinn, PLLC,
Kalispell, Montana, for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. App. Reverses Ruling in "Robertson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related personal injury plaintiffs Frances Robertson,
Phillis Castille, Leslie Robertson, and Stewart Robertson appeal a
judgment that granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, The
Sherwin-Williams Company, and dismissed their survival and
wrongful death claims against the company and a judgment rendered
following a "Daubert hearing" that prohibited certain testimony
from the plaintiffs' expert on causation, Dr. Eugene J. Mark.

The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit, in an opinion
dated Dec. 23, 2014, reversed both judgments of the trial court
and remanded for further proceedings.

In support of its decision, the Court of Appeals stated: "Sherwin-
Williams did not offer, in support of its motion for summary
judgment, evidence to show that Harris Robertson's exposures to
asbestos-containing products sold by Sherwin-Williams were not
medically significant. Instead, Sherwin-Williams chose to rely on
the trial court's Daubert ruling that limited Dr. Mark's testimony
in order to establish that the plaintiffs did not have a medical
causation expert on this issue. Since the trial court's Daubert
ruling has been reversed herein and considering the lack of
evidence offered by Sherwin-Williams to establish that the
exposures on which the plaintiffs were relying were not medically
significant, Sherwin-Williams' motion for summary judgment was
unsupported and was improvidently granted."

The Court of Appeals added: "Furthermore, even though Sherwin-
Williams' unsupported motion for summary judgment did not shift
the burden to the plaintiffs to show that there were issues of
fact--i.e., that Harris Robertson's exposures to asbestos from
products purchased at Sherwin-Williams were medically significant-
-we find, on de novo review, that the evidence offered by the
plaintiffs in opposition to the motion for summary judgment,
including the new affidavit of Dr. Mark sufficiently established
that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether
Harris Robertson's exposures to asbestos-containing products sold
by Sherwin-Williams was a substantial factor in his causing his
mesothelioma. Accordingly, Sherwin-Williams was not entitled to
summary judgment, and we reverse the January 29, 2013 judgment of
the trial court that granted Sherwin-Williams' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Sherwin-
Williams."

The appeals case is FRANCES ROBERTSON, PHILLIS CASTILLE, LESLIE
ROBERTSON, AND STEWART ROBERTSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
THEIR DECEASED HUSBAND AND FATHER RESPECTIVELY, HARRIS J.
ROBERTSON, v. DOUG ASHY BUILDING MATERIALS, INC., ET AL., NO. 2014
CA 0141 (La. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/bAkDrhfrom Leagle.com.

Robert E. Arceneaux, Metairie, LA, and Damon R. Pourciau, Kenner,
LA, and Susannah B. Chester, Dallas, TX, Attorneys for Appellants
Plaintiffs -- Frances Robertson, et al.

Dwight C. Paulsen, III, David E. Redmann, Jr., Michael C. Mims,
New Orleans, LA, and Edward M. Slaughter, Dallas, TX, Attorneys
for Appellee Defendant -- The Sherwin-Williams Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Opinions in La. PI Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit captioned MICHAEL COMARDELLE v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., SECTION I, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6555
(E.D. La.), granted the motion filed by Bayer CropScience, Inc.,
("Amchem") seeking to exclude causation opinions regarding
Benjamin Foster products based on the each and every exposure
theory.

Judge Africk held that at trial, Dr. Samuel P. Hammar may not
offer specific causation testimony based on the "every exposure"
theory that Comardelle's mesothelioma was caused by any particular
exposure to a defendant's product or premises, including Benjamin
Foster 81-27.  Dr. Hammar may opine regarding Comardelle's
diagnosis of mesothelioma and issues of general causation, Judge
Africk noted.  To the extent that the order and reasons rejecting
the "every exposure" theory as a basis for specific causation
testimony implicates the admissibility of testimony by other
expert witnesses, those issues will be addressed by separate
order, the Court ruled.  No such testimony will be elicited
without a prior order of the Court and the parties will edit Dr.
Hammar's videotaped deposition to remove opinion testimony
excluded by this Order and Reasons, Judge Africk further ruled.

A full-text copy of Judge Africk's order and reasons dated Jan. 5,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/tzS98mfrom Leagle.com.

Brenda Perez Comardelle, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Melissa Comardelle, children of Michael Comardelle, Plaintiff,
represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan
Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel
& Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Pamela Comardelle, children of Michael Comardelle, Plaintiff,
represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan
Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel
& Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third Party
Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M.
Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Perrey S. Lee, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Cajun Company Inc., incorrectly named as The Cajun Company,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James L. Pate,
NeunerPate & Jason T. Reed, NeunerPate.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin,
Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K.
Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C., Rebecca
Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C., Rose Marie Wade, Evert Weathersby
Houff & William Davis Harvard, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Chevron Oronite Company LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Tim Gray, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Tim
Gray, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Forrest Ren
Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Jason K. Elam,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Troy Nathan Bell,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Eagle Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Susan
Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, incorrectly named Foster-Wheeler LLC,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M.
Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Erik Nadolink, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., John M. Fitzpatrick,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC
& Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher
Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M.
Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis.
J Melton Garrett, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third Party
Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M.
Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
and Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC &Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James
R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver
Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC
&Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC
&Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Pharmacia LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Darryl J. Foster, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC & David
Edmund Redmann, Jr., Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill, Brandy Gonzales Scurria, Brandy Gonzales Legal Services,
LLC, Diane Sweezer Davis, Funderburk Finderburk Courtois,
LLP, Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette
Seraile-Riggins, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, David C Bach, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale
LLP, Jevan Smoot Fleming, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale
& Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu,
Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator,
Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier
Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi
T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC, Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator
& Holinga, APLLC, David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu,
Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator,
Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier
Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi
T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC
& Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga, APLLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amicus Brief Allowed in "Dummitt" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York granted the motion by Pacific
Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the
appeal in the case styled IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to Doris Kay Dummitt, Individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of Ronald Dummitt, Deceased, Respondent,
v. A.W. Chesterton, et al., Defendants, Crane Co., Appellant,
MOTION NO. 2014-1275 (N.Y. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Jan. 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/fxdOPw
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Flips Summary Judgment in "Wiacek" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, reversed the Supreme Court, New York County's Jan. 27,
2014, order denying defendants North Safety Products' and
defendants Bacou-Dalloz Safety Inc., Bacou-Dalloz USA Safety,
Inc., Dalloz Safety, Inc. and Willson Safety Products' motions for
summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for failure to
warn as against them.

According to the Appellate Division, Plaintiff Malgorzata Wiacek
failed to plead a cause of action against either North Safety or
Willson Safety alleging defects in the efficacy of their
respirators and masks or a failure to warn of any defects.  The
Appellate Division said the claims of failure to warn of a defect
must be dismissed because, as the motion court found in dismissing
the claims of design or manufacturing defect, the plaintiff failed
to identify any defect in the defendants' masks or respirators
that caused her decedent to develop asbestos-related disease.  The
Defendants established prima facie that their respirators and
masks were in compliance with the applicable standards set by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and thus
were safe, and the plaintiff failed to raise an inference that
there was a defect in these products of which her decedent should
have been warned.

The case is MALGORZATA WIACEK, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 3M
COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., Defendants, NORTH SAFETY PRODUCTS,
Defendant-Appellant. MALGORZATA WIACEK, ETC., Plaintiff-
Respondent, v. 3M COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., Defendants, BACOU-DALLOZ
SAFETY, INC., ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, 190096/12, 13434,
13433 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated
Jan. 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/CpNBsFfrom Leagle.com.

Goldberg Segalla LLP, White Plains (Michael D. Shalhoub, Esq. --
mshalhoub@goldbergsegalla.com -- of counsel), for North Safety,
appellant.

Jones Day, Boston, MA (Dana Baiocco, Esq. -- dbaiocco@jonesday.com
-- of the bar of the State of Massachusetts and the State of
Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Bacou-Dalloz
Safety, Inc., Bacou-Dalloz Dalloz USA Safety, Inc., Dalloz Safety,
Inc., and Willson Safety Products, appellants.

Belluck & Fox, L.L.P., New York (Seth A. Dymond of counsel), for
respondent.


                             *********

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  * * *