CAR_Public/150120.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 14


                             Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Jones" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
ADOBE SYSTEMS: "Mahlum" Case Dismissed With Leave to Amend
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over AGHD Drug
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Fine Over Failure to Report Warranty Claims
APPLE INC: Settles "No Poaching" Class Action for $415 Million

APPLE INC: Dist. Court Dismisses "Marcus" Class Action
APPLE INC: Wants Plaintiffs to Include AT&T in Antitrust Suit
ATRIA SENIOR: Case Management Conference Moved to Feb. 19
BANKAMERICA CORP: 8th Cir. Remands Securities Suit to Dist. Court
BERJAC: Bankr. Court Remands Cox vs. Holcomb to State Court

BRISTOL FARMS: Faces Class Action Over CDPA Violation
BUILDING MATERIALS: "Warren" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Class Arbitration Ruling Reversed
CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Pote" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CHESTER, PA: HA Exits Receivership Decades After Class Action

CHICAGO: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Bartlett" Class Action
CHINA BAK: Safeco Ins. Co. Product Liability Case Settled
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action
DELTA AIR: Court Tosses "Opper" Action Over Best Fare Guarantee

DELUXE CORP: Conference Nixed Pending Summary Judgment Ruling
DIGNITY HEALTH: Cal. Appeals Court Revives "Sarun" Class Action
DORIS INC: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Misleading Marketing Practices
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machine Mold

ENDO HEALTH: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Generic Opana ER
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Lanigan" Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Regulators Probe Cherokee Air Bag Complaints
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says
HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for August 6

HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: March 9 Trial Set in "Covington" Action
HONEST TEA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Labeling Class Action
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Ordered to Submit Supplemental Briefing
INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
IY CATERING: "Banegas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JOHN WILEY: "Kunkel" Suit Moved From California to New Jersey
JP MORGAN: Settles Bear Stearns Class Action for $500-Mil.
JP MORGAN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Appeal of Denied Loan
JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Court Denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

KANSAS POWER AND LIGHT: Order Denying Arbitration Bid Upheld
LEXYCON LLC: Cited for Chemical Spill Environmental Violations
LVI SERVICES: Removes "Ausencio" Class Suit to C.D. California
MACY'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of False Labeling Class Action
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: April 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Yale" Suit Over False Financial Reports
NIPATHAI RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
OREGON LOTTERY: Faces Class Action Over Auto-Hold Problems
PFIZER INC: Zolof MDL Plaintiffs Can Present Another Witness
PHILLIP MORRIS: Appeals Court Upholds $4.9-Mil. Jury Verdict

POM WONDERFUL: Falsely Marketed Tea Products, "Alduey" Suit Says
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in "Machlan" Class Action
PULASKI BANK: Court Denies Partial FLSA Settlement
QUALITY RESOURCES: Must Correct Flaws in Affirmative Defenses
RAPID RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

REVERE PLASTICS: Sued in Ind. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SAE ROACH: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SAXON MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Stay "Valdez" Case
SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Approves $1.6MM Calif. Labor Law Settlement
SEAWORLD: Two Law Firms Named Co-Lead Counsel in Class Action

SINGING RIVER: Defends Decision to End Employee Pension Plan
SONY ELECTRONICS: Class Notice in "Flynn" Case Gets Partial OK
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING: Accused of Violating FDCPA
STAR VIEW: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STATE FARM: Main Paint Class Suit Included in Auto Body Shop MDL

STATE FARM: Main Paint Suit Consolidated in Auto Body Shop MDL
SUN CITY: Class Action Over Defective Stuco to Continue
SYNGENTA CORP: "Hamilton" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Houser" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
TAKATA CORP: Squire Pattons to Lobby on Air Bag Safety Issues

TECK METALS: Industrial Pollution Class Action Can Proceed
TRANSCANADA CORP: Landowners Sue Over Oil Pipeline in Nebraska
TRI-STATE PETROLEUM: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Disabilities Act
UTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Labeling
VALEANT PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Insider Trading

WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices
WICHCRAFT OPERATING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WINDOW MART: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Batista" Suit Says
X-CHEM LLC: Faces "Rollison" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
YUCA RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

* China Environmental Groups Can Sue Polluters Via Class Actions
* Hospitality Sector to Face Increased Wage Law Enforcement
* Seyfarth Shaw Expects Increased Wage-and-Hour Filings in 2015


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Jones" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Samantha Jones v. Abercrombie &
Fitch Trading Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-04631-WHA, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00105-PSG-E to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq.
          Roger Richard Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          2030 Main Street Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: bianca@carterlawfirm.net
                  roger@carterlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC
          2030 Main Street Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200
          Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
          E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas R. Young, Esq.
          Christina R. Hollander, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN AND MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: dyoung@fbm.com
                  chollander@fbm.com

               - and -

          Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
          VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE
          52 East Gay Street
          PO Box 1008
          Columbus, OH 43216-1008
          Telephone: (614) 464-6433
          E-mail: tnmccormick@vssp.com


ADOBE SYSTEMS: "Mahlum" Case Dismissed With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed the case captioned SCOTTY
MAHLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Defendant,
CASE NO. 14-CV-02988-LHK, (N.D. Cal.), in an order entered
January 8, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/CgdSa1from Leagle.com.

Scotty Mahlum alleges that Adobe committed violations of the
California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code.

The Court granted Adobe's motion to dismiss with leave to amend,
for failure to state a claim for a violation of California Civil
Code Section 1671(d). Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended
complaint, he must do so within 14 days of the Order, said Judge
Koh. Failure to file an amended complaint that cures the
deficiencies identified in the Order will result in dismissal of
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Plaintiff may not add new
claims or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation by the
parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, he added.

Scotty Mahlum, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher,
Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Annick Marie Persinger, Bursor & Fisher,
P.A. & Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Bursor Fisher, P.A.

Adobe Systems Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Koenig -- Jonathan.Koenig@aporter.comv -- Arnold and Porter LLP &
Trenton Herbert Norris -- Trent.Norris@aporter.com -- Arnold &
Porter LLP.


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over AGHD Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Canadian biopharmaceutical firm Aeterna Zentaris faces a putative
class action by shareholders over a drop in its stock price after
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected its application for
approval of a key product.

The suit said the company's stock price dropped 50 percent in one
day following the FDA's Nov. 6, 2014, ruling denying approval of
the new drug application for Macrilen, Aeterna Zentaris' adult
growth hormone deficiency (AGHD) diagnostic drug.  The
application's rejection means the company will have to conduct a
new clinical study to address problems in its Phase 3 trial, which
did not meet objectives outlined in the company's special protocol
assessment with the FDA, the suit says.

Aeterna Zentaris made "false and misleading" statements as early
as 2009 describing Macrilen as safe, effective and well tolerated,
while it was aware the drug had serious and potentially fatal side
effects, according to the suit.

Investors relied on the assertions because two stock analysts
issued reports characterizing Macrilen as safe, the suit claims.
In addition, the company's misrepresentations regarding Macrilen
allowed it to receive a steady stream of funding from investors,
according to the suit.

Among the misrepresentations was a November 2013 press release
announcing the submission of the new drug application to the FDA,
the suit claims.  The press release said in part that the drug's
Phase 3 trial "'demonstrated that the compound has the potential
to become the first orally-approved product that induces growth
hormone release to evaluate adult growth hormone deficiency with
accuracy comparable to available intravenous and intramuscular
testing procedures,'" according to the suit.  But the press
release was false and misleading because the Phase 3 trial "had
not demonstrated that Macrilen was an effective diagnostic test
for AGHD and the FDA expressed concern with respect to serious and
potentially lethal side effects," the suit says.

Aeterna Zentaris is based in Quebec City, Canada, and has
subsidiaries in Germany and in Basking Ridge, N.J.  Also named as
defendants are six current and former officers of the company.
Many of the individual defendants sold large shares of the
company's stock before the FDA ruling became known, the suit
claims.  Juergen Engel, the company's CEO from 2008 to 2013, sold
off 72 percent of his holdings in the company between March and
December 2012, and Chief Financial Officer Dennis Turpin sold 84
percent of his holdings in the company in the same period, the
suit claims.

The company and its officers intended to deceive investors, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and the individual
defendants are also accused of violating Section 20(a) of the act
by controlling or influencing the content and dissemination of
various statements that were allegedly false and misleading.  The
suit seeks compensatory damages on behalf of owners of the
company's securities between April 2, 2012, and Nov. 6, 2014.

The lawyer for the class, Laurence Rosen of South Orange, N.J.,
did not return a call seeking comment.  A company spokesperson,
Paul Burroughs, declined to comment on the case.


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Fine Over Failure to Report Warranty Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
American Honda Motor Co. Inc. will pay two fines totaling a record
$70 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
for failing to report deaths, injuries and certain warranty claims
to the federal government.

The automaker was hit with a $35 million fine because it did not
notify NHTSA about 1,729 incidents between 2003 and 2014 in which
one of its vehicles caused an injury or death.  The second $35
million penalty stems from Honda's failure to report relevant
warranty and customer satisfaction claims.

The penalties are the maximum NHTSA can collect under a
congressionally mandated cap.

"The announcement sends a very clear message to the entire
industry that manufacturers have responsibility for the complete
and timely reporting of this critical safety information," NHTSA
Administrator Mark Rosekind said in a news release.

NHTSA relies on quarterly reports from automakers to investigate
whether safety defects or defect trends exist and warrant further
action, including possible recalls.

Represented by Mayer Brown partner Erika Jones --
ejones@mayerbrown.com -- Honda also agreed to increased NHTSA
oversight and third party audits to ensure that all required
reporting is completed.

"We have resolved this matter and will move forward to build on
the important actions Honda has already taken to address our past
shortcomings in early warning reporting," Rick Schostek, Honda
North America Inc.'s executive vice president, said in a written
statement.  "We continue to fully cooperate with NHTSA to achieve
greater transparency and to further enhance our reporting
practices."

After an internal audit, Honda discovered the under-reporting  and
disclosed it to NHTSA in November.  The automaker blamed "errors
related to data entry, computer coding, regulatory interpretation,
and other errors in warranty and property damage claims
reporting."

For NHTSA, the fines follow a banner 2014, when the auto safety
regulator collected a record $126 million in penalties.  Among
them: $35 million against General Motors Co. for failing to issue
a recall in a timely manner and $17 million against Hyundai Motor
America also for failing to issue a timely recall.


APPLE INC: Settles "No Poaching" Class Action for $415 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Liedtke, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Apple, Google and two other Silicon Valley companies have agreed
to pay $415 million in a second attempt to resolve a class-action
lawsuit alleging they formed an illegal cartel to prevent their
workers from leaving for better-paying jobs.

The settlement filed on Jan. 15 in a San Jose, California, federal
court revises a $324.5 million agreement that U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh rejected as inadequate five months ago.  Judge Koh
indicated that she believed the roughly 64,000 workers in the case
should be paid at least $380 million, including attorney fees.

The lawsuit, filed in 2011, sought $3 billion in damages that
could have been tripled under U.S. antitrust law.  Attorneys for
the workers decided to settle after concluding it would have been
difficult to prove the alleged conspiracy to a jury.

If Judge Koh approves the latest settlement, it would avoid a
potentially embarrassing trial over claims that Apple Inc., Google
Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe Systems Inc. secretly agreed not to
recruit each other's employees from 2005 to 2009.

The alleged collusion stopped after the U.S. Justice Department
opened an investigation that culminated with an antitrust
complaint being filed against Apple, Google and the other
participating companies in 2010.  The Justice Department's case
was settled without the companies admitting any guilt or paying
any fines.

The evidence gathered in the ensuing class-action lawsuit has
exposed Apple and Google emails that have cast some of their top
executives in an unflattering light.

Apple's late CEO Steve Jobs is depicted as the conniving
ringleader of a scheme designed to minimize the chances that the
top computer programmers and other talented employees would defect
to other technology companies.  The lawsuit contends the secret
"no-poaching" agreements orchestrated by Mr. Jobs suppressed the
wages of the employees, many of whom were already making more than
$100,000 annually.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who was on Apple's board at the
time that the alleged collusion began, sometimes took drastic
actions to make sure his company didn't cross Mr. Jobs.  In 2007,
Schmidt, in a bid to keep Mr. Jobs happy, fired a Google recruiter
for contacting an Apple engineer, according to internal emails.

Both Apple and Google declined to comment on the new settlement.
As they did in the Justice Department's investigation, they have
denied wrongdoing.

Intuit Inc., Pixar Animation Studios and Lucasfilm also
participated in the no-poaching ring.  Those three companies
reached a $20 million settlement that Judge Koh approved last
year.

If Judge Koh approves the deal filed on Jan. 15, the eligible
workers at Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe would receive an average
of about $5,200 apiece.  They could have received an average of
more than $100,000 apiece had the case gone to trial and resulted
in trebled damages of $9 billion.

The workers' attorneys are seeking fees of up to $82.3 million in
the settlement, the same amount they wanted in the previous
agreement.


APPLE INC: Dist. Court Dismisses "Marcus" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted a motion to dismiss the case
captioned URIEL MARCUS and BENEDICT VERCELES, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, NO. C
14-03824 WHA, (N.D. Cal.) on January 8, 2015.  A copy of the
ruling is available at http://is.gd/n6ktttfrom Leagle.com.

In this putative product-defect class action, the defendant moved
to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs have until January 22, 2015 at noon, to file a motion,
noticed on the normal 35-day calendar, for leave to amend their
claims.  A proposed amended complaint must be appended to this
motion.  Plaintiffs must plead their best case.  The motion should
clearly explain how the amended complaint cures the deficiencies
identified, and should include as an exhibit a redlined or
highlighted version identifying all changes. If such a motion is
not filed by the deadline, the case will be closed, ruled Judge
Alsup.

Uriel Marcus, Plaintiff, represented by Omar Weaver Rosales --
omar@owrosales.com -- The Rosales Law Firm, LLC & Richard T.
Bowles -- rbowles@bowlesverna.com -- Bowles & Verna LLP.

Benedict Verceles, Plaintiff, represented by Omar Weaver Rosales,
The Rosales Law Firm, LLC & Richard T. Bowles, Bowles & Verna LLP.

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq.,
Morrison & Foerster, David M. Walsh, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Edward Michael Rodriguez -- mrodriguez@atlashall.com -- Atlas Hall
& Rodriguez LLP, Erin Hudson -- ehudson@atlashall.com -- Atlas,
Hall & Rodriguez, LLP, Kai S Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com --
Morrison Foerster LLP, Rose S Lee -- RoseLee@mofo.com --- Morrison
& Foerster LLP & William Michael Mills -- mkmills@atlashall.com --
Atlas Hall LLP.


APPLE INC: Wants Plaintiffs to Include AT&T in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers for
Apple Inc. were to make their case on Jan. 9 before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that plaintiffs suing Apple for
locking them into AT&T Mobility service on their early-model
iPhones must sue the carrier as well.  Plaintiffs lawyers, who
have been pressing their case since 2007, are fighting back
vehemently for an obvious reason -- AT&T Inc. has an iron-clad
arbitration agreement, and their one hope of escaping its clutches
is keeping AT&T out of the lawsuit.

The legal maneuvering is part of the post-Concepcion two-step
between plaintiffs lawyers trying to find creative ways around
ubiquitous arbitration clauses and defense lawyers trying to make
them stick.

Ward v. Apple, 12-17805, tests one strategy used in telecom-
related consumer cases -- suing anyone but the service provider.
The same tactic was embraced by plaintiffs lawyers -- and overcame
a motion to compel arbitration last year -- in privacy litigation
over software installed on mobile phones.  State courts have also
confronted the question, with a San Jose appellate court in
September allowing plaintiffs to proceed in a suit against Apple
without naming AT&T.

Rodger Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- chair of Fenwick & West's
litigation group, says the Ninth Circuit's decision could help
define when a carrier and a handset manufacturer must be lumped
together in a lawsuit.  Suing one but not the other ignores the
carrier's vital role in the mobile phone ecosystem, he said.

"The Ninth Circuit has not addressed this issue yet," he said.
"So the Ward-Apple case is one that people are closely watching."

Shortly after the iPhone launch in 2007, plaintiffs lawyers sued
Apple and AT&T for antitrust violations, alleging the companies
conspired to create a monopoly by forcing buyers of the first
iPhone models to use AT&T service.  A secret agreement made AT&T
the exclusive provider of iPhone voice and data services,
according to the complaint, and allowed Apple to share in AT&T's
profits.  Software locks on the iPhone prevented customers from
switching carriers, the suit alleged.

Plaintiffs lawyers scored several victories early on -- U.S.
District Judge James Ware of the Northern District of California
denied the defense's motion to compel arbitration and certified
plaintiffs' class in 2008 and 2010, respectively.  But after the
Supreme Court upheld AT&T's arbitration agreement in the landmark
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Ware reversed his original rulings,
decertifying the class and forcing the case into arbitration.

Plaintiffs filed a new suit less than a month later, without
naming AT&T as a defendant.  Initially, Judge Ware ruled
plaintiffs could avoid arbitration because their claims against
Apple weren't intertwined with AT&T's wireless service agreement.
But in 2012, shortly before he retired, Judge Ware dismissed the
case.  He determined AT&T was a necessary party, as the court
would have to evaluate AT&T's conduct in order to assess the
claims against Apple.

Plaintiffs lawyers filed an amended suit against Apple, but in
order to propel the question more quickly to the Ninth Circuit,
they stipulated to its dismissal.

Mark Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, who
represents the would-be class of iPhone buyers, argues plaintiffs
are not required under federal antitrust law to name every
co-conspirator as a defendant.  Apple was as active a participant
in the monopoly as AT&T, he said, and therefore the trial court
erred in ruling Apple couldn't stand alone.

If the ruling is allowed to stand, Mr. Rifkin said, "it would be a
departure from three-quarters of a century of settled law that an
antitrust plaintiff can sue any one conspirator for all the damage
caused by the conspiracy."

Apple's lawyers, led by Daniel Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- of
Latham & Watkins, counter AT&T must be named under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 19, which dictates circumstances in which a third
party is required to participate in a lawsuit.  The court will
have to interpret AT&T's wireless service agreement, and
potentially reach conclusions that could harm AT&T.

"Rule 19(a) makes clear that it is inappropriate and unfair to
interpret a bilateral contract in the absence of one of the
contracting parties," the lawyers wrote.

Mr. Wall did not respond to phone messages and emails requesting
comment.

AT&T's arbitration contract is especially daunting to plaintiffs
lawyers because it received express blessing from the U.S. Supreme
Court.  On the flip side, such contracts have become a refuge for
defense lawyers who can successfully argue they extend to their
clients.  It's a tactic that Apple, as a close partner with AT&T,
has embraced, with mixed success.

In 2013, Apple tried to force plaintiffs to arbitrate a class
action in the Central District of California over a defect that
caused the power buttons on iPhones to stick.  AT&T wasn't named
as a defendant, but Apple argued the case involved AT&T's service
agreement with its customers.  U.S. District Judge Gary Feess
denied Apple's bid, ruling plaintiffs' claims weren't intimately
intertwined with the AT&T agreement.

In litigation over Carrier IQ tracking software installed on
mobile phones, manufacturers including LG Electronics Inc. and
Samsung Telecommunications America LLC tried the same strategy
after plaintiffs strategically focused their suit away from the
telecom service providers in hopes of avoiding arbitration.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern
District of California sided with plaintiffs lawyers, ruling their
privacy claims stood independent of class members' contracts with
the carriers. Defendants have appealed the ruling to the Ninth
Circuit.

Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Rosemarie Ring -- Rose.Ring@mto.com
-- who represents HTC America Inc. in the multidistrict
litigation, said plaintiffs lawyers originally named the carriers
as defendants, but dropped them when the case was consolidated in
the Northern District of California.  If courts allow that
gamesmanship, Ms. Ring said, cellphone makers might need to seek
more protection in their business agreements with service
providers.

In September, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled for
plaintiffs in a state court case raising similar issues.  The
panel resurrected a false advertising class action against Apple
that the lower court had dismissed because plaintiffs didn't name
AT&T as a party.  The class action, which accused Apple of falsely
claiming its iPhone 3G was "twice as fast" as the earlier model,
doesn't need AT&T to proceed, the panel ruled.

"Apple does not claim, and cannot claim, that findings or rulings
in this action would have any preclusive effect on [AT&T],"
Justice Miguel Marquez wrote.  "The mere possibility of
unfavorable evidentiary findings is insufficient to require
joinder."


ATRIA SENIOR: Case Management Conference Moved to Feb. 19
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed on January 8, 2015, a
stipulation continuing the case management conference as modified
In the case captioned THOMAS CARNES, by and through his Guardian
ad Litem, Juliana Christine Clegg, on his own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING,
INC., and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02727-
VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The parties stipulated that the Case Management Conference
previously set for January 20, 2015, will be continued to February
19, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

The Parties will file a Joint Case Management Conference Report on
or before February 12, 2015.

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

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP REUBEN B. JACOBSON --
Reuben.Jacobson@lewisbrisbois.com -- San Francisco, California,
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, JEFFREY S. RANEN --
Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- KATHERINE DEN BLEYKER --
Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com -- Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Defendant, ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, THOMAS CARNES:

   Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
   STEBNER & ASSOCIATES
   870 Market Street, Suite 1212
   San Francisco, CA 94102
   Telephone: 415-362-9800
   Facsimile: 415-362-9801


BANKAMERICA CORP: 8th Cir. Remands Securities Suit to Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Following the 1998 merger of NationsBank and BankAmerica to form
Bank of America Corporation, shareholders filed multiple class
actions around the country alleging violations of federal and
state securities laws. The cases were transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of
Missouri. That court certified four plaintiff classes, two classes
of NationsBank shareholders and two classes of BankAmerica
shareholders. The transferred cases were resolved when the court
approved a $490 million global settlement, overruling an objection
by NationsBank class representative David P. Oetting that
allocating $333.2 million to those classes was inadequate because
their claims had greater merit than the claims of the BankAmerica
Classes.  After an initial December 2004 distribution,
approximately $6.9 million remained in the NationsBank settlement
fund. The district court ordered a second distribution of $4.75
million to NationsBank claimants in April 2009. After that
distribution, $2,440,108.53 remained.

In September 2012, class counsel for the NationsBank Classes,
appellee Green Jacobson, P.C., filed a motion to terminate the
case with respect to the NationsBank Classes, to award class
counsel $98,114.34 in attorneys' fees for work done after the
distribution in December 2004, and to distribute cy pres the
remainder of the "surplus settlement funds" to three St. Louis
area charities suggested by class counsel. The district court
granted the motion over Oetting's objections and ordered "that the
balance of the NationsBank Classes settlement fund shall be
distributed cy pres to the Legal Services of Eastern Missouri,
Inc."  Oetting appeals the cy pres distribution and the award of
attorneys' fees. As to the former, he argues the district court
abused its discretion in ordering a cy pres distribution because a
further distribution to the classes is feasible, and in any event
LSEM is unrelated to the classes or the litigation and is
therefore an inappropriate "next best" cy pres recipient.

The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, on January 8,
2015, agreed and therefore reversed. As the Eight Circuit's
disposition results in the case not being terminated, it vacated
the award of additional attorneys' fees as premature, leaving that
issue to be resolved, consistent with this opinion, when
administration of the NationsBank Classes settlement fund can be
terminated.

The Memorandum and Order of the district court dated June 24,
2013, is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with the Court's opinion. The pending F.R.A.P.
10(e) motion is denied.

On remand, if any settlement funds remain after an additional
distribution to the class, and if the district court concludes
after proper inquiry that a cy pres award is appropriate, it must
select next best cy pres recipient(s) more closely tailored to the
interests of the class and the purposes of the underlying
litigation, the Eight Circuit added.

A copy of this ruling in In re: BankAmerica Corporation Securities
Litigation. David P. Oetting, Class Representative, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. Green Jacobson, P.C. Appellee, National Legal Aid
and Defender Association; Association of Pro Bono Counsel;
Missouri Lawyer Trust Account Foundation, Amici on Behalf of
Appellee, NO. 13-2620 is available at http://is.gd/PWP0OWfrom
Leagle.com.


BERJAC: Bankr. Court Remands Cox vs. Holcomb to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Cox et al., v. Holcomb Family Limited Partnership et
al., ADV. NO. 14-3260, filed a class action complaint alleging
violation of Oregon securities law arising from their purchase of
securities issued by Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland,
which subsequently merged.  Defendants are an Oregon individual
and Oregon entities that are alleged to have materially aided or
otherwise played an essential role in the fraud relating to the
sale of the Berjac securities.

Berjac is a debtor in bankruptcy. Michael Holcomb and Gary Holcomb
were general partners of Berjac. Involuntary petitions for
bankruptcy relief were entered against both of them.

The complaint alleges that Berjac, Michael Holcomb, and Gary
Holcomb are not named as defendants in this action because they
are debtors in bankruptcy.  The complaint was filed in state
court. Defendants removed the case to federal court, alleging
federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA),
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), and bankruptcy "related to"
jurisdiction under Section 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b).

On motion by plaintiffs, the district court declined to exercise
jurisdiction under the CAFA and referred the complaint to the
bankruptcy court to decide plaintiffs' motion for remand to state
court.

Judge Elizabeth L. Perris of the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District Oregon, on January 8, 2015, concluded that this
complaint should be remanded to state court.  According to her
decision, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/FqQSxHfrom
Leagle.com, "this is an Oregon law claim asserted by largely
Oregon plaintiffs against Oregon defendants. The claim asserted is
not closely connected to this bankruptcy case, the defendants
acknowledge that trial of the claims against them asserted by the
Berjac trustee should not be consolidated with trial of this
complaint, and the Berjac trustee will oppose any consolidation.
There is no indication that the state court cannot timely resolve
this litigation. The effect of the outcome of this case will have
on the bankruptcy estates of Berjac, Michael Holcomb, and Gary
Holcomb can be easily dealt with by the bankruptcy court. The
factors favoring remand heavily outweigh the factors that weigh in
favor of retaining this adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court.
Mr. Stephens should submit an order denying the motion for
abstention and granting the motion for remand."

Counsel involved in the adversary case are:

John W. Stephens Esler, Esq.
STEPHENS & BUCKLEY, LLP
121 SW Morrison St., Ste. 700
Portland, OR 97204-3183
E-mail: stephens@eslerstephens.com

Laura J. Walker, Esq.
1001 SW 5th Ave. #2000
Portland, OR 97204

Thomas R. Johnson, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1120 NW Couch St, 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
E-mail: TRJohnson@perkinscoie.com

Timothy S. Dejong, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER PC
209 SW Oak St. Ste. 500
Portland, OR 97204
E-mail: tdejong@stollberne.com

Thomas A. Larkin, Esq.
STEWART SOKOL & LARKIN LLC
2300 SW 1st Ave. #200
Portland, OR 97201-5047
E-mail: tlarkin@lawssl.com


BRISTOL FARMS: Faces Class Action Over CDPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Bristol Farms was
hit on Jan. 2 with a proposed class action by a Los Angeles man
alleging the high-end California grocery chain ran afoul of state
law by failing to accommodate patrons in wheelchairs at its
stores.

Ten of Bristol Farms' locations present a litany of obstacles for
the handicapped, such as clogged aisles and inaccessible
restrooms, violating California's Disabled Persons Act and Unruh
Civil Rights Act, plaintiff Michael DePillars alleged in a
complaint filed in California Superior Court.

"Despite an extended period of time in which to become compliant
and despite the extensive publicity the CDPA and Unruh Act have
received over the years, defendant continues to discriminate
against people who are disabled, in ways that block them from
equal access to and use of their stores," the complaint said.

Mr. DePillars, who is a quadriplegic, allegedly stopped by a
Bristol Farms location in Los Angeles for lunch in November and
attempted to use the restroom but found that it could be only
accessed by stairs. He then had difficulty navigating the aisles
because they were blocked with merchandise, according to the suit.

Immediately after his disappointing shopping experience,
Mr. DePillars made a written demand on Bristol Farms to fix the
problems at the store, but the company has yet to respond, the
plaintiff alleged.

A subsequent investigation by building experts whom Mr. DePillar's
lawyers hired has unearthed a laundry list of similar violations
at Bristol Farms locations throughout Southern California,
according to the complaint, including a dearth of handicapped
parking spaces, improper signage and bathroom amenities that can't
be reached by the disabled.

These problems -- which also, in some cases, violate the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act -- can be easily corrected, but
Bristol Farms has yet to bring its stores into compliance, the
suit said.

"The effect of the defendant's failure to comply with these
standards or regulations is that defendant has discriminated
against disabled persons by denying the full and equal enjoyment
of the goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of the defendant's stores,"
Mr. DePillars said.

The plaintiff wants to represent a class of all wheelchair-using
or mobility-impaired people in California who have frequented the
10 Bristol Farms stores identified in the complaint.  Noting that
more than 150,000 people in the state use wheelchairs, he
estimated that the class numbers in the thousands.

Mr. DePillars is seeking minimum statutory damages under the CDPA
and Unruh Act, along with an injunction forcing the grocery chain
to bring its stores into compliance with state law.

Mr. DePillars is represented by Evan J. Smith -- esmith@brodsky-
smith.com --of Brodsky & Smith LLC.

The case is DePillars v. Bristol Farms, case number BC568250, in
the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.


BUILDING MATERIALS: "Warren" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Warren v. Building Materials
Corporation of America, Case No. 8:14-cv-00316, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska 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-00093-
JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: GAF Elk Cross Timbers Decking Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products 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:

          Timothy J. O'Brien, Esq.
          HAUPTMAN, O'BRIEN, WOLF & LATHROP, P.C.
          1005 South 107th Avenue, Suite 200
          Omaha, NE 68114
          Telephone: (402) 390-9000
          Facsimile: (402) 397-7915
          E-mail: tobrien@hauptman-obrien.net

               - and -

          Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5020
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: matt@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew J. Rossman, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com


CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Class Arbitration Ruling Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAKIA RIVERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CEDARS-
SINAI MEDICAL CARE FOUNDATION, Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B249979 (Cal. App.), Rivers seeks reversal of the trial court's
judgment that compels her to arbitrate her individual wage and
hour claims, and dismissed her class action claims alleging the
same violations.  Rivers asserts that the determination whether
the parties agreed to arbitrate class claims is a procedural
question for the arbitrator, not the court.

On October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the Defendant seeking restitution, damages and attorney's
fees in excess of $25,000 alleging several violations wage and
hour violations and unfair and unlawful business practices under
Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL).

The trial court dismissed the class claims with prejudice and
ordered the Plaintiff to submit her individual claims to binding
arbitration.  Plaintiff contested the decision citing that class
claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

In the Order dated January 13, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/y5jRbIfrom Leagle.com, the Division Seven of the
Second District of Court of Appeals of California reversed the
trial court's decision disposing that class arbitration is a
subsidiary matter for the arbitrator and a gateway issue for
judicial determination.  The Court further ordered that the case
be remanded to the trial court with directions to submit the
question of class arbitration to the arbitrator. Each party is to
bear her and its own costs on appeal.

Plaintiff and Appellant is represented by:

     Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
     Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
     Liana Carter, Esq.
     CAPSTONE LAW
     840 Century Park East #450,
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     E-mail: Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com
             Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com
             Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendant and Respondent is represented by:

     Richard J. Simmons, Esq.
     Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
     Marlene M. Nicolas, Esq.
     SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
     E-mail: rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com
             dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com
             mnicolas@sheppardmullin.com


CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Pote" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pote, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Central Construction Management, LLC, BZ Construction
Services, LLC, Michael Difonzo, Gregory Kalamaras, and Frank
Madar, Case No. 1:15-cv-00144 (E.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHESTER, PA: HA Exits Receivership Decades After Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura McCrystal, writing for Philly.com, reports that decades
after dilapidated buildings filled with crime and drugs drove
tenants to file a class-action lawsuit against the Chester Housing
Authority, the agency has been released from federal receivership.

The move, announced on Jan. 5, marks the completion of an overhaul
of the public housing agency, which had been under the oversight
of a federal judge since 1994.

While under the guidance of District Judge Norma L. Shapiro, the
authority razed and rebuilt most of its buildings and started its
own police force.

Comparing the authority of the 1990s with today's is "literally
night and day," said Steven Fischer, executive director.

"You had properties that were in deplorable conditions, to the
point where low-income families weren't even applying to live
here," Mr. Fischer said.  "And contrast that with, for the past 10
years at least, we've had waiting lists that have had to be closed
because we've had so many families applying."

Judge Shapiro noted the agency's improvements and released it from
receivership in an order dated last Wednesday.

"Significant progress has been made to transform CHA into a
functioning housing authority providing decent, safe, and sanitary
dwellings to families of low income," she wrote.

Judge Shapiro said that in the latest round of inspections,
authority properties averaged 95 percent in categories such as
safety and sanitation.  When the agency entered receivership, its
overall score was 41 percent, according to a federal report.

A group of tenants filed the lawsuit against the authority in
1990, alleging that officials had neglected hundreds of housing
units to the point that they were uninhabitable.  The lawsuit led
to Judge Shapiro's lasting involvement, and required the authority
to renovate its buildings and report frequently to the judge.

Now, the agency is in the hands of a board of commissioners
appointed by Judge Shapiro.  As the five commissioners' terms
expire, new commissioners will be appointed by the mayor of
Chester.  The agency is not controlled or funded by city
government.  It operates with federal funding to provide housing
to low-income residents.

Mr. Fischer said the authority has about 2,400 tenants, including
those who live in its nine buildings and use its housing-choice
voucher program, often referred to as Section 8.  About one-third
of Chester's population is below the federal poverty level,
according to U.S. Census data.

Chester's was the last remaining public housing agency in the
country under the oversight of a federal judge.  The housing
agencies in Boston, Kansas City, and Washington completed
receiverships.

Several other housing authorities remain under administrative
receiverships, controlled by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development rather than the federal court system.

In Chester, many authority residents can recall conditions in the
old buildings.

"People generally don't hesitate to make the comparison,"
Mr. Fischer said.  "You get a general expression of satisfaction
with how things have been turned around."


CHICAGO: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Bartlett" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In ROBERT BARLETT, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated SWAT team members on the Chicago Police Department,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, NO. 14 C 7225, (N.D.
Ill.), Mr. Bartlett filed his first amended complaint as a
putative class action, seeking relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (Count I), the
Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act (the IWPCA), as amended,
Section 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq. (Count II), and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law (the IMWL), 820 ILCS 105/4(a) (Count III) for
unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

On November 14, 2014, the City moved to dismiss Count II of
Bartlett's first amended complaint. In Count II, Bartlett alleges
that over the past three years, the City has willfully violated
the IWPCA by intentionally failing and refusing to pay Bartlett
all compensation due to him under the IWPCA and implementing
unlawful regulations.  The City provided two reasons why the Court
should dismiss Count II of Bartlett's first amended complaint:

     1. the City insisted that Bartlett does not, and cannot,
identify any promise or agreement by the City to pay for normal
home to work travel time to support his claim under the IWPCA; and

     2. the City argues that the IWPCA claim is preempted, and is
not an independent state-created right.

District Judge Charles P. Kocoras, in a memorandum opinion entered
January 9, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/4Afoz0from Leagle.com, held that "the City's
contention that its motion to dismiss should be granted because
Bartlett and the City needed to have an agreement or contract that
explicitly outlined that the City would pay him for his time spent
traveling to and from home and work, whether as wages or overtime,
is incorrect. Such specificity is not required to allege a claim
under the IWPCA. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings,
Bartlett has sufficiently pleaded that there was a wage agreement,
beyond a mere allegation that the employer is bound by overtime
laws, by alleging that: (i) he was an employee covered by the
protections of the IWPCA; (ii) the City had knowledge that
Bartlett performed work that required payment of wages and/or
overtime compensation; and (iii) that the parties entered into an
agreement, which he attached, to pay Bartlett wages and/or
overtime for hours worked. These allegations, collectively, create
an inference that the City and Bartlett had a valid employment
agreement."

However, Judge Kocoras added that Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act does not preempt Bartlett's IWPCA claim,
and the City's motion to dismiss is denied.

Robert Bartlett, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated SWAT team members on the Chicago Police Department,
Plaintiff, represented by Paul D. Geiger -- pgeiger@chicagofop.org
-- Law Offices of Paul D. Geiger & Ronald C. Dahms --
rdahms81@yahoo.com

City of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Anne Naber --
jnaber@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd., Deja C. Nave --
dnave@cityofchicago.org -- City of Chicago & Joseph Michael
Gagliardo -- jgagliardo@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd.


CHINA BAK: Safeco Ins. Co. Product Liability Case Settled
---------------------------------------------------------
China BAK Battery, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that the Company was
named as a second defendant in the case of Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.
v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al., filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Ventura. It was an action for
negligence and strict product liability. The plaintiff alleged
that a product manufactured by the Company was used in a Hewlett
Packard laptop, which malfunctioned and caused fire damage in the
home of a consumer (the Plaintiff's insured). The total damages
sought were $126,978, plus interest and fees.

On September 24, 2014, the plaintiff, Hewlett Packard Co. and
China BAK Battery, Inc. agreed to release all claims against each
other arising out of the incident. The plaintiff and Hewlett
Packard dismissed their complaints against China BAK Battery, Inc.
with prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement agreement reached among
the parties, China BAK Battery, Inc. also dismissed with prejudice
its cross-complaint against Hewlett Packard. Further, pursuant to
the settlement agreement, the plaintiff has agreed to indemnify
and defend China BAK Battery, Inc. for any future actions/claims
against China BAK Battery, Inc. relating to this incident.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy L. Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc. and Community
Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00031 (M.D. Tenn., January 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to protect patients' highly sensitive and
confidential information and identification data.

Community Health Systems, Inc. owns and operates 206 hospitals in
29 states with approximately 31,100 licensed beds.

Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation
provides management, consulting, and information technology
services to independent community hospitals and health systems, as
well as to certain clinics and physician practice operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
      101 North Highland Ave
      Jackson, TN 38301
      Telephone: (731) 664-1340
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Evan Buxner, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD.
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ebuxner@buxnerlaw.com
              ekilpela@carsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carsonlynch.com

         - and -

      J. Douglas Gramling, Esq.
      ESTES, GRAMBLING & ESTES PLC
      19 East Dickson Street
      Fayetteville, AR 72701
      Telephone: (479) 439-4124
      Facsimile: (479) 521-6730
      E-mail: dgramling@egelaw.com

         - and -

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dawson Geophysical Company said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13,
2015, that Andrew Speese, through his attorney, filed on January
7, 2015, a purported shareholder class action and derivative
action on behalf of himself and the other shareholders of Dawson
Geophysical Company ("Dawson") in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division),
against Dawson, its current directors, TGC Industries, Inc.
("TGC") and Riptide Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary
of TGC ("Merger Sub"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that the members of Dawson's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed strategic
business combination with TGC, and that TGC's registration
statement dated November 6, 2014, as subsequently amended, and
prospectus filed on December 31, 2014 contain material omissions
and materially misleading statements. The complaint seeks to
enjoin Dawson, TGC and Merger Sub from taking any actions that
would allow the consummation of the proposed strategic business
combination contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated October 8, 2014 by and among Dawson, TGC and Merger
Sub (the "Merger Agreement") or, in the event that the proposed
strategic business combination is consummated, seeks a judgment
for damages.

In addition, on January 8, 2015, Dawson received a letter dated
January 7, 2015 from legal counsel for Andrew Speese with respect
to the lawsuit demanding that the board of directors of Dawson
take legal action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
in connection with the proposed strategic business combination and
to recover damages caused by such alleged breaches.

Dawson's board of directors has formed a Special Litigation
Committee to investigate and determine whether any of the
derivative claims should be pursued. Dawson intends to seek
dismissal of the class action claims.


DELTA AIR: Court Tosses "Opper" Action Over Best Fare Guarantee
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned CARLA OPPER, Plaintiff, v.
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-C-962, (E.D. Wis.),
Ms. Opper claims that Delta Air Lines violated the terms of its
"Best Fare Guarantee" with respect to Plaintiff and other,
similarly-situated customers, and its violation of that guarantee
constitutes breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, breach of warranty, and fraud. Delta moved
to dismiss on the grounds that the claim failed to state a claim
and that other legal theories were preempted by federal law.

Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach, in a decision and order
entered January 7, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/SvvoGcfrom Leagle.com, granted the motion to
dismiss. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice because it does
not appear that the Plaintiff can state a claim, he says. The
Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Darla Opper, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan A Zavareei --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey D Kaliel --
jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP & James C Shah --
jshah@classactioncounsel.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah
LLC.

Delta Airlines Inc, Defendant, represented by Gabor Balassa --
gabor.balassa@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Renee D Smith
-- renee.smith@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP.


DELUXE CORP: Conference Nixed Pending Summary Judgment Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER GRAVES, Plaintiff, v. DELUXE CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE
NO. 4:14CV1823 RLW, (E.D. Mo.) is before the Court on the parties'
Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan (JSP). This case is a putative
class action where Plaintiff alleges that she and a proposed class
of Missouri residents were charged "excessive, deceptive, unfair
and unethical delivery fees for new and replacement personal
checks by Defendant during the five-year period before the filing
of the Complaint and continuing until the date of class
certification.".  In the JSP, the parties note that Defendant
Deluxe Corporation has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.  The
parties disagree regarding whether discovery should proceed.
Plaintiff believes that discovery should proceed unless and until
Defendant files a motion to stay discovery, which would be briefed
by the parties and considered by the Court.  In turn, Defendant
asserts that discovery should not proceed until the Court rules on
Defendant's summary judgment motion because the motion presents a
pure question of law.  Defendant further requests that the Court
rule on Defendant's dispositive motion prior to resolving class
certification issues.

According to District Judge Ronniel L. White, in a memorandum and
order dated January 8, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/dLsgJofrom Leagle.com, resources would be best
utilized by ruling on Defendant's dispositive motion prior to
class certification and prior to entering a case management order.
Furthermore, the Court believes that entering a Case Management
Order at this time would be futile because all of the dates would
be dependent upon a ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Accordingly, the Court canceled the Rule 16 conference
that was previously set for January 14, 2015. The Court will hold
a Rule 16 conference with the parties after it rules on
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, if necessary.  Although
the parties seem to agree that Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment presents an issue of law only, Plaintiff can file a
motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) if she believes any
discovery is necessary to respond to Defendant's Motion.

Jennifer Graves, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning, Jr.
-- Abruningjr@gmail.com -- LERITZ AND PLUNKERT, P.C. & Richard S.
Cornfeld -- rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com -- LAW OFFICE RICHARD S.
CORNFELD.

Deluxe Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Valeriote -- chris.valeriote@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH
BLACKWELL, LLP & Omri E. Praiss -- omri.praiss@huschblackwell.com
-- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.


DIGNITY HEALTH: Cal. Appeals Court Revives "Sarun" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Sarun filed a putative class action against Dignity Health
alleging unfair and/or deceptive business practices under Business
and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL) and violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, Sec. 1750 et
seq.).

Dignity Health argued that the complaint lacked standing under the
UCL and CLRA because it failed to adequately prove that he in fact
suffered an economic injury, which the trial court sustained.

Specifically, the trial court sustained Dignity's demurrer to
Sarun's second amended complaint without leave to amend and
dismissed the action.  Sarun appealed.

In the Order dated January 13, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Ae8zmMfrom Leagle.com, the Division Seven of the
Second District of the Court of Appeals of California reversed the
trial court's decision stating that the mere existence of an
enforceable obligation constitutes actual injury or injury in fact
to the Appellant.  The Appeals Court further ordered that Mr.
Sarun may recover his costs on appeal.

Sarun is represented by:

     Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
     Brian R. Strange, Esq.
     Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
     STRANGE & CARPENTER LAW OFFICE
     12100 Wilshire Boulevard
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Tel: (310) 235-9980
     Fax: (310) 235-9982
     E-mail: gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com

Dignity Health is represented by:

     Darius Ogloza, Esq.
     David Fortney, Esq.
     Brian D. Berry, Esq.
     535 Pacific Avenue
     San Francisco, CA 94133
     Tel: (415) 912-1850
     E-mail: dogloza@oglozafortney.com
             dfortney@oglozafortney.com
             bberry@oglozafortney.com


DORIS INC: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Misleading Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meng Wang and Jane Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Doris Inc., Doris International Inc., Gildan
Activewear Inc. and Gildan Activewear USA Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00147 (E.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
false and misleading marketing and advertising practices and
promotional materials of their Kushyfoot socks, tights and hosiery
with zigzag, massaging or 3-dimensional massaging soles.

The Defendants develop and manufacture sock, tights and hosiery
products for consumers and professional markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Robbins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Electrical Distributors, Tim Cappelli, and Martin
Martinez, Case No. 3:15-cv-00091 (N.D. Tex., January 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendant own and operate an electrical supply wholesaler
located at 2301 Century Circle, Irving, TX 75062.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ditty Susan Bhatti, Esq.
      Vincent James Bhatti, Esq.
      THE BHATTI LAW FIRM PLLC
      14785 Preston Road, Suite 550
      Dallas, TX 75254
      Telephone: (214) 253-2533
      Facsimile: (214) 204-0033
      E-mail: ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com
              vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machine Mold
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida couple
filed a putative class action on Jan. 2 against Electrolux Home
Products Inc., claiming defective design of washing machines made
by the company results in a buildup of mold and mildew that
creates foul odors, ruins clothing and poses health risks.

Plaintiffs Wendy and Nicholas Grasso claim in their suit, filed in
state court in Miami, that they and other purchasers of front-
loading automatic washing machines marketed under the Electrolux,
Frigidaire and Kenmore brand names have overpaid as a result of
the allegedly deceptive marketing, advertising, sales and
servicing by the manufacturer, which they believe was aware of the
claimed defects and has refused to provide an adequate remedy.

Electrolux has failed and refused to warn its customers of the
serious common defects inherent in the washing machines or to warn
its customers of the common problems that they will likely
encounter when the machines begin to accumulate mold as a result
of the machines' defects," the complaint says.

They are seeking compensatory damages, replacement or recall of
the machines and attorneys' fees and legal costs for a class
including anyone who purchased one of the company's washing
machines for personal use in Florida -- a group they say numbers
in the thousands.

The suit brings counts for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, plus a count seeking
declaration that the machines contain a common defect that results
in the buildup of biofilm.

The suit claims that the machines fail to drain properly or rinse
away dirt, detergent and other substances, resulting in moisture
and buildup of residues that contribute to the formation of mold
and mildew.

The resulting biofilm, which they define as a thin, usually
resistant layer of microorganisms, on the inside of the machine is
"unsightly and noxious," they say.  It creates a bad smell in the
user's home and in the clothing, towels and other items run
through the machine, in some cases further damaging those items.
Mold and mildew can also lead to health problems, such as
allergies and complications due to asthma, they say.

Electrolux's failure to disclose these defects or to take
corrective action was negligent and violated state laws and
express and implied warranties, the plaintiffs claim.

In their case, the Grassos purchased a Frigidaire washing machine
for about $570 in January 2010.  About two years later, they began
noticing bad smells on their clothing and later found black
streaks on garments and towels, which led to their discovery of
mold and mildew inside the machine, according to the suit.

Attempts to clean the machine did not solve the problem.  They
made numerous complaints to Electrolux, but were told the biofilm
resulted from misuse and was not covered by the warranty. The
company recommended leaving the door open after washes and wiping
around the gasket, they say.

Those steps did not solve the problem, but instead led to cracks
in the plastic around the door.  The suit also notes that
Electrolux's own instructions say not to leave the door open
around young children.

The suit also argues that Electrolux tolled the issue by
concealing it from customers and the company should not be able to
rely on any statutes of limitation in its defense.

A spokeswoman for Electrolux said on Jan. 5 the company has not
yet seen the lawsuit and cannot comment on it.

The Grassos are represented by John A Yanchunis and Laura V.
Yaeger of Morgan & Morgan PA and Edward A. Wallace --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- and Amy E. Keller --
aek@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace LLP.

The case is Grasso et al. v. Electrolux Home Products Inc., case
number 2015-58-CA-01, in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit of Florida.


ENDO HEALTH: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Generic Opana ER
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund,
individually on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00269 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' overarching anticompetitive scheme to allocate, and
unreasonably delay competition in the market for extended release
oxymorphone hydrochloride, a semi-synthetic opioid pain mediation
sold under the brand name Opana ER.

The Defendants own and operate a specialty healthcare company that
manufactures pharmaceuticals, generic products and medical
devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Jerry Freed, Esq.
      Donald Lewis Sawyer, Esq.
      Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
              dsawyer@fklmlaw.com
              rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
              skanner@fklmlaw.com

         - and -

      Lee Albert, Esq.
      Gregory B. Linkh, 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: lalbert@glancylaw.com
              glinkh@glancylaw.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Lanigan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Henry Edward Autrey denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in In re EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., PBM
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 4:05MD01672HEA, (E.D. Mo.).

The current posture of this Multi-District litigation stands at
one action -- NPA-ERISA Track Cases Only Lanigan as Trustee on
Behalf of Local 153 Health Fund v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al.
Case No. 4:05CV862 -- which is pending. All other cases have been
resolved either on the merits (Lynch v. NPA, et al., currently on
appeal), or through voluntary dismissal.  Since the filing of the
motion for class certification, two of the three movants have
voluntarily dismissed all of their claims.

Richard Lanigan, as Trustee of the Local 153 Health Fund remains
the sole Plaintiff and the sole proposed class representative of a
proposed class against National Prescription Administrators, Inc.
(NPA).  Lanigan's individual suit is against Express Scripts,
Inc., not NPA, the named Defendant in this subclass.

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all self-
funded ERISA employee benefit plans ("ERISA Plans") for which NPA,
at least initially, served as the ERISA Plans' PBM, and which
utilized the NPASelect Formulary, at any time from January 1, 1996
through April 13, 2002.

In his opinion, memorandum and order entered January 8, 2015, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/QFyRrdfrom Leagle.com,
Judge Autrey held that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is denied.  He said:

     (1) Plaintiff's claims fail to satisfy the commonality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(2);

     (2) Plaintiff's claims fail to satisfy the typicality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(3);

     (3) Plaintiff's claims fail to satisfy the adequacy
requirement of Rule 23(a)(4); and

     (4) Plaintiffs' proposed "liability class" does not raise
questions of law or fact that predominate over individual issues,
and is not a superior method of adjudication as required Rule
23(b)(2).

The Court ordered the parties to submit, within 14 days, a status
of the individual case of Lanigan v. Express Scripts, Inc., et
al., Case Number 4:05cv862, along with proposed trial dates.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Regulators Probe Cherokee Air Bag Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that U.S. auto safety regulators are
investigating engine compartment smoke or fire complaints in two
Jeep Cherokees, and air bags that didn't inflate properly in two
Nissan Rogues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in
documents posted on its website on Jan. 16 that the Cherokee probe
covers 50,000 of the SUVs from the 2015 model year.

One owner in California told the agency he smelled oil from under
the hood while driving on Jan. 4.  Shortly after the Cherokee was
parked at home, white smoke came from under the hood.  "Within
seconds the entire car was engulfed in fire, flames 20 feet high.
Burning oil or fuel ran down the street over 50 yards," the owner
said in the complaint.  The other owner complained of smoke from
under the hood while driving 60 mph, also on Jan. 4.  Both
Cherokees had less than 100 miles on them.

No injuries were reported.

A spokesman for Fiat Chrysler, which makes Jeeps, said the company
is working with the agency.

NHTSA opened the Rogue probe after two complaints that the air
bags on 2013 models deployed up to a minute after crashes and
either inflated slowly or didn't fully inflate.  The investigation
covers about 195,000 vehicles. No injuries were reported from the
air bag problem.

A Nissan spokesman says the air bags were not made by Japanese
auto parts supplier Takata Corp., which has had problems with air
bags inflating with too much force and spewing shrapnel into
drivers.  The company is working with NHTSA on the investigation,
the spokesman says.


GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Genesis Healthcare, LLC and General Information
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00052-GAM (E.D. Pa., January 7,
2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for August 6
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Lexington Law Group
regarding the Avalon Organics and JASON Brand Cosmetics Class
Action Lawsuit.

If you purchased Avalon Organics(R) or JASON(R) brand cosmetic
products, this class action notice may affect your rights.

A class action lawsuit is currently pending against The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc. ("Hain Celestial") and includes Avalon
Organics(R) and JASON(R) brand products.  The lawsuit claims that
Hain Celestial falsely sells, labels and/or represents certain
cosmetic products as organic.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim
these products violate California's Organic Products Act, which
requires that cosmetic products advertised, marketed, sold,
labeled, or represented as organic in California be made of at
least 70 percent organic ingredients.  The plaintiffs say that the
packaging and advertising for these products mislead consumers to
believe that the products were wholly or at least mostly organic,
when, in fact, they were not.  The defendant in the lawsuit denies
all the plaintiffs' allegations.  The Court has not decided who is
right and who is wrong.

Am I a Class Member?

You are a Class Member if you bought Avalon Organics(R) brand
cosmetic products between May 11, 2007 and January 6, 2015 other
than those that were USDA certified as organic and/or JASON(R)
brand cosmetic products between May 11, 2007 and January 31, 2011
other than those that were USDA certified as organic.

What Am I Eligible to Receive?

No money is available now and there's no guarantee that there will
be.  The Court has not decided whether Hain Celestial did anything
wrong and the two sides have not settled the case.  If a
settlement is reached, or if the lawyers prove their claims in a
trial, then Class Members will be notified about how to ask for
benefits.

If you are still not sure whether you are included as a Class
Member, you can visit the Web site,
www.HainOrganicCosmeticsLawsuit.com, call 1-800-481-7948, or write
to Hain Celestial Organic Cosmetics Class Action, 1515 Market
Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19102, for more information.

What are My Options?

Do Nothing -- If you do nothing, you keep the possibility of
getting money that may come from a trial or a settlement, but, you
give up any rights to sue Hain Celestial on your own about the
same legal claims in this lawsuit.  You will also be legally bound
by all orders the Court issues and judgments the Court makes in
this class action.

Exclude Yourself -- If you exclude yourself from the Class -- you
will not get money from this lawsuit, even if Plaintiffs obtain
money as a result of the trial or from any settlement (that may or
may not be reached) between Hain Celestial and Plaintiffs.
However, you may then be able to sue or continue to sue Hain
Celestial about the same legal claims that are involved in this
case, now or in the future.  If you exclude yourself, you will not
be legally bound by the Court's judgments in this class action.

If the case is not dismissed or settled, Class Counsel will have
to prove Plaintiffs' claims at a trial.  The Court has scheduled a
trial to decide who is right in this case.  The trial is currently
set to begin on August 6, 2015 in Courtroom C - 15th Floor of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.  The
date may change so check the website to be kept informed of the
trial schedule.  During the trial, the Judge and/or a jury will
hear all of the evidence, so that a decision can be reached about
whether Plaintiffs are right about their claims in the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs will have to prove their claims.  There is no guarantee
that Plaintiffs will win or that they will get money for the
Class.

This is only a summary.  For more detailed information, please
visit www.HainOrganicCosmeticsLawsuit.com or call 1-800-481-7948.


HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: March 9 Trial Set in "Covington" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., issued an order on January 7,
2015, in the case captioned GARY COVINGTON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULESS WALLACE,
HERMAN HALL, and NEAL BYRD, all in their official capacities,
Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-123-DPM, (E.D. Ark.).

Mr. Wallace is the chief of police at Helena West Helena Police
Department.

The order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/BlqFkk
from Leagle.com, states that:

    "1. The parties' jointly proposed changes to the draft notice
are fine. The Court applauds the overall improvements in clarity.
We still need to fill in the blanks and craft an exclusion form.
The Court also needs to decide the particulars of notice. Joint
report covering all this ground due by 23 January 2015.

     2. The Court didn't intend to set a deadline for an interim
fee petition. Covington can file one whenever he chooses. His
motions to extend time, NQ 145 & 146, are denied without prejudice
as moot.

     3. The liability issues are set for trial the week of 9 March
2015. Any trial in the related excessive-force case will go first,
then this case. The City Defendants' objection to bifurcating
liability and damages is overruled. Bifurcation makes good sense.
FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b). Pretrial disclosure sheets, motions in
limine, proposed jury instructions, and all other pretrial filings
are due by 6 February 2015.

Motions, NQ 145 & 146, denied without prejudice as moot."

Gary Covington, Plaintiff, represented by Luther Oneal Sutter --
luthersutter.law@gmail.com -- Sutter & Gillham, PLLC & Lucien
Ramseur Gillham -- lucien.gillham@gmail.com -- Sutter & Gillham,
PLLC.

Uless Wallace, in his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by
Sara Teague -- steague@arml.org -- Arkansas Municipal League &
Paul Gregory Charton -- pcharton@catlaw.com -- Catlett Law Firm.

Neal Byrd, In his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by
Nicholas Rudolph Windle -- nick@hotspringslaw.net -- & C. Burt
Newell -- burt@hotspringslaw.com -- C. Burt Newell, Attorney at
Law.

Herman Hall, in his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by
Sara Teague, Arkansas Municipal League.


HONEST TEA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Labeling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report
that a California federal judge on Jan. 5 refused to toss a
proposed class action accusing Honest Tea Inc. of dishonestly
marketing its honey green tea as a source of antioxidants, finding
sufficient evidence that the company's product labeling might
violate federal regulations.

Denying Honest Tea's motion to dismiss an amended version of the
complaint, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller decided that
statements appearing on the company's products may qualify as
nutrient content claims that have to comply with U.S. Food and
Drug Administration regulations.  The statements allegedly
describe the teas as being "packed" with a "potent" flavonoid
antioxidant, among other claims.

Lead plaintiff Sarah A. Salazar alleges Honest Tea's products are
misbranded because there aren't any reference daily intakes for
flavonoid antioxidants.  Moreover, defendant's nutrient content
claims don't include the nutrients at issue or use a symbol to
link the term "antioxidant" to them, she argues.

Honest Tea has contended the challenged statements that the
company has allegedly made since 2008 only tell consumers that the
flavonoid antioxidants are present in the teas and don't describe
the levels of the antioxidants in the products.  Additionally, the
labels don't use any FDA-defined terms to characterize the levels,
according to the defendant.

Judge Mueller on Jan. 5 sided with Ms. Salazar, deciding that,
"Assuming these statements are nutrient content claims, plaintiff
has alleged the products have not met the requirements for making
such claims."

Ms. Salazar sued the beverage maker in November 2013, alleging she
wouldn't have purchased honey green tea had she known the truth
about the product's antioxidant content, and instead would have
paid much less for tea leaves or tea bags of green tea.  Ms.
Salazar also claimed that the use of the word "honest" contributed
to the deceptive nature of the company's advertising campaigns.

In June, Judge Mueller tossed most of the claims in the suit.  She
said that, in order for Ms. Salazar's state law claims to be
permitted, they must allege that the beverage's labels violate the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's labeling requirements.

However, the court refused to dismiss Ms. Salazar's claims that
rely on Honest Tea's use of the word "honest," ruling that these
claims are more than puffery because the company is attempting to
paint itself as a "refreshingly" and "brutally" honest brand.  The
court also found that Salazar has standing to bring her claims
against both the post-2011 beverage that she actually purchased
and the pre-2011 beverage that she did not purchase.

Later in June, Ms. Salazar amended her complaint to underscore
that Honest Tea's labeling statements contravene the FDCA because
they characterize flavonoid antioxidants and thus are unauthorized
nutrient content claims that violate various California state
laws.

Honest Tea argued that Salazar had to allege that she was actually
deceived and injured by a false or misleading representation, in
order to pursue her misbranding claim. But Judge Mueller on Jan. 5
disagreed, saying another court had found a plaintiff's injury
could be based on the allegation that she wouldn't have bought a
product if she had known the label was unlawful.

The judge also denied the defendant's argument that the First
Amendment bars Salazar from trying to hold Honest Tea liable for
conveying truthful information. Judge Mueller said that, for
commercial speech to fall within the protected zone of the First
Amendment, it can't be misleading.

The judge gave Honest Tea up to 21 days to file an answer to the
amended complaint.

Honest Tea said in a statement provided to Law360 on Jan.6 that
the company "stands by our brand name and marketing.  We find the
court's decision to be disappointing but will continue to
vigorously defend the Honey Green Tea label."

Ms. Salazar is represented by L. Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Annick M. Persinger and Yeremey Krivoshey
-- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA.

Honest Tea is represented by Steven A. Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- and Travis J. Tu -- tjtu@pbwt.com -- of
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, and Tammy B. Webb of Shook
Hardy & Bacon LLP.

The case is Sarah A. Salazar et al. v. Honest Tea Inc., case
number 2:13-cv-02318, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Ordered to Submit Supplemental Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------
In DENIS MULLIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., et
al., Defendants. HAVERHILL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX
LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, NOS. C-13-1037 EMC, C-13-
1566 EMC, (N.D. Cal.), currently pending before the Court is
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement.

District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order on January 8, 2015,
directing the parties to submit supplemental briefing and/or
evidence on these issues:

     (1) Plaintiffs assert in their motion that the $8,000,000
Settlement Fund "represents a substantial portion of the total
Class damages." Plaintiffs, however, have not provided any
information as to the maximum value of the case if they had
prevailed on the merits. The parties should therefore provide
their estimates as to the maximum value of this case. The parties
should also provide sufficient explanation of how they arrived at
this estimate.

     (2) The Plaintiffs assert in their motion that the proposed
settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable given the risks of
further litigation.  Plaintiffs' discussion of the litigation
risks, however, is highly general. The parties should provide a
more detailed discussion of the relative merits and weaknesses of
Plaintiffs' case, in light of the discovery that has occurred to
date.

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

Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, Plaintiff,
represented by Christopher Lometti -- clometti@cohenmilstein.com
-- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Daniel S. Sommers --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC,
Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers and Toll, P.L.L.C., Solomon B. Cera -- scera@gbcslaw.com
-- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP & Thomas C. Bright --
tbright@gbcslaw.com -- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP.

Haverhill Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all
Others Simiarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio.

Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcy
Christina Priedeman -- marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham Watkins
LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP & Peter Allen Wald
-- peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins.

Larry Hsu, Defendant, represented by Marcy Christina Priedeman,
Latham Watkins LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP &
Peter Allen Wald, Latham & Watkins.

Arthur A. Koch, Defendant, represented by Marcy Christina
Priedeman, Latham Watkins LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham &
Watkins LLP & Peter Allen Wald, Latham & Watkins.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Blair Allen Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann.


INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Lendales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi and Alan
Krock, Case No. 3:15-cv-00142 (N.D. Cal., January 12, 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 Micro-
Electro- Mechanical Systems sensors, such as accelerometers,
gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue 20th FLoor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael M. Goldberg, 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: rprongay@glancylaw.com
              info@glancylaw.com
              mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com


IY CATERING: "Banegas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Banegas, and other similarly situated individuals v. I. Y.
Catering, Inc. d/b/a Etzel Itzik and Isaac Younis, Case No. 1:15-
cv-20097 (S.D. Fla., January 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Middle-Eastern Restaurant in
Miami-Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Wright, an individual and resident of Nevada; on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Jacob
Transportation, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, D/B/A
Executive Las Vegas, Case No. 2:15-cv-00056 (D. Nev., January 12,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Jacob Transportation, LLC is a transportation industry that
provides local passenger transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
              jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Don Springmeyer, Esq.
      WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN AND RABKIN, LLP
      3556 E Russell Rd., Second Floor
      Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
      Telephone: (702) 341-5200
      Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
      E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      2000 Town Center
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com


JOHN WILEY: "Kunkel" Suit Moved From California to New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kunkel, et al. v. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03180, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California 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-00094 to the
proceeding.

The case is a proposed class action for copyright infringement
brought by the Plaintiffs alleging copyright infringement against
Wiley for use of photographs provided to Wiley beyond the limits
of any licenses the Plaintiffs or Visuals Unlimited, a stock photo
company, granted Wiley, or without any original license at all.

Wiley, a textbook publisher, obtains licenses to publish
photographs in its textbooks from Visuals Unlimited.  Visuals
Unlimited, acting as an agent on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
provides Wiley with limited licenses to use Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' Photographs in print and electronic media.  Instead of
obtaining a "running royalty" license based on the number of books
Wiley publishes, Wiley obtained a limited license to publish a
fixed number of books based on a fixed license fee, the Plaintiffs
contend.  They add that Wiley, then, willfully exceeded that
license, without permission or payment to them for this use.

Wiley has been sued by numerous individual photographers and stock
photo companies nationwide over the past several years for
exceeding the limited licenses it obtained for photographs,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          David T. Rudolph, Esq.
          Katherine C. Lubin, Esq.
          Patricia A. Dyck, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
                  drudolph@lchb.com
                  klubin@lchb.com
                  pdyck@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Christopher Seidman, Esq.
          HARMON & SEIDMAN LLC
          101 South Third Street, Suite 265
          Grand Junction, CO 81501
          Telephone: (970) 245-9075
          Facsimile: (970) 245-8086
          E-mail: chris@harmonseidman.com

               - and -

          Maurice Harmon, Esq.
          HARMON & SEIDMAN LLC
          11 Chestnut Street
          New Hope, PA 18938
          Telephone: (215) 693-1953
          Facsimile: (970) 245-8086
          E-mail: maurice@harmonseidman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert Penchina, Esq.
          LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULTZ LLP
          321 W. 4th Street, Suite 510
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 850-6100
          E-mail: rpenchina@lskslaw.com


JP MORGAN: Settles Bear Stearns Class Action for $500-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
JPMorgan Chase & Co. has bowed out of another mortgage-backed
securities lawsuit, agreeing to pay about $500 million to resolve
class action claims stemming from Bear Stearns' sale of nearly
$17.6 billion of the investments in the lead-up to the 2008
financial crisis.

Plaintiffs lawyers at Berstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and
Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll told U.S. District Judge Laura
Swain in a letter on Jan. 8 that their pension fund clients have
reached "an agreement in principle" with JPMorgan.  A person
familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity, said
the settlement amount is roughly $500 million.  The deal was first
reported by Reuters, which also pegged the value at $500 million.

"Following extensive negotiations, the parties have reached
agreement and executed a binding term sheet containing the
material terms of the settlement," the plaintiffs lawyers wrote in
the Jan. 8 letter   The plaintiffs asked Swain, who must sign off
on the deal, to set a Feb. 2 deadline for the two sides to
formally request preliminary court approval.

The settlement would fully resolve a proposed class action
alleging that Bear Stearns -- which JPMorgan acquired in 2008 --
misled investors about the quality of loans underpinning $17.58
billion in mortgage-backed securities sold in 14 offerings between
May 2006 and April 2007.

Since the litigation kicked off in 2008, JPMorgan has fought the
allegations with an ever-changing lineup of defense lawyers.

Morgan Lewis & Bockius was the first to lead the defense, before
now-defunct Bingham McCutchen took over in 2009.  Then, in 2012,
on the heels of a decision from Swain refusing to dismiss most of
the case, Cravath, Swain & Moore entered an appearance alongside
Bingham.

Both Cravath and Bingham eventually withdrew in October and
November of 2013, handing the baton to Greenberg Traurig and
Sullivan & Cromwell, which have served as defense counsel since.
Greenberg Traurig's Richard Edlin -- edlinr@gtlaw.com -- and
Sullivan & Cromwell's Richard Sacks -- sacksr@sullcrom.com --
represented JPMorgan in the settlement talks, according to recent
court filings.

The lead plaintiffs lawyers, Berstein Litowitz's David Stickney --
davids@blbglaw.com -- and Cohen Milstein's Daniel Sommers --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- declined to comment on Jan. 9 on the
details of the settlement, as did a spokesman for JPMorgan.

In November 2013, federal and state regulators announced a $13
billion deal with JPMorgan to resolve claims stemming from the
packaging, marketing and sale of mortgage-backed securities by
JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.


JP MORGAN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Appeal of Denied Loan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacie Lonaker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., a business entity; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-00157 (N.D. Cal.,
January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
send a written notice which identified the amount of time from the
date of the denial of the first lien loan modification application
in which the Plaintiff may request an appeal and instructions
regarding how to appeal the denial.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a diversified financial marketing
and services company engaged primarily in residential mortgage
banking and/or related businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew David Mellen, Esq.
      MELLEN LAW FIRM
      411 Borel Ave., Suite 230
      San Mateo, CA 94402
      Telephone: (650) 638-0120
      Facsimile: (650) 638-0125
      E-mail: mellenlaw@yahoo.com


JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Court Denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the joint motion of the
defendants to dismiss the putative class action filed by the
plaintiffs in the consolidated case, FOND DU LAC BUMPER EXCHANGE,
INC. v. JUI LI ENTERPRISE COMPANY, LTD., Case Nos. 09C0852,
13C0946, 13C0987, 13C0987 (E.D. Wis.).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the defendants
for unjust enrichment, restraint of trade, fraudulent concealment
and treble damages due to overpricing and price fixing for the
products purchased from the company.

The defendants contended that some of the claims of the plaintiffs
are barred by statutes of limitation specifically the time
constraint of the three-year rule upon the discovery of the injury
and that plaintiffs are in constructive notice therefore case of
fraudulent concealment can not survive.

The Court ruled that (1) the discovery of the violation still fall
under the three-year period since plaintiff still indirectly
purchase from the defendant, and (2) fraudulent concealment is a
fact issue as to precise time the plaintiffs actually discovered
the injuries.

In 2009, a group of direct purchasers of aftermarket sheet metal
products filed a putative class action against defendants alleging
a violation of the Sherman Act. Subsequently, various indirect
purchasers including Fireman's Fund Insurance Company filed
putative class actions alleging state law antitrust and unfair
competition claims which the court consolidated with the direct
purchasers' action.

A copy of the Decision and Order dated January 12, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/fSQ1C5from Leagle.com.

Fond du Lac Bumper Exchange Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
M Purdy -- apurdy@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Benjamin D Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld & Toll, Bonny E Sweeney -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher M Burke --
cburke@scott-scott.com -- Dean M Harvey -- dharvey@lchb.com --
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Douglas A Millen --
dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Eric B
Fastiff -- efastiff@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Jason S Hartley -- hartley@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Jason A Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobal Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey A Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, Jessica N
Servais -- jservais@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson PLC, Jon
T King -- jonk@hbsslaw.com -- The Furth Firm LLP, Joseph M Barton
-- joebartonesq@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Joseph M Barton,
Joseph R Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, K Scott Wagner -- ksw@halewagner.com -- Hale & Wagner SC,
Kevin E Rayhill -- krayhill@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Michael P Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP,
Patrick J Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Robert G Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, Susan G
Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Tiantian Chen, Joseph Saveri
Law Firm & Vincent J Esades, Heins Mills & Olson PLC.

Roberts Wholesale Body Parts Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Bonny
E Sweeney, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher M Burke,
Douglas A Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Eric B
Fastiff, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jason S Hartley,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Jason A Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobal
Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey A Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, Jon T King, The
Furth Firm LLP, Joseph M Barton, Law Offices of Joseph M Barton,
Joseph R Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, K Scott Wagner, Hale &
Wagner SC, Michael P Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Patrick J Stueve,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Rachel L B Stoering, Susan G Kupfer,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Vincent J Esades, Heins Mills &
Olson PLC.

Dzidra Fuller, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Brad
Yamauchi, Minami Tamaki LLP, Daniel J Mulligan, Jenkins Mulligan &
Gabriel LLP, Derek G Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, Glicel E
Sumagaysay, Minami Tamaki LLP, Jack W Lee, Minami Tamaki LLP &
John C Cabaniss, Cabaniss Law.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by Kevin P Caraher, Cozen O'Connor, Catherine R
Reilly, Cozen O'Connor, Daniel R Karon, Goldman Scarlato Karon &
Penny PC, Melissa H Maxman, Cozen O'Connor & Ronald F Wick, Cozen
O'Connor.

National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC,
Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates PC & Michael L Roberts, Roberts Law Firm PA.

Jui Li Enterprise Company Ltd, Defendant, represented by J Ric
Gass, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Michael B Brennan, Gass Weber
Mullins LLC, Belinda S Lee -- belinda.lee@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson -- casandra.thomson@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, Joanna Rosen -- joanna.rosen@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong -- katherine.larkin-
wong@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Yi Chin Ho --
yichin.ho@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP.

Tong Yang Industry Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Belinda S
Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham & Watkins
LLP, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong,
Latham & Watkins LLP & Yi Chin Ho, Latham & Watkins LLP.
Gordon Auto Body Parts, Defendant, represented by Belinda S Lee,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham & Watkins LLP,
Howard B Iwrey, Dykema Gossett PLLC, J Ric Gass, Gass Weber
Mullins LLC, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M
Larkin-Wong, Latham & Watkins LLP, Michael B Brennan, Gass Weber
Mullins LLC & Yi Chin Ho, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Auto Parts Industrial Ltd, Defendant, represented by Cindy D
Hinkle, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Gretchen L Jankowski,
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins
LLP, Lynn J Alstadt, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & Wendelynne J
Newton, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

Taiwan Kai Yih Industrial Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by
Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham &
Watkins LLP & Katherine M Larkin-Wong, Latham & Watkins LLP.
Cornerstone Auto Parts LLC, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Cindy D Hinkle, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Gretchen L
Jankowski, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Joanna Rosen, Latham &
Watkins LLP, Lynn J Alstadt, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC &
Wendelynne J Newton, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

TYG Products LP, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Belinda S
Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham & Watkins
LLP, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong,
Latham & Watkins LLP & Yi Chin Ho, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Gordon Auto Body Parts Co Ltd, Consolidated Defendant, represented
by Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham
& Watkins LLP, J Ric Gass, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Joanna Rosen,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong, Latham & Watkins
LLP, Michael B Brennan, Gass Weber Mullins LLC & Yi Chin Ho,
Latham & Watkins LLP.

Roberts Wholesale Body Parts Inc, Movant, represented by Jason S
Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Jessica N Servais, Heins Mills
& Olson PLC, K Scott Wagner, Hale & Wagner SC & Vincent J Esades,
Heins Mills & Olson PLC.


KANSAS POWER AND LIGHT: Order Denying Arbitration Bid Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Karen King Mitchell with the concurrence of
Justices Cynthia Martin and Gary D. Witt of the Court of Appeals
of Missouri affirmed a lower court decision in the case, RICHARD
SHARP, et al., Respondents, v. KANSAS CITY POWER and LIGHT COMPANY
and KCP&L GREATER MISSOURI OPERATIONS COMPANY, Appelants, Case No.
WD774444.

Kansas City Power and Light Company and KCP&L Greater Missouri
Operations Company filed an appeal from the decision of the lower
court denying their motion to stay litigation and compel
arbitration relative to the class suit by Richard sharp, et al.
for breach of contract, negligence, violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act and fraud/misrepresentationin the
Solar Energy Rebate Program.

Appellants claimed that the trial court erred in its findings for
two reasons: (1) the consumers are bound by the provisions of the
dispute resolution, and (2) the complaint is within the ambit of
arbitration before the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC).

The Court said the dispute resolution provision does not
constitute an arbitration agreement, and the trial court committed
no error in denying the motion to stay proceedings and compel
arbitration.  The Appellants failed to validate the prerequisites
necessary to invoke authority under the dispute resolution
provision.

A copy of the Opinion dated January 13, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/MUJfWNfrom Leagle.com.

Respondents are represented by:

     John Spencer, Esq.
     TIEMAN, SPENCER, HOLADAY & HICKS
     702 Felix Street
     St. Joseph, MO 64501
     Tel: (816)279-3000
     Fax: (816)279-3066
     E-mail: john.spencer@tshhlaw.com


LEXYCON LLC: Cited for Chemical Spill Environmental Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Mattise, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
few towns over from the chemical plant that leaked a coal-cleaning
mixture into the drinking water of 300,000 West Virginians last
year, a new company run by some of the same people is being cited
for similar environmental violations.

State regulators have written up the new firm, Lexycon LLC, eight
times since September for pouring chemicals without a permit,
lacking proper "last-resort" walls to contain spills, and hosting
tanker-trailers full of unknown chemicals, among other
infractions, according to records reviewed by The Associated
Press.

Some of the infractions at Lexycon still haven't been addressed
despite three site-wide inspections and dozens of smaller visits
by regulators from the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection since May, state reports show.

Inspectors even found the same little-known chemical that leaked
from a Freedom Industries Inc. facility and tainted the water
supply for West Virginia's capital city, despite the Lexycon
owner's promise to a federal judge that his company wouldn't touch
the substance.

The pollution at Freedom's Elk River operation triggered a tap
water ban that brought the region to a standstill for days, with
residents unable to shower or use their faucets and restaurants
and other businesses shuttered for lack of clean water.  The spill
also sparked criticism in Congress that existing environmental
rules aren't adequate, particularly in West Virginia, where the
energy industry's heavy presence has always come with the risk of
disaster.

"I've noticed that when something goes wrong, you sell the
company, you change the name," said Maya Nye of People Concerned
About Chemical Safety, an advocacy group in the state.  "Then
suddenly, it looks like a shiny new package, but the way things
operate is very similar. It's just kind of status quo."

Two consultants who have worked with Lexycon are among six former
Freedom officials charged last month over last January's massive
spill.

An FBI agent said in an affidavit that Freedom officials knew for
a decade of the crack in the secondary containment wall that
enabled the chemical to seep into the Elk River.  They also didn't
inspect leaky World War II-era tanks and shrugged off plans to
decommission them, the agent said.

Shortly after the spill, Freedom moved its chemicals away from its
Elk River site to another company complex less than a half-mile
from the Kanawha River in the town of Nitro, where a rusty water
tower and plumes of white smoke from the nearby coal-fired power
plant rise in the background.

But state environmental inspectors soon recognized shoddy
safeguards at the Nitro site, too: Containment walls filled with
holes that could let materials seep into a stormwater ditch that
drains into the Kanawha.

Freedom filed for bankruptcy within days of the spill.  Three
months later, Lexycon was founded by David Carson, a chemical firm
owner who had done business with Freedom and bought the Nitro
location.

Before he approved the transaction in May, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Ronald Pearson called it "a real positive in the case" that
Lexycon was hiring former Freedom employees.

Mr. Carson made an important promise to the bankruptcy judge in
May: Lexycon wouldn't deal in the chemical known as MCHM, the main
one that Freedom spilled.

"It will not be on the site," Mr. Carson said in court, explaining
why residents still raw over the spill a few months earlier
shouldn't worry about the new company.  "It's currently there.
The day I take over is the last day it will be there."

But when inspectors showed up at Lexycon in August, a tanker
trailer of MCHM was sitting there without proper secondary
containment, according to a state notice of violation. The
chemical was gone when inspectors took an inventory in October.

During another visit, state inspectors found another violation --
they couldn't figure out what was in two tanker trailers or to
whom they belonged.

The state has given the company 20 days to respond to the latest
five violations.  Any fines would be determined later,
environmental department spokeswoman Kelley Gillenwater said.

So far, the strongest action the state has taken against Lexycon
came in September, when regulators ordered the company to stop
storing certain chemicals until it obtained a permit, which it
eventually did.


LVI SERVICES: Removes "Ausencio" Class Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Natividad Ausencio v. LVI
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. BC558985, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-00124-PA-PJW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims for employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justian Jusuf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF APC
          17011 Beach Boulevard Suite 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (714) 274-9815
          Facsimile: (714) 362-3148
          E-mail: jjusuf@socal.rr.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Derrick Lam, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: dlam@littler.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: estaggs-wilson@littler.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Falcone, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2050 Main Street, Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 705-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
          E-mail: rfalcone@littler.com


MACY'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of False Labeling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, Lance Duroni and Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge was urged on Jan. 2 to nix
Macy's Inc. and denim company Citizens of Humanity LLC's bid to
toss a putative class action alleging they falsely market their
jeans as being made entirely in the U.S., arguing the state's
"Made in USA" statute is not preempted by federal law.

The plaintiffs told U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino that
the Federal Trade Commission Act, which was amended in 1994 to
address "made in the USA" labels, does not override California law
and shouldn't be the basis for tossing the suit claiming Citizens'
"Boyfriend" jeans are deceptively labeled.

"Citizens and Macy's [motion] asks this court to boldly go where
no other court in California has ever gone in the 54 years since
the California 'Made in USA' statute was enacted, the plaintiffs
said.  "Specifically, defendants ask this court to find that the
. . . statute is preempted by federal law and violates the Dormant
Commerce Clause."

Plaintiffs Louise Clark and Robyn Marnell filed suit against the
companies in June, claiming Citizens' Boyfriend jeans include
several parts made outside the U.S., including fabric, thread,
rivets and buttons, despite being labeled "made in the U.S.A."
Other Citizens jeans also have zipper parts that are manufactured
abroad, the suit says.

But the defendants told the court in a Dec. 9 motion to dismiss
that, in addition to the FTC Act, the California statute is also
preempted by the Federal Textile Fiber Products Identification
Act, which they say demands that they use the "made in the USA"
label.  Moreover, they said, the state law runs afoul of the U.S.
Constitution, violating the dormant Commerce Clause.

"[T]he California statute imposes a significant burden on
interstate commerce, as sharply demonstrated by one of the
defendants here -- a Wisconsin-based Internet retailer," the brief
said, referring to BOP LLC, a third defendant in the suit.  "That
retailer must now either change its labeling for the whole country
or set up procedures for identifying California-based customers
and keep a supply on hand of specially labeled merchandise."

And if other states decide on different requirements,
manufacturers could end up being forced to produce numerous
separately labeled garments, the defendants added.

But the plaintiffs said on Jan. 2 that California enacted the
statute to protect the "Made in USA" label in California. They
also said that the very same federal court held in October that
the statute is not preempted by federal law in Paz v. AG Adriano
Goldschmeid.

Ms. Clark is represented by John H. Donboli and J.L. Sean Slattery
of Del Mar Law Group LLP.

The defendants are represented by Michael A. Bowse --
mbowse@bgrfirm.com -- and Peter W. Ross -- pross@bgrfirm.com --of
Browne George Ross LLP.

The case is Louise Clark v. Citizens of Humanity LLC et al., case
number 3:14-cv-01404, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: April 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a current or former Plan Administrator of a 401(k) or
401(a) ERISA plan that has contracted with Massachusetts Mutual
Life Insurance Co., you should be aware of a class action
settlement.

What is this about?

In a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, the plaintiff,
Golden Star, Inc., Plan Administrator of the Golden Star
Administrative Associates' 401(k) Plan and Golden Star Bargaining
Associates' 401(k) Plan alleged that Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Company ("MassMutual") violated ERISA by receiving
payments from mutual fund companies whose funds are offered as
investment options to 401(k) and 401(a) retirement plans ("revenue
sharing payments").  The Court has not made any rulings about
whether MassMutual did anything wrong, and MassMutual denies all
claims in the lawsuit. Plaintiff has agreed to settle the case
because it believes that the settlement provides substantial and
meaningful relief to the members of the settlement classes that
relates directly to the allegations in Plaintiff's case, and in
light of the potential risks of further litigation.  MassMutual
has agreed to settle to avoid the expense and distraction of
further litigation.

What does the settlement provide?

Retirement plans that have contracts with MassMutual or have
contracted with MassMutual from October 19, 2005 through December
8, 2014 can receive a payment from a settlement fund of $9,475,000
("Settlement Fund").  MassMutual has also agreed to make a number
of changes in their business practices.

Who represents me?

The Court has appointed lawyers to represent two classes of
retirement plans at no cost to class members.  These attorneys
will ask the court to award up to $3,158,334 for their fees, plus
up to $315,000 in expenses, and the Court will determine the fees
and expenses to be paid.  You may hire your own attorney if you
wish, but at your own cost.

What are my rights?

To receive money, your plan must submit a completed Instruction
Form by June 6, 2015 to the Settlement Administrator at the
address below.  If you do nothing, you will remain in the class
but your plan will receive no money.  If you still have an in-
force contract with MassMutual, you do not need to do anything for
your plan to receive the benefit of the new business practices.

You may exclude yourself from the class that can receive money by
sending a letter to the Lead Class Counsel and Settlement
Administrator so that it is received no later than March 10, 2015
in the manner and form detailed in the full class notice.  Your
plan will not receive any money if you do so.  You cannot exclude
yourself from the Structural Changes Class that includes in-force
contracts and contracts that are purchased in the future.

You may object to the settlement by filing an objection with the
Court, Lead Class Counsel, and Defendant's Counsel in the manner
and form detailed in the full class notice received no later than
March 10, 2015.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court, class members who do
not opt out will give up any claims covered by the Settlement and
will be bound by the Court's orders in the case.

The Court will hold a hearing on April 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to
consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
to consider the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses and to
consider all other matters.

To request a copy of the full class notice or an Instruction Form,
or for further information:

Call:  1-866-274-4004

or

Write:

Strategic Claims Services
Attn: GSI-MM Settlement
600 N Jackson Street - Suite 3
Media, PA 19063


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Yale" Suit Over False Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Yale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00199 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
made false and misleading representation of the financial
condition of the Company and the adequacy of the reserves and
reserve system upon which Metropolitan Life operates.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company provides insurance, annuities,
and employee benefit programs in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith W. Miller, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10112
      Telephone: (212) 262-6900
      Facsimile: (212) 977-1649
      E-mail: KeithMiller@perkinscoie.com

         - and -

      David J. Harth, Esq.
      Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
      Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
      Eric G. Barber, Esq.
      Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
      Rhett P. Martin, Esq.
      Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      One East Main Street, Suite 201
      Madison, WI 53703
      Telephone: (608) 663-7460
      Facsimile: (608) 663-7499
      E-mail: DHarth@perkinscoie.com
              TBurns@perkinscoie.com
              JBowen@perkinscoie.com
              EBarber@perkinscoie.com
              FBowen@perkinscoie.com
              RMartin@perkinscoie.com
              JBak@perkinscoie.com

         - and -

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING LLP
      30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 312-6518
      Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
      E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com


NIPATHAI RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafaela Alejandro Arriaga, and Leonides Eleuterio Jeronimo,
individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Nipathai Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Thai Seasons, Spice Chinese
Restaurant Inc., Thai Season Corp., and Bi Yue Zou, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-00213 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
such other relief available by Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate full-service Chinese and Thai
restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


OREGON LOTTERY: Faces Class Action Over Auto-Hold Problems
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mapes, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed by Beaverton attorney Jay Zollinger in Multnomah
County Circuit Court charges that Oregon Lottery's machines led
video poker players to mistakenly believe they could maximize
their chances of winning by allowing the machine to pick which
cards to keep or discard.

However, several of the lottery machines -- with such colorful
names as "Jacks Or Better" and "Deuce's Wild" -- have worse odds
if players use the "auto-hold" strategy instead of picking cards
on their own, Mr. Zollinger alleges.

The lawsuit charges that lottery officials were warned in 2009
that the auto-hold feature on some machines produced worse odds
but did nothing to change the games or warn players.

Joanie Stevens-Schwenger, the lottery's corporate communications
director, declined to comment on the lawsuit, as is the usual
practice for state agencies.

The lottery's website does at least obliquely warn players they
may not do as well if they let the machine pick which cards to
draw.  "Auto-hold strategies vary by game, based on the particular
features of a game and do not necessarily result in theoretical
payouts," the website says.

Mr. Zollinger said the notice is too obscure to be of any use to
players.  And he said documents he obtained through a public
records request showed that the lottery knew through research that
players thought the auto-hold strategy produced the best possible
results.

"The lottery knows how the players perceive the auto-hold, and the
lottery hasn't done anything affirmative to address that
perception," he said.

Using lottery documents, Mr. Zollinger said he calculated that the
lower odds cost players $134 million in lower credits over the
last five years.  That doesn't mean players lost that much extra
cash.

The amount includes credits racked up but not necessarily paid out
to players, who usually continue playing the fast-paced machines
through a number of ups and downs.  But with worse odds, they
would tend to lose money more quickly.

Lottery documents cited by Mr. Zollinger showed that eight
different video poker machines used by the lottery had payouts
between 1 percent and 5 percent less than the "theoretical
payouts" listed for each of the machines on the lottery's website.

Justin Curzi, a Portland consultant for business startups, is the
listed plaintiff in the lawsuit and is the one who first
discovered problems with the auto-hold strategies, Mr. Zollinger
said.  He said that Mr. Curz found while playing video poker with
friends that the auto-hold strategy didn't always make the
smartest play. In particular, he said, Mr. Curzi noticed times
when the machine should have been steering players toward drawing
for a flush instead of a lower-value straight.

The lawsuit also highlights a little-known feature of the lottery.
Officials for the lottery typically describe their games as based
purely on chance.  But that's not entirely the case with video
poker, where the lottery's website says that "player choices
affect the actual payout percentage of the game."


PFIZER INC: Zolof MDL Plaintiffs Can Present Another Witness
------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that hundreds of people who sued Pfizer alleging birth defects
from its antidepressant Zoloft will be allowed to present another
expert after the first one they offered to the court was tossed
last summer.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, who is handling the multidistrict litigation case,
decided to allow the plaintiffs a second try in offering a key
expert to testify as to Zoloft's causation of birth defects in
babies born to mothers who took the drug while pregnant.  Her
decision came over the strong objections of Pfizer, which might
have prevailed in barring the submission of a new expert in a less
complex trial.

Referring to the lawyers on the plaintiffs' steering committee,
the PSC, Judge Rufe said, "The court fully appreciates Pfizer's
argument that the PSC had every opportunity to select its expert
witnesses and now seeks a 'Daubert do-over' after an unfavorable
outcome. Had this issue arisen outside of the MDL context, this
argument may have carried the day."

The first Daubert hearing -- which allows parties in a case to
challenge expert testimony before the start of trial and is named
for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals -- lasted for about a week last April and focused
mostly on Dr. Anick Berard, who was the plaintiffs' initial key
expert.

In June, Judge Rufe barred her testimony, finding several problems
with Dr. Berard's research and proffered testimony.  Dr. Berard's
research had linked Zoloft to a plethora of various birth defects,
whereas the new expert, Nicholas Jewell, has proposed testimony on
his research linking the use of Zoloft in pregnant women to only
cardiac defects in their babies.

About 60 percent of the more than 600 cases that are currently
part of the MDL involve claims of cardiac defects, Michael
Fishbein -- mfishbein@lfsblaw.com -- estimated.  Mr. Fishbein is a
lawyer at Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman and argued on behalf of
the plaintiffs in front of Judge Rufe in November.

Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, who argued on behalf of Pfizer at that
hearing, had characterized the plaintiffs' motion to introduce a
new expert as highly unusual, calling it a "Daubert do-over,"
using language adapted from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

During the hearing, Judge Rufe had fastened on the question of
potential prejudice to Pfizer, saying to Mr. Cheffo, "I want to
really know: How is Pfizer harmed and isn't it just as harmful not
to grant the right to have Dr. Jewell come in?"

In her opinion, Judge Rufe settled her question by acknowledging
that allowing the plaintiffs to introduce a new expert may
slightly prejudice Pfizer, but not enough to justify barring him
at this stage.

"Although there is some prejudice to Pfizer, in that it will be
put to the additional expense required to litigate the
admissibility of Dr. Jewell's proposed testimony, this prejudice
is not of a character sufficient to warrant denial of the motion,"
the judge said.

"Had the PSC presented Dr. Jewell earlier, as Pfizer contends the
PSC should have done, Pfizer would be in the same position with
regard to the question of the admissibility of Dr. Jewell's
testimony," Judge Rufe said.  "Although the PSC and Dr. Jewell
have had the benefit of the court's prior Daubert rulings in the
formulation of the new expert report, that does not create
prejudice to Pfizer.  Either Dr. Jewell's expert report and
testimony will pass muster under Rule 702 or they will not."

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs admissability of
expert testimony.

Beyond that, Judge Rufe said, it is very likely that plaintiffs
would present Jewell as an expert in other cases over Zoloft --
either those currently pending in state courts or in future
actions yet to be filed -- so the company will have to address him
at some point.

"The court weighs heavily the indisputable fact that the evidence
is of critical importance to plaintiffs, as 'the decision to admit
or exclude scientific evidence and testimony . . . strongly
affects the ability of a party to prevail,'" Judge Rufe said,
quoting from the Manual for Complex Litigation.

The judge emphasized that it is not to be considered an acceptable
legal strategy to petition for a second expert after losing in a
Daubert hearing, but, in this case the lawyers for the plaintiffs
had acted in good faith.

"The court in no way suggests seeking to present an additional
expert only after an unfavorable Daubert ruling is an appropriate
litigation strategy," she said.

"However, the court has no reason to conclude that the PSC has
acted in bad faith or that its present predicament is the result
of deliberate strategy instead of a miscalculation as to the
persuasiveness of Dr. Berard's testimony," Judge Rufe said.

Pfizer issued a statement highlighting the fact that Judge Rufe's
decision to allow the plaintiffs to present another expert doesn't
weigh on the merits of the case.

"The ruling is procedural and not a determination on the merits of
the claims, which the plaintiffs still must prove. The decision
only enables the plaintiffs to put forward a new causation expert
as to alleged cardiac injuries that the company will be permitted
to challenge. Pfizer remains confident that there is no reliable
scientific evidence demonstrating that Zoloft causes the injuries
alleged by the plaintiffs," according to the statement, which also
noted that Zoloft is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved
drug for treating depression in pregnant women.

Mr. Fishbein said he had tried to emphasize during the argument in
November that the nature of the case as an MDL, a complex
litigation, changes its complexion and, he said, Judge Rufe
properly considered that.  "This is the right result," he said.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Appeals Court Upholds $4.9-Mil. Jury Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
$4.9 million jury verdict against Phillip Morris for the widow of
a man who died of lung cancer and claimed he started smoking
before warning labels appeared on cigarette packs and in
advertisements was upheld by a federal appeals court on Jan. 7.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
award in favor of Florence Mulholland, who with her husband,
David Mulholland, filed suit in 2005 alleging he would never have
started smoking as a teenager in the 1960s had there been
effective warnings about the dangers of cigarettes.

Mr. Mulholland died in 2006 after giving video testimony that was
seen in 2013 by a jury before Southern District Judge Cathy
Seibel.

Attorneys for Phillip Morris argued that Seibel should have
instructed the jury on but-for causation on Mulholland's claim for
failure to warn.  But Judges Rosemary Pooler, Debra Ann Livingston
and Christopher Droney said the jury, in finding the failure to
warn was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury, "would
necessarily have had to reject the theory that Mr. Mulhollland
would have smoked even if he had received adequate warning."

The circuit also said the jury heard a significant amount of
evidence that Mulholland would have heeded a warning had one been
given.

The court, however, rejected Mr. Mulholland's claim that Seibel
erred when she denied punitive damages on the grounds that
punitives were barred by the Master Settlement Agreement entered
into by New York state with the nation's major tobacco companies.
Jerome Block, partner at Levy Konigsberg argued for the plaintiff
in Mulholland v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. Mayer Brown partner
Scott Chesin -- sachesin@mayerbrown.com -- argued for the defense.


POM WONDERFUL: Falsely Marketed Tea Products, "Alduey" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Alduey and John Does 1-100 on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Pom Wonderful, LLC, and Roll
International Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00206 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
uniform marketing campaign using the product packaging and the
website www.pomwonderfiil.com to mislead consumers about the
antioxidant content of its Pom Tea beverages, specifically on the
label on packaging the describes the Products as an Antioxidant
Super Tea.

Pom Wonderful, LLC promotes, markets, distributes, and sells POM
Wonderful pomegranate products throughout the United States.

Roll International Corporation is an international company focused
on healthy brands for healthy lifestyles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in "Machlan" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato granted in part and denied in part a
motion to dismiss the case captioned DAVID MACHLAN, Plaintiff, v.
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-
01982-JD, (N.D. Cal.).

In this consumer class action, plaintiff David Machlan alleges
that defendants Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") and Nehemiah
Manufacturing Company ("Nehemiah") deceptively marketed several
lines of personal wipes as "flushable" when in fact they were not.
The complaint asserts four claims against defendants: (1)
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California
Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.; (2) false advertising in
violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17500 et seq. ("FAL"); (3) fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation;
and (4) unfair, unlawful and deceptive trade practices in
violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq. ("UCL").  Mr. Maclan asked the Court to grant him
restitution and injunctive relief for his CLRA, FAL and UCL
claims, and compensatory and punitive damages for his common law
fraud claim.

After jointly removing the action, P&G and Nehemiah moved to
dismiss the complaint.

In an amended order entered January 7, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/GaDmUbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Donato
held that the portions of plaintiff's claims under the UCL, FAL
and CLRA that seek injunctive relief are remanded to the
California Superior Court for the City and County of San
Francisco.

For the remainder of plaintiff's action, P&G's motion is granted
with respect to the Charmin Freshmates wipes, but defendants'
motions are denied in all other respects. The dismissal of
plaintiff's claims for the Charmin wipes is with prejudice as to
Mr. Machlan, but without prejudice to renewal by a new named
plaintiff who did purchase the Charmin wipes.

In light of these rulings, the Court vacates the case management
deadlines previously set in this case and sets a case management
conference for January 28, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.  At that time, the
parties should be prepared to discuss with the Court, among other
things, (1) whether this Court should stay this action in favor of
the parallel state court action, especially in light of the fact
that the "primary form of relief available under the UCL" is an
injunction, to which restitution is merely "ancillary," see In re
Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th at 319; (2) whether plaintiff intends to
amend the complaint in this federal action to add a plaintiff who
did purchase the Charmin wipes, among other things; and (3) any
other suggestions for most efficiently resolving plaintiff's
claims on their merits, with the minimum amount of duplication and
possibility of conflict between the state and federal courts.

A copy of the Court's initial order entered January 6, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/QeLnERfrom Leagle.com.

David Machlan, Plaintiff, represented by Seth Adam Safier --
seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Adam Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas
Simplicio -- kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP &
Marie Ann McCrary -- marie@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier
LLP.

Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson
Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall
Lannin -- clannin@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Sonya Diane
Winner, Covington & Burling LLP.

Nehemiah Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by William
Charles Wilka -- bwilka@ddrs.com -- Dudnick Detwiler Rivin &
Stikker LLP & Donald J. Mooney, Jr. -- dmooney@ulmer.com -- Ulmer
and Berne LLP.


PULASKI BANK: Court Denies Partial FLSA Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Greg Kays declined to approve the partial
settlement in the case captioned TODD BRANSON, et al., Plaintiff
v. PULASKI BANK, Defendant, Case No. 4:12-CV-01444-DGK.

The case is an "opt-in" collective action arising out of
Plaintiffs' employment as loan officers with Pulaski Bank.  They
allege that Pulaski violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, by
willfully failing to pay them the minimum wage and overtime
compensation due.  Pulaski denies the allegations.

As part of a settlement reached in an unrelated state court
lawsuit, Plaintiffs Eric Eisenmenger, Derek Mannell, Cherrie
Miller, Barry Priest, Christopher Resch, Curtis Schartz, Nathan
Steele, Nikki Tygard, Kelly Whitwood, Charles Ziegler, and
Jennifer Zillner -- Settling Plaintiffs -- move to dismiss their
FLSA claims in this case.

On September 23, 2013, Pulaski and the Settling Plaintiffs
submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal in this lawsuit seeking
to dismiss the Settling Plaintiffs' FLSA claims with prejudice
without seeking Court approval. The Court interposed this joint
stipulation since the settlement was still due for Court review
and approval.

Upon review, the Court denied the motion as the Settlement (1)
does not demonstrate that a bona fide wage and hour dispute
exists; (2) is not fair and equitable; and (3) does not provide
for a mandatory award of attorney's fees and costs.

A copy of Chief District Judge Kays' Order dated January 12, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/8UTdeRfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeff R. Scurlock, Esq.
     George A. Hanson, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Tel: (816)714-7100
     Email: scurlock@stuevesiegel.com
            hanson@stuevesiegel.com

Defendant Pulaski Bank is represented by:

     John Albert Vering, III, Esq.
     Robert A. Kaiser, Esq.
     Sheena Hamilton, Esq.
     ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
     7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Email: jvering@armstrongteasdale.com
            rkaiser@armstrongteasdale.com
            shamilton@armstrongteasdale.com


QUALITY RESOURCES: Must Correct Flaws in Affirmative Defenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In SARAH TONEY on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. QUALITY RESOURCES, INC., SEMPRIS, LLC, d/b/a BUDGET
SAVERS and PROVELL, INC, f/k/a BUDGET SAVERS, Defendants, CASE NO.
13 C 42, (N.D. Ill.), Quality Resources has filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to the Third Amended Complaint brought
against it and other defendants by Ms. Toney in this putative
class action invoking the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

District Judge Milton I. Shadur on January 6, 2015, issued a
memorandum order sua sponte to address some problematic aspects of
that responsive pleading.  A copy of that Order is available at
http://is.gd/U2juvxfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Shadur wrote, "To begin with, Quality's counsel has
repeatedly (see Answer Paragraphs 8, 9, 11-17, 30, 40, 62-64, 66,
70, 72-75, 78-80, 82-84, 102, 118 and 1191) coupled a Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(b)(5) disclaimer with the assertion 'and therefore denies same.'
That is of course oxymoronic -- how can a litigant state that it
lacks enough information even to form a belief as to the truth of
an allegation, then go on to deny that allegation? That locution
flouts the pleader's Rule 11(b) obligation to act in both
objective and subjective good faith. Hence the quoted language is
stricken from Quality's Answer wherever it appears.  Next,
Quality's counsel acts at odds with the fundamental notice-
pleading purpose that should govern litigants on both sides of the
"v." sign in federal practice -- it does so by engaging in a large
set of purported denials (see Answer Paragraphs 19-22, 24, 51, 52,
55, 59, 60, 63-65, 67, 69, 70 and 80) that are really unresponsive
to the corresponding allegations of the TAC. All of those Answer
paragraphs must be rewritten to admit whatever allegations in
those paragraphs are true, even though an Answer paragraph may
then continue with appropriate (and not obfuscatory) hedges."

Furthermore, Judge Shadur pointed out that:

     1. Each of Affirmative Defense 1, 4 and 6 contains the
telltale language "to the extent" -- a sure tipoff that at this
time Quality has no knowledge of any matter that is the subject of
speculation in those Affirmative Defenses.  Each of those
Affirmative Defenses is stricken, but without prejudice to their
possible reassertion if, as and when the future discovery in the
case may reveal that the situations referred to there are found to
have occurred.

     2. Affirmative Defense 2 needs to be fleshed out to state a
viable defense, particularly in view of the statutory damages
potential created by the Act.  That Affirmative Defense is also
stricken, and if Quality wishes to reassert it, that must be done
in a manner that provides appropriate authority for the position
taken in that Affirmative Defense.

     3. Finally, the purported "Reservation" that follows the
Affirmative Defenses adds nothing to the litigation. It merely
recites an entitlement that will operate in Quality's favor only
if the condition specified there arises in the future. For the
present that paragraph is also stricken.

The Court ordered Quality's counsel to file a self-contained
Amended Answer curing the flaws. All other aspects of the case,
including the next scheduled status hearing date, remain in
effect.

Sarah Toney, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke --
ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC, Anthony Paronich
-- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick Law, P.c. & Matthew
Mccue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net -- Law Office Of Matthew Mccue.

Quality Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent M. Ryan
-- bryan@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC, Jeffrey
Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A.,
Richard W. Epstein -- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, P.A. & Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com --
Tabet DiVito Rothstein.

Stompeez, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Backman, Greenspoon
Marder, P.A., Richard W. Epstein, Greenspoon Marder, P.A. &
Timothy A. Hudson, Tabet DiVito Rothstein.

Infomercials, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard W. Epstein,
Greenspoon Marder, P.A..

Sempris, LLC, Defendant, represented by Craig Christopher Martin
-- cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Brienne M Letourneau
-- bletourneau@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, David Eric
Jimenez-Ekman -- djimenez-ekman@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP &
Matthew R Devine -- mdevine@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP.


RAPID RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Klein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Rapid Recovery Solution, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00084
(E.D.N.Y., January 7, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


REVERE PLASTICS: Sued in Ind. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Logan C. Bazzell-Ferree, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Revere Plastics Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00047 (S.D. Ind., January 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Revere Plastics Systems, LLC engages in the design, development,
manufacture, and supply of custom plastic injection molded parts
primarily to appliance and automotive components industries in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, PC
      3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-mail: rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com


SAE ROACH: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herme Abundio Rodriguez Garcia and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. S.A.E. Roach Busters Bug Killers of
America, Inc., and Juan Lopez, is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pest control company that
regularly transacts business within 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


SAXON MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Stay "Valdez" Case
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder denied a motion to stay the
case captioned SHANE VALDEZ, v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. ET
AL., CASE NO. 2:14-CV-03595-CAS(MANX), (C.D. Cal.).

The motion to stay was filed by Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company with respect to
claims against them. They asserted that a stay should be granted
because Ocwen has reached a settlement in principle in another
class action involving force placed insurance policies -- Lee v.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Assurant, Inc. and American Security
Insurance Co., Case No. 0:14-cv-60649-JAL (Lee) -- which is
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

"Because it appears that plaintiffs' action will proceed in this
Court regardless of whether the Lee settlement is ultimately
approved -- and because the only hardship proffered by moving
defendants is the inconvenience of litigating two potentially
duplicative actions the Court denies defendants' request for a
stay," Judge Snyder wrote in her January 6, 2015 order, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/1OqAeyfrom Leagle.com.

Shane Valdez, Individually and as a Representative of the Class,
Plaintiff, represented by Ronald S Kravitz, Law Offices of Ronald
S. Kravitz, Rosemary F Luzon, Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah
LLP, Valerie L Chang, Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah LLP,
Raymond N Barto, Squitieri and Fearon LLP & Stephen J Fearon, Jr,
Squitieri and Fearon LLP.

Cecilia Valdez, on behalf of herself and as a representative of
the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald S Kravitz --
rkravitz@kravitzesq.com -- Law Offices of Ronald S. Kravitz,
Rosemary F Luzon -- rluzon@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman
Miller and Shah LLP, Valerie L Chang -- vchang@sfmslaw.com --
Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah LLP, Raymond N Barto --
raymond@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri and Fearon LLP & Stephen J
Fearon, Jr -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri and Fearon LLP.

Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Gail
Gearns -- marygail.gearns@bingham.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Matthew Minerva -- matthew.minerva@bingham.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Nicolette Leilani Young --
nicolette.young@bingham.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian V Otero
-- botero@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP, Jason Jonathan
Kim -- kimj@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP, Ryan Becker --
sbecker@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP & Stephen R
Blacklocks -- sblacklocks@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP.

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Dawn B Williams, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Frank G Burt,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Mark A Neubauer, Mark A Neubauer,
Meredith M Moss -- mmoss@cfjblaw.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt, LLP & W Glenn Merten, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the
Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust
2007-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NC3,
Defendant, represented by Brian V Otero, Hunton and Williams LLP,
Jason Jonathan Kim, Hunton and Williams LLP, Ryan Becker, Hunton
and Williams LLP & Stephen R Blacklocks, Hunton and Williams LLP.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Approves $1.6MM Calif. Labor Law Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
California labor law settlement that was previously rejected by a
US District Court Judge in California has been revised and
approved, marking an end to a legal battle for some 3,000 class
members in a California labor lawsuit against Sears.

The plaintiffs claimed that the giant retailer failed to pay
minimum wage and overtime to Sears employees whose jobs entailed
traveling to client homes and undertaking appliance repair, an
affront to the California labor code, or so it was alleged. The
amended settlement, approved by US District Judge Cormac J.
Carney, is worth $1.6 million.

Lead plaintiff Nikola Lovig filed the lawsuit in April 2011.  An
employee of Sears for a period of one year prior to filing his
California labor lawsuit, Lovig was amongst Sears technicians who
traveled to, from and between the homes of customers to undertake
repairs to various Sears appliances and products.  The employees
would use company vans that were tricked out with the various
parts and tools required to affect the repairs, as needed.

In his California and labor law action, filed at US District Court
for the Central District of California, Mr. Lovig accused Sears of
failing to pay minimum wage and overtime, withholding payment for
paid vacation days after employees quit, and failing to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks in violation of the California Labor
Code and California Business & Professions Code.  Mr. Lovig also
held Sears' feet to the fire for its alleged failure to reimburse
employees for expenses. He also accused Sears of issuing
incomplete wage statements.

Judge Carney initially rejected the settlement, indicating that in
his view the release terms were overly broad.  However, less than
a month after rejecting the initial settlement, Judge Carney
granted preliminary approval to an amended settlement, noting that
in his view the settlement was fair.

"Having reviewed the negotiation process and substantive terms of
the settlement agreement, the court finds no obvious deficiencies
or grounds to doubt its fairness," the order noted.  Judge Carney
found that the previous settlement agreement had issues pertaining
to the release of claims beyond the scope of the allegations of
the operative, fourth amended complaint to include claims from
other iterations of the original complaint.

The amended terms of the settlement are said to have satisfied the
judge's concerns.

According to the terms of the settlement, mobile services
technicians working for Sears from April 8, 2007 forward are to
receive about $1.1 million based upon a typical class member's
weeks of employment within the aforementioned window.  Lead
plaintiff Mr. Lovig may receive as much as $10,000 as an incentive
award in the California labor employment law settlement.

The California labor lawsuit is Lovig v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Case
No. 5:11-cv-00756, in the US District Court for the Central
District of California.


SEAWORLD: Two Law Firms Named Co-Lead Counsel in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two law
firms have been named co-lead counsel in a class action lawsuit
against SeaWorld over an attendance drop following the release of
the documentary "Blackfish."

Stockholders filed lawsuits in 2014 against the company that
alleged the company failed to disclose adverse facts about its
business, ultimately resulting in a $9 stock drop when those facts
were finally released.

The law firms named lead counsel by U.S. District Judge Michael
Anello are Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check of Radnor, Pa., and San
Francisco and Nix, Patterson & Roach of Austin and Texarkana,
Texas.  Also in Judge Anello's Dec. 10 order, he named Kirby
Noonan Lance & Hoge of San Diego as liaison counsel.

On Jan. 19, 2013, Gabriela Cowperthwaite's documentary,
"Blackfish," premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, and on
Jan. 22, 2013, CNN Films and Magnolia Pictures acquired the rights
to Blackfish.

"Blackfish follows the 39 year tumultuous history of Tilikum, a
SeaWorld Orca Whale, who has been involved in the death or serious
injury of several SeaWorld trainers," a complaint filed by Lou
Baker in September states.  "Blackfish is comprised of interviews
of former SeaWorld trainers, SeaWorld spectators and other experts
such as Occupational Safety and Health Administration employees
and scientists."

Mr. Baker claims the film revealed for the first time that
SeaWorld had improperly cared for and mistreated its Orca
population causing mental distress to the company's Orca
population affecting trainer and audience safety; continued to
feature an Orca that had killed and injured numerous trainers; and
consequently exposed the company to material and uncertainties
that could adversely impact attendance at its family oriented
parks.

On July 19, 2013, "Blackfish" was released in theaters in New
York, Los Angeles and Toronto.  On Aug. 13, 2013, the company
filed a press release on Form 8-K reporting the financial results
for the first half of 2013 reporting a 9% drop in attendance.

"SEAS falsely claimed that the drop in attendance was a product of
the timing of Easter, when in reality, the bad publicity from the
Blackfish film caused families to stay away from SEAS parks," the
complaint states.

CNN aired "Blackfish" on its network on Oct. 24, 2013. Nearly 21
million people watched "Blackfish" on CNN during that broadcast --
an unusually large audience for CNN programming, according to the
suit.  "Blackfish" was released on DVD in the United States on
Nov. 12, 2013.

Baker claims the dissemination of "Blackfish" sparked a nationwide
debate about whales in captivity and the ethics of SeaWorld.

On March 13, the company "filed a press release on Form 8-K
reporting the financial results for the fourth quarter and full
year of 2013," the complaint states.  "To explain a 4.1% decline
in attendance in 2013 . . . Atchison falsely stated that
'contributing to the decline in full year attendance was
unexpected adverse weather conditions in the company's second
quarter and July as well as the impact of an early Easter in
2013.'"

Mr. Baker claims, in reality, the decline in attendance was the
result of the mounting backlash from the "Blackfish" film.

Two pension funds were appointed as lead plaintiffs after claiming
they suffered approximately $4.3 million in losses.

One of the funds is the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement
System, and the other is Pensionskassen For Boerne -- Og
Ungdomspaedagoger.


SINGING RIVER: Defends Decision to End Employee Pension Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Lee, writing for Sun Herald, reports that Singing River
Health System is in such bad shape financially that ending its
employee pension plan was the best of all the bad options
considered for survival, court documents say.

In its latest U.S. District Court filing, Singing River argues
lawsuits to stop pension termination belong in federal court
rather than state court.  The document also says the health system
and a Biloxi law firm are about to file an agreement in federal
court that will stave off pension termination for 90 days, making
unnecessary state court restraining orders that prohibit the
health system from ending the plan.

Survival is the health system's goal, its court filing says:

"Maintaining SRHS' financial viability is key because Jackson
County relies on SRHS for health care.  The financial position of
SRHS is tenuous; full funding of the plan would only further
challenge SRHS' ability to continue its mission of providing
health care to the residents of Jackson County.

"Due to a series of unexpected and unfortunate events, SRHS no
longer has the means to fund the plan.  After much research and
due diligence, and reviewing every option (all of which were bad),
SRHS determined that the only realistic option that could preserve
SRHS and ensure continued care for the community was to terminate
the plan and distribute its funds to the participants."

Singing River filed the document in a lawsuit brought by retiree
Cynthia Almond.  Ms. Almond originally sued the health system in
state Chancery Court, securing a temporary restraining order that
prevents pension plan termination.  The health system moved the
case to federal court, arguing that federal laws, including tax
codes, apply to the plan.

Almond's restraining order expired after 10 days, but her
attorneys lined up more retirees to file for restraining orders so
one would remain in place.  Singing River moved the fifth Chancery
case, filed by retiree Ralph Drury, to federal court on Jan. 6.

The restraining orders are unnecessary, the health system says,
because it is finalizing an agreement to stop any action on
pension termination for 90 days.  The agreement is being worked
out in another case filed in federal court on behalf of five
current and former employees by the law firms Reeves & Meystayer
in Biloxi and Cunningham Bounds in Mobile.

The lawsuit accuses the health system, its board and executives of
20 counts of corporate and financial fraud, breach of contract and
bad faith.  The lawsuit also asks for class-action status to
represent as a group current and former employees who qualify.

Pension payments would continue under the agreement with Singing
River, Reeves said, but it is still being negotiated.  He said, "I
think we will know in the next two or three days whether we will
get the agreement done."

The Singing River Board of Trustees voted in secret Nov. 20 to
terminate the pension plan.  Earlier in 2014, new CEO Kevin
Holland announced the health system had an $88 million shortfall.
More recently, he has said Singing River is losing more than $30
million a year.  The health system operates county-owned hospitals
in Pascagoula and Ocean Springs, employing 2,400 people.


SONY ELECTRONICS: Class Notice in "Flynn" Case Gets Partial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for approval of class notice proposal in the
case captioned RONALD FLYNN, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SONY ELECTRONICS,
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 09-CV-2109-BAS(MDD), (S.D.
Cal.).

On September 25, 2009, Plaintiffs Ronald Flynn commenced this
putative class action alleging that Defendant Sony Electronics,
Inc. manufactured and sold defective notebook computers under the
VAIO brand name from January 1, 2007 to the present. Plaintiffs
Thad Nation, Christina Egner, and Rickey Glasco were later added
to this lawsuit.

In her ruling entered January 7, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/guYbXtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bashant
held that notice approved by the Court will be provided to the
class by:

     (1) Individualized email containing a summary of the
litigation and a link to the case website;

     (2) Individualized mail containing the short-form notice;

     (3) A case-specific website with the long-form notice;

     (4) Four eighth-page short-form notices once a week for four
consecutive weeks in the Los Angeles Daily News;

     (5) A Short-form notice the California and New Jersey
editions of People; and

     (6) Internet banner ads and Facebook text ads geographically
targeted to California and New Jersey that include the phrase "in
CA & NJ."

The Court also denied Plaintiffs' request for approval of notice
using a case-specific Facebook page.

Thad Nation, Plaintiff, represented by Alreen Haeggquist --
alreenh@zhlaw.com -- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Helen Irene
Zeldes -- helenz@zhlaw.com -- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, John
A. Lowther -- john@doylelowther.com -- Doyle Lowther, LLP &
William James Doyle, II -- bill@doylelowther.com -- Doyle Lowther
LLP.

Christina Egner, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Olsen --
aarono@zhlaw.com -- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Helen Irene
Zeldes, Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, John A. Lowther, Doyle
Lowther, LLP & Amber Lee Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- Zeldes
Haeggquist & Eck, LLP.

Rickey Glasco, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Olsen, Zeldes
Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Helen Irene Zeldes, Zeldes Haeggquist &
Eck, LLP & John A. Lowther, Doyle Lowther, LLP.

Sony Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley A.
Lebow, Cooley, LLP, Leo P Norton -- lnorton@cooley.com -- Cooley
Godward Kronish LLP, Michael A Attanasio -- mattanasio@cooley.com
-- Cooley Godward Kronish & Michelle C Doolin --
mdoolin@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward.


SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING: Accused of Violating FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
George Narvaez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC d/b/a SLS, a Foreign
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:15-cv-00019-SCB-TBM (M.D.
Fla., January 7, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
          3900 First St. N, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: aswift@leavenlaw.com
                  ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  ameyer@leavenlaw.com


STAR VIEW: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Valentin Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Star View
Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a The View Restaurant, Spiro Tzivas,
individually, and George Zaharopolous, individually, Case No.
1:15-cv-00266 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Bridgeview,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STATE FARM: Main Paint Class Suit Included in Auto Body Shop MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Main Paint & Body, Inc. v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-02417, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Orlando).  The Florida District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-06021-GAP-TBS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2557, and Lead
Case No. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS.  Collectively, there are more than
80 insurers named as defendants in the actions.  The Plaintiffs
allege a conspiracy in the automobile insurance industry to
suppress the reimbursement rates for automobile collision repairs,
in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erica L. Eversman, Esq.
          846 N. Cleveland-Massillon Road
          Bath, OH 44333-2181
          Telephone: (330) 668-2595
          Facsimile: (330) 668-2627
          E-mail: eeversman@vehicleinfo.com

               - and -

          Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
          COHEN ROSENTHAL &KRAMER LLP
          The Hoyt Block Building, Suite 400
          700 West St. Clair Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 781-7956
          Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
          E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis A. Becker, Esq.
          BECKER & CADE
          526 Wards Comer Road, Suite A
          Loveland, OH 45140-9134
          Telephone: (513) 683-2252
          Facsimile: (513) 683-2257
          E-mail: dabecker@fuse.net

               - and -

          Peter D. Traska, Esq.
          TRASKA LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 609306
          Cleveland, OH 44109
          Telephone: (216) 282-4738
          Facsimile: (216) 342-7078
          E-mail: ptraska@traskalawfirm.com

Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company are represented by:

          Kevin M. Young, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603-5577
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: kyoung@seyfarth.com


STATE FARM: Main Paint Suit Consolidated in Auto Body Shop MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Main Paint & Body, Inc. v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-02417, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Orlando).  The Florida District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-06021 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2557, and Lead
Case No. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS.  Collectively, there are more than
80 insurers named as defendants in the actions.  The Plaintiffs
allege a conspiracy in the automobile insurance industry to
suppress the reimbursement rates for automobile collision repairs,
in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erica L. Eversman, Esq.
          846 N. Cleveland-Massillon Road
          Bath, OH 44333-2181
          Telephone: (330) 668-2595
          Facsimile: (330) 668-2627
          E-mail: eeversman@vehicleinfo.com

               - and -

          Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
          COHEN ROSENTHAL &KRAMER LLP
          The Hoyt Block Building, Suite 400
          700 West St. Clair Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 781-7956
          Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
          E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis A. Becker, Esq.
          BECKER & CADE
          526 Wards Comer Road, Suite A
          Loveland, OH 45140-9134
          Telephone: (513) 683-2252
          Facsimile: (513) 683-2257
          E-mail: dabecker@fuse.net

               - and -

          Peter D. Traska, Esq.
          TRASKA LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 609306
          Cleveland, OH 44109
          Telephone: (216) 282-4738
          Facsimile: (216) 342-7078
          E-mail: ptraska@traskalawfirm.com

Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company are represented by:

          Kevin M. Young, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603-5577
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: kyoung@seyfarth.com

Defendants Grange Mutual Casualty Company, Grange Property &
Casualty Insurance Company, Trustgard Insurance Co. and Grange
Indemnity Insurance Company are represented by:

          Joseph E. Ezzie, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          65 East State Street, Suite 2100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-4758
          Facsimile: (614) 462-2616
          E-mail: jezzie@bakerlaw.com

Defendants Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, Liberty Mutual
Fire Insurance Company, LM General Insurance Corporation, West
American Insurance Company, LM Insurance Company, Peerless
Indemnity Insurance Company, First Liberty Insurance Corporation,
Mid American Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, American Fire
and Casualty Company, Liberty Insurance Company, Ohio Casualty
Insurance Company, Ohio Security Insurance Company and Safeco
Insurance Company of America are represented by:

          Ernest E. Vargo, Esq.
          Michael E. Mumford, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          3200 National City Center
          1900 E 9th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114-3485
          Telephone: (216) 621-0200
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: evargo@bakerlaw.com
                  mmumford@bakerlaw.com

Defendants American Family Insurance Company, General Automobile
Insurance Company, Inc., American Standard Insurance Company of
Ohio, Permanent General Assurance Corporation of Ohio, Permanent
General Assurance Corporation and American Family Mutual Insurance
Company are represented by:

          Nathan F. Studeny, Esq.
          James L. McCrystal, Jr., Esq.
          BRZYTWA, QUICK & MCCRYSTAL
          900 Skylight Office Tower
          1660 West Second Street
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 664-6900
          Facsimile: (216) 664-6901
          E-mail: studeny@bqmlaw.com
                  mccrystal@bqmlaw.com

Defendant Erie Insurance Company is represented by:

          Jeffery D. Ubersax, Esq.
          Joseph R. Coburn, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          901 Lakeside Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
          Telephone: (216) 586-3939
          Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
          E-mail: jdubersax@jonesday.com
                  jcoburn@jonesday.com


SUN CITY: Class Action Over Defective Stuco to Continue
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarita Chourey, writing for Bluffton Today, reports that while a
faulty-stucco lawsuit involving thousands of homes in Sun City
continues, the developer has asked environmental regulators for
permission to add nearly a dozen new homes to the community.

It is unclear whether the new buildings will follow the same
format as the existing ones, or whether building techniques or
materials will be modified in order to prevent the same structural
complaints from surfacing.

Del Webb Communities, Inc. wants to build 10 single-family homes
northeast of the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and Sergeant
William Jasper Boulevard, according to documents filed for Coastal
Zone Consistency certification with the state agency.

An application for a construction/wastewater permit says it's part
of a phased project and represents a revision to one that was
approved in 2006.

About four years ago, the S.C. Supreme Court said a lawsuit filed
by Anthony and Barbara Grazia in 2007 could be a class action.
That opened the door for thousands of other Sun City property
owners to seek recourse for defective stucco.

In court records, the Grazias alleged that "the stucco exteriors
had common and typical problems inherent to their design and
installation that would require identical remediation across the
class, namely, stripping the homes of the existing stucco and
recladding with a properly installed stucco system."

In the fall of 2013, the parties took to the appeals court to spar
over the outreach activities by the Sun City homeowners' legal
team to the residents.

South Carolina State Plastering was fighting a circuit court
denial of an injunction that was intended to curtail communication
from the Sun City attorneys to the homeowners who make up the
class.

On Jan. 6, Michael Seekings, an attorney for the residents,
indicated the suit was continuing.  He said class-action notices
have been sent to 4,173 homes, and 200-300 additional notices
should be going out in the next few months.  The notices inform
people they are part of the class action unless they opt out and
also outline the process to come.


SYNGENTA CORP: "Hamilton" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Hamilton v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00345, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02061-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:

          Charles Frederic Speer, Esq.
          SPEER LAW FIRM, PA
          104 W. 9th Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 472-3560
          Facsimile: (816) 421-2150
          E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
          James A. O'Brien, III, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER, WEISS LAW FIRM
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
                  jobrien@seegerweiss.com
                  sweiss@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Lundberg, Esq.
          LUNDBERG LAW PLC
          600 Fourth Street, Suite 906
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Telephone: (712) 234-3030
          Facsimile: (712) 234-3034
          E-mail: paul@lundberglawfirm.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Houser" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Houser, et al. v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04163, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02035-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:

          William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          HOPKINS LAW FIRM
          12019 Ocean Highway
          PO Box 1885
          Pawleys Island, SC 29585
          Telephone: (843) 314-4202
          E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com

               - and -

          Roman A. Shaul, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Roman.Shaul@BeasleyAllen.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Henry L. Parr, Jr., Esq.
          Wallace K. Lightsey, Esq.
          WYCHE LAW OFFICE
          44 E Camperdown Way
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 242-8209
          Facsimile: (864) 235-8900
          E-mail: hparr@wyche.com
                  wlightsey@wyche.com


TAKATA CORP: Squire Pattons to Lobby on Air Bag Safety Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that Squire
Patton Boggs has signed up to lobby for Takata Corp. after the
embattled Japanese air bag manufacturer enlisted one of the firm's
partners, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater,
as a special counsel.

The firm identified Mr. Slater, partner Jeffrey Turner and
principal Norma Krayem as lobbyists for Takata in a filing with
Congress on Jan. 8.  Ms. Krayem was deputy chief of staff to
Slater, who served under President Bill Clinton.  Mr. Turner is
the managing partner of the public policy practice at Squire
Patton Boggs.

Shigehisa Takada, Takata's chief executive officer, announced in
December that Slater and another former U.S. transportation
secretary, Norman Mineta, would serve as special counsel.  The CEO
said he tasked them with helping ensure Takata's responses to a
deadly safety defect are "decisive and appropriate as we work to
regain the public's trust."

The lobbying registration report from Squire Patton Boggs says its
lobbyists will advocate on "issues related to air bag safety," but
the filing does not elaborate.  None of the lobbyists were
available immediately to comment.

In November and December, members of Congress grilled Hiroshi
Shimizu, Takata's senior vice president for global quality
assurance, in hearings about the defect, which has been connected
to at least five deaths and led to millions of U.S. car and truck
recalls.  The problem also has brought more than 30 lawsuits,
mostly class actions on behalf of consumers.

Mr. Slater, Mr. Turner and Ms. Krayem aren't the only lobbyists
registered to lobby for Takata in Washington, according to
congressional records.  The company also uses the Washington
Alliance Group to advocate for its Takata Protection Systems Inc.
subsidiary.


TECK METALS: Industrial Pollution Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Becky Kramer, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that six
Washington residents who blame their chronic health problems on a
Canadian smelter's industrial pollution can continue their lawsuit
against the smelter's owner, a federal judge ruled this week.

The plaintiffs are current or former residents of Northport,
Washington, which is about 15 miles downwind and downriver of Teck
Metals Ltd.'s smelter in Trail, British Columbia.  The smelter
dumped millions of tons of waste containing heavy metals into the
Columbia River over nearly 100 years, and blew more pollutants out
of its smokestacks.

In the 2013 lawsuit, the residents said their illnesses -- stomach
cancer, breast cancer and inflammatory bowel diseases -- are
linked to high exposures of heavy metals released by the smelter,
including cadmium, lead and mercury.

A Harvard Medical School researcher reported a cluster of 17 cases
of inflammatory bowel disease in a health survey of 119 current
and former Northport residents.

"That's about 10 to 15 times what we'd expect to see in a
population the size of Northport," Dr. Josh Korzenik, director of
the Crohn's and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women's Hospital in
Boston, told The Spokesman-Review in 2012.

Teck Metals sought to have the potential class-action lawsuit
dismissed. In court documents, Teck attorneys argued that the six
plaintiffs couldn't show a direct link between their health
problems and the smelter's pollution.  The plaintiff's illnesses
were diagnosed 20 to 30 years ago, which is beyond the statute of
limitations for bringing a suit, the attorneys said.

But in a Jan. 5 ruling, Senior U.S. District Judge Lonny Suko said
the suit can continue, which will allow the plaintiffs to request
company documents in an effort to support their claims. They must
prove to the court that the case meets the requirements for class-
action litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
a Seattle law firm specializing in class-action suits, which
previously challenged Idaho grass growers over field burning.

Barbara Anderson, of Northport, was the original plaintiff in the
Teck lawsuit.  The case was later amended to include five others:
Michael Buffan, Spokane Valley; Gail Leaden, Spokane; Travis
Magers, Deer Park; and Rhett Weilep and Leigh Williams, both of
Kettle Falls.


TRANSCANADA CORP: Landowners Sue Over Oil Pipeline in Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Schulte, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in Nebraska reignited a
legal fight on Jan. 16 that could delay the entire 1,179-mile
project, filing two new lawsuits over its proposed route.

The lawsuits came from seven landowners in Holt and York counties
who have received written warning that pipeline developer
TransCanada plans to file eminent domain papers before Jan. 22 to
gain access to their land.

The landowners' attorney, Dave Domina, said that gives the
plaintiffs clear legal standing to challenge the project.  That
issue is key because the Nebraska Supreme Court tossed an earlier,
similar lawsuit, with three judges saying the plaintiffs in the
case didn't have such standing.

The lawsuits seek a court order to strike down a 2012 Nebraska law
that allowed the project to move forward, and to prevent
TransCanada from using eminent domain.  Mr. Domina said the new
lawsuit will likely take less time to resolve than the original
claim, which wound its way through the courts in 16 months.

A spokesman for Calgary-based TransCanada has said the company
expected additional legal challenges.  Spokesman Shawn Howard said
the company will continue to discuss deals with landowners who are
negotiating in good faith.  When warning letters were sent in
December, the company said it had voluntary agreements from 84
percent of landowners along the route.

Jane Kleeb, the leader of the pipeline opposition group Bold
Nebraska, said the lawsuits will allow landowners to bring the
case back to the Nebraska Supreme Court.  Mr. Kleeb called on
President Barrack Obama to reject TransCanada's application for a
presidential permit, and said landowners will continue to fight
regardless.

"It is only the president that can provide peace of mind to
farmers and ranchers along the route," Mr. Kleeb said.

When the Nebraska court threw out the original lawsuit last week,
four of its judges sided with the landowners.  Three declined to
say whether the lawsuit was unconstitutional, arguing that the
landowners lacked legal standing.  The landowners needed a five-
judge supermajority for their lawsuit to succeed because they were
seeking to have a 2012 pipeline-sitting law declared
unconstitutional, which would have invalidated the route through
Nebraska.

The Nebraska law allowed former Gov. Dave Heineman to approve the
project's route.  Gov. Heineman, a Republican, supported the
project. Opponents say the decision should have been made by a
small state commission that regulates grain bins and taxi cabs.

The $8 billion pipeline would carry oil from Canada through
Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect with
existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil
a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Environmentalists and other opponents argue that any leaks could
contaminate water supplies and that the project would increase air
pollution around refineries and harm wildlife.  Supporters,
including many Republicans and oil industry members, say that
those fears are exaggerated, that the pipeline would create jobs
and that it would ease American dependence on oil from the Middle
East.


TRI-STATE PETROLEUM: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tri-State Petroleum Corporation and Convenience Realty
LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-00042 (W.D. Pa., January 12, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants' facilities are not fully accessible to, and
independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs.

The Defendants own and operate convenience stores and wholesale
distributors of motor fuels in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
              bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
              sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
              www.carlsonlynch.com


UTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against a
snack manufacturer on Dec. 30 alleged the company genetically
modified its products but still advertised them as "all natural."

Matt DiFrancesco and Angela Mizzoni filed the lawsuit against UTZ
Quality Foods, Inc., alleging more than 40 products made by Utz
are advertised as "all natural" when they are not.

The products include tortilla chips, pretzels, pita squares,
popcorn and potato chips.  The lawsuit alleges the products
contain genetically modified ingredients, including cottonseed
oil, corn oil, vinegar, corn starch and corn syrup.

The lawsuit stated that GM crops are manmade, not natural.  It
also stressed the controversies related to GM crops, including
health risks and negative environmental effects.

The plaintiffs also alleged the ingredients used are "heavily
processed" by the company.

Despite genetically modifying the products, Utz advertised the
food as "all natural" in an attempt to win over consumers. As a
result of the "all natural" labeling, Utz was able to charge more
for its products, the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are seeking an excess of $5 million.

Mr. DiFrancesco and Ms. Mizzoni are represented by Erica C.
Mirabella of Mirabella Law; Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC;
and Nick Suciu III of Barabat, Mansour & Suciu, PLLC.

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case number
1:14-cv-14744.


VALEANT PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Insider Trading
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit was filed
against Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Pershing Square Capital
Management on Dec. 16 alleging insider trading for stock in
Allergan, Inc.

The suit, filed by Anthony Basile, lists events beginning in
February that allegedly led to Valeant's tender offer for Allergan
in June.  The events include allegations that Valeant formed a
shell entity, called PS Fund, with Pershing Square to purchase a
significant stake in Allergan.

The suit also alleged that Valeant provided insider information to
Pershing Square regarding Valeant's planned tender offer for
Allergan. This allowed Pershing Square to use the shell entity to
acquire Allergan stock.

The reported profit from Pershing Square's investment in Allergan
by November was $2.5 billion.  The plaintiff demands a jury trial
and seeks damages with interest awarded under the Securities
Exchange Act.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California-
Southern Division case no. 8:14-cv-02004


WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Roque Hernandez and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart
Stores East, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, and Wal-Mart.com USA,
LLC., Case No. 2:15-cv-00201 (D.N.J., January 12, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants purposefully misrepresented and continue to
misrepresent to consumers that the Arm & Hammer Fresh-N-Natural
Baking Soda, 1 lb. is a bundled package of three when buyers only
receive one of the Product.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores throughout the United
States, totaling over 4,000 locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
      271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 576-1857
      Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
      E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


WICHCRAFT OPERATING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Rivera and Lourdes Rivera, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Wichcraft Operating LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00207 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WINDOW MART: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Batista" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Danildo Gerez Batista and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Window Mart, Inc., Liliana Morales, and Luis
A. Morales, Case No. 1:15-cv-20094 (S.D. Fla., January 12, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a company that manufacturers of
vinyl windows and doors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell
      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


X-CHEM LLC: Faces "Rollison" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rollison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. X-Chem, LLC, Terra Services, LLC d/b/a NCH
Terra Services, LLC, and NCH Ecoservices, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00043 (W.D. Pa., January 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess
of 40 hours a week.

The Defendants provide solutions for the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


YUCA RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Hernandez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Yuca
Restaurant Company and Janet Suarez, Case No. 1:15-cv-20096 (S.D.
Fla., January 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES Ltd.
      224 S Michigan, Suite 300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 763-6880
      E-mail: amartin@caffarelli.com
              acaffarelli@caffarelli.com


* China Environmental Groups Can Sue Polluters Via Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Li Jing, writing South China Morning Post, reports that about 700
domestic environmental groups are now eligible to sue polluters
through class-action lawsuits, after the Supreme People's Court
issued a new judicial interpretation on dealing with such cases on
Jan. 6 -- less than a week after the country's revised
environmental law took effect.

The interpretation, effective from today, is aimed at clearing
legal obstacles -- such as high litigation costs and difficulties
in producing evidence -- for green groups to take on polluters, as
well as overcoming local protectionism that has provided shelter
for polluting factories, legal experts said.

Zheng Xuelin, head of the environmental tribunal under the Supreme
Court, told a press conference in Beijing that he expected the
number of environmental class-action lawsuits to increase,
following years of struggle by mainland environmental activists
trying to sue polluters.

The interpretation says such class-action lawsuits will be dealt
with by intermediate people's courts, rather than local courts, as
these courts may not have the capacity to handle such cases and
may have a tendency to protect local enterprises, said the Supreme
People's Court spokesman Sun Jungong.

Plaintiffs are now allowed to apply for a delay or exemption of
litigation payment to courts, while defendants will cover other
litigation costs and other expenses such as fees for lawyers and
testing of evidence.

Experts say the interpretation will help to involve more legal
professionals in the fight against pollution.

The judicial interpretation also shifts the "burden of proof" in
environmental class-action lawsuits to the defendants, who will
now have to prove they did not cause environmental damage or
health hazards, Mr. Zheng said.

The interpretation also includes a provision that allows courts to
order defendants to stop polluting, a concept new to the mainland
legal system, noted Wang Canfa, an environmental law professor at
China University of Political Science and Law.  "This is similar
to issuing an injunction in Western countries, which is new to
China," said Professor Wang.

Previously, local governments could issue administrative orders
asking factories to stop polluting, but these did not have the
same legal force, he explained.

Organizations dedicated to environmental protection that have been
registered with city-level governments and have been in operation
for at least five years without any record of law-breaking are
eligible to sue.  They are also allowed to sue polluters outside
their registered city, according to the judicial interpretation.


* Hospitality Sector to Face Increased Wage Law Enforcement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fisher & Phillips LLP's Shayna Balch, in an article for Phoenix
Business Journal, reports that the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the hospitality sector added 321,000 additional jobs
in 2014.  With all those new employees, as well as the continued
addition of jobs we expect to see in coming year, here are our top
predictions for labor law issues that will play a vital role in
the hospitality industry in 2015.

     1. Increased wage and hour law enforcement for tipped
employees

As state and federal budget cuts tend to wane, the Department of
Labor (DOL) is expected to step up enforcement against hospitality
employers in the coming year.  Because the DOL considers the
hospitality industry as a "fissured" industry, owners,
franchisors, franchisees and management companies should be
prepared to deal with inquiries, particularly in the areas of
tipped employees and the misclassification of employees.  In order
to keep litigation at bay, employers should use the New Year to
make sure that all of their employees are classified correctly by
using the guidelines offered on the DOL's website -- www.dol.gov.
For tipped workers, employers must ensure that employees are being
paid at least the state minimum wage during non-tipping times, as
well as the hours they are receiving tips.

     2. Scrutiny of background checks

While background checks are a useful tool that employers can
utilize to vet a potential employee, improper use of them can lead
to a host of problems with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC).  The EEOC advises employers to institute
screening processes that permit an individualized assessment of
applicants and discourages blanket exclusions from employment
opportunities.  If you plan on using background checks to screen
employees, make sure your practices comply with the EEOC's
guidance, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

     3. Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations

All employers, not just those in the hospitality sector, need to
be concerned with increased enforcement and litigation over ADA
accommodation issues.  The EEOC has been actively pursuing hotels
and restaurants, especially those with national presence on a
class action basis, for failure to accommodate claims.
Specifically, the EEOC has been hyper-focused on businesses who
are imposing inflexible leave policies for their employees.  Under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are required to
provide reasonable accommodation to qualifying employees with a
disability.  In some cases, additional leave may be appropriate as
an accommodation, even when the employee has exhausted all the
leave to which they are entitled under the FMLA and/or the
employer's separate leave policies.  Should you have an employee
who requires extended leave, it is important to remember the ADA
requires that you engage in the interactive process with the
employee to determine whether and what accommodations are
reasonable and appropriate.

     4. Class-action waivers in arbitration agreements

Over the last few years, a series of case issues approved the
inclusion of class-action waivers in arbitration agreements.
Arbitration agreements can provide valuable benefits for employers
defending class-based claims.  A prime example is in the case
against D.R. Horton, Inc., where the NLRB maintained that such
class-action waivers with regard to employment related disputes
violate the National Labor Relations Act.  However, the NLRB's
position has been rejected by nearly every court and due to the
Supreme Court's recent decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, the
NLRB's position is even less likely to survive challenge.  The
bottom line is that there are pros and cons to going through an
arbitration process.


* Seyfarth Shaw Expects Increased Wage-and-Hour Filings in 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that wage-
and-hour litigation continues to present the prime litigation risk
in the workplace, and more of the same can be expected this year,
says a law firm report issued on Jan. 6.

"The 'crest' of the wage-and-hour litigation is not yet in sight,"
says Chicago-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in its 11th
annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report.  "Employers can
expect more of the same in terms of increased filings in 2015."

According to the report, 8,068 lawsuits were filed in federal
court under the Fair Labor Standards Act in 2014, a 23.3% increase
from 2013's 7,882, according to the report.

FLSA collective action litigation "far outpaced other types of
employment-related class action filings," says the report.
"Virtually all FLSA lawsuits are filed as collective actions, so
these filings represent the most significant exposure to employers
in terms of any workplace laws."

Wage-and-hour claims were the most predominant type of workplace
class action pursued against employers in 2013 as well.

Among other trends discussed in the report, the U.S. Supreme
Court's opinions in the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Comcast Corp.
cases "have had profound influence in shaping settlement
strategies," with employers "settling fewer employment
discrimination class actions than at any time over the past
decade, and at a fraction of the levels as in 2006 to 2013."

Experts have said that the high court's 2013 ruling in Comcast
Corp. et al. v. Caroline Behrend et al. and its 2011 ruling in
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Betty Dukes et al. means plaintiffs must
provide more proof of damages before they can win class
certification.

Among other trends discussed in the report, the U.S. Department of
Labor and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "have
continued their aggressive litigation approaches, albeit with
mixed success," says the report.


                             *********

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  * * *