CAR_Public/150126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 18


                             Headlines

ACB RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
ADAMS FLAVORS: Recalls Cumin Products Due to Undeclared Peanuts
ANNING-JOHNSON CO: Removes "Orozco" Suit to C.D. California
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

BADDON SERVICE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Carag" Class Suit to E.D. California
BARNES & NOBLE: Removes 2nd "Carag" Suit to Calif. District Court
BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Lina" Suit to California District Court
BLEATING HEART: Expands Recall of Multiple Milk Cheese Products

CHICAGO, IL: Sued for Overcharging Drivers Caught Using Phones
CIGNA LIFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Disability Benefits Under ERISA
COSTA DEL SOL: Faces "Cohan" Suit Alleging ADA Discrimination
CR BARD: Judge Rejects Attempt to Halt Mesh Bellwether Trial
CR BRANDS: Recalls Mean Green Cleaner and Degreaser Products

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Seeks Arbitration in No-Poach Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: 9th Circuit Frowns at "Incidental Use" Defense
FULL TILT: Recalls Dairy Ice Cream Over Listeria Risk
GENERAL MOTORS: "Frank" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Precht" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL

GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
I LOVE NINO'S: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
IKEA: Recalls Crib Mattresses Due to Risk of Entrapment
INVENSENSE INC: Faces Securities Suits Over Apple Sweetheart Deal
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Xarelto-Related Injury

JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Recalls Fisher 8 oz. Walnuts & Pecan Cookies
JOHNSON HEALTH: Recalls Matrix Fitness Strength Training Machines
JUMP YOUR BONES: Recalls Roo Bites Pet Treats Due to Salmonella
LA-Z-BOY: Recalls Control Wands With Silver Luxury Lift Chairs
MARICOPA, AZ: Court Bars Workplace Raid by Sheriff Arpaio

MARTIN MARIETTA: Judge Rejects "Disclosure-Only" Settlement
MEMPHIS, TN: Ex-City Atty. Can't Try Mishandled Rape Kits Suit
MONTREAL MAINE: Settlement May Grow as Much as $500 Million
MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
NEW PACIFIC: Recalls Dining Chairs Due to Fall Hazard

NEW YORK, NY: Supreme Court Won't Hear High Line Park Suit Appeal
NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Judge Recommends Atty Fees in "Osborne" Suit
OREGON, USA: Rigged Poker Games Cost Players $134-Mil., Suit Says
PINK'S ICE: Recalls 2014 Ice Cream Due to Listeria Risk
PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls SKLZ Resistance Trainers

PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PRO PERFORMANCE: Recalls SKLZ Resistance Trainers
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Remands Hygiene Wipes Suit to State Court
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

RUSSELL GOLDMAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SOBERLINK INC: Accused of Misrepresenting Alcohol Testing Devices
SONY PICTURES: Files Motion to Consolidate Data Breach Suits
STAR RIDE: Recalls Children's Pajama Sets
STATE FARM: Majority of Wojcieszak Documents Protected

SYNGENTA CORP: "Brockman" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Brooks" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: Clark Hill Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "D&C" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Moore" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL

SYNGENTA CORP: "Nixon" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Falwell" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Poinsett Suit in Arkansas Over MIR162 Corn
SYNGENTA CORP: "Quarles" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: Triple Farms Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL

TD BANK: Faces "Koshgarian" Suit in NY Over Overdraft Fees
TD BANK: Faces "Klein" Suit in NJ Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
TEN BC: Recalls 10 oz. Tommy's Santa Fe Rice Due to Peanuts
TIBOR SZABO: Court Dismissed Class Suit Over Sale of Pianos
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Bombarding People With Spam Texts

UNISYS TECHNICAL: "Renazco" Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls 100ml, 6g Vial Virazole(R)
VALLEY SMOKERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
WALGREEN CO: Accused of Hiding Billion Dollar Profit Shortfall
WELLPOINT INC: "Ray" Suit Transferred From Indiana to Alabama

WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Bleating Heart Cheese Products
WYNDHAM VACATION: Execs Retaliated v. Worker & Class Plaintiff
ZILKS FOODS: Recalls 8oz. Hummus Products Due to Peanuts


                            *********


ACB RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deena Lefkovits, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
consumers v. ACB Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00175 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fortuna Manopla, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ACB Receivables Management, INC. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00253-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., January 13, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADAMS FLAVORS: Recalls Cumin Products Due to Undeclared Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Flavors, Foods & Ingredients of Gonzales, Texas is
voluntarily recalling cumin products because they may contain
undeclared peanut proteins.

"We were notified by one of our third party suppliers that one of
the spice ingredients purchased contains peanut proteins,
allergens that are not declared on the products' ingredient
statements. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products," the Company said.

This recall affects the following products:

  Consumer UPC #  Size     Description         Best Buy Date
  --------------  ----     -----------         -------------
1111085763        8 oz     Private Selection   8/22/15 -
                 (226g)    Sweet Chipotle      12/23/15
                           Panko Bread Crumbs

1111078622       8 oz      Private Selection   9/23/15 -
                 (226g)    Chipotle Lime       12/23/15
                           Tortilla Panko
                           Breader

The recalled products were distributed nationwide in retail
stores.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall was initiated after it was discovered that ingredients
from a single supplier used in the affected products were
contaminated with peanut allergens.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 512-359-3059 from 9 am
to 4 pm CST Monday-Friday, or visit www.AdamsExtract.com for
additional information.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428668.htm


ANNING-JOHNSON CO: Removes "Orozco" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Enrique Orozco v. Anning-
Johnson Company, et al., Case No. BC 561957, was transferred 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-00262-DSF-JC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims for employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Theresa C. Tate, Esq.
          CRAWFORD AND BANGS LLP
          1290 East Center Court Drive
          Covina, CA 91724
          Telephone: (626) 915-1641
          Facsimile: (626) 332-5604
          E-mail: ttate@builderslaw.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe R. Hackner, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
consumers v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00204
(E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BADDON SERVICE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Lopez Saenz and Juan Gonzalez v. Baddon Service Station Inc.
d/b/a CITGO, Gurbinder Singh, and Rajinder Singh, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00233-ALC (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2015) alleges that, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid
overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d) prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and (e) attorneys' fees and costs.

CITGO is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal
place of business located in Bronx, New York.  The Individual
Defendants are the owners, shareholders, directors, supervisors,
proprietors or managing agents of CITGO.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Carag" Class Suit to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Carag v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
et al., Case No. 34-2013-00155179, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Sacramento).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
00115-KJM-CKD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class she seeks to
represent are current or former California-based hourly or non-
exempt employees of the Defendant.  The complaint alleges nine
causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid meal period
premiums; (3) unpaid rest period premiums; (4) unpaid minimum
wage; (5) final wages not timely paid; (6) wages not timely paid
during employment; (7) non-compliant wage statements; (8) failure
to keep requisite payroll records; and (9) violation of the
California Business & Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather M. Sager, Esq.
          Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2464
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 749-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 749-9502
          E-mail: hsager@vedderprice.com
                  akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Removes 2nd "Carag" Suit to Calif. District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cassandra Carag; individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., a Delaware corporation, et al.,
Case No. 34-2013-00155179, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Sacramento).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-at-
00062 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather M. Sager, Esq.
          Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2464
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 749-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 749-9502
          E-mail: hsager@vedderprice.com
                  akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Lina" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., et
al., Case No. BC466987, 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-
00281 to the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          Viola Trebicka, Esq.
          John Baumann, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
                  violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
                  jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com


BLEATING HEART: Expands Recall of Multiple Milk Cheese Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bleating Heart Cheese (BHC) is expanding its voluntary recall
notice of December 17, 2014 to cover all of its sheep milk, goat
milk, water buffalo milk and cows milk cheese produced between
February 14, 2014 (coded as 14-0214) and September 19, 2014 (coded
as 14-0919) due to an abundance of caution concerning the
possibility of Listeria monocytogenes being present in some
cheese. The codes on the bottom label of all Bleating Heart cheese
represent "Year-Month & Day of the Month" when the cheese was
produced. At this time, no illnesses have been reported. Consumers
that still have the recalled Bleating Heart cheese in their
refrigerators should discard it in a manner so it is not consumed.

  * Buff Ewe Blue and Buff Blue - natural rind, blue-style
    cheese, aged 3 - 4 months
  * Double Down Blue - natural rind, blue-style cheese, aged
    3 - 4 months with a double heart imprint on the rind
  * Ewelicious Blue - natural rind, blue-style cheese, aged 2 - 3
    months
  * Fat Bottom Girl - natural rind, aged 2 - 3 months
  * Funky Beats - washed rind, aged 2-3 months. Note: this cheese
    has been sold out for some time and is not likely to be in
    the market place
  * Goldette Tommette - natural rind, aged 2 - 3 months
  * Mixtress - natural rind, aged 2 - 3 months
  * Moolicious Blue - natural rind blue-style cheese, aged
    3 - 4 months
  * Shepherdista - natural rind, aged 2 - 3 months

Listeria monocytogenes is a bacteria which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, pregnant women and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages,
stillbirths and fetal infection among pregnant women. Consumers
should contact their physician if they exhibit any of the listed
symptoms.

The cheeses listed were sold to distributors servicing the
California as well as Pennsylvania areas who in-turn sold to
retail food shops, restaurants and stores. Anyone that has
distributed the cheese identified above needs to immediately
notify their customers of the voluntary recall and encourage them
to destroy any identified cheese based on instructions from
Bleating Heart Cheese. Any of the above cheese still in a
distributor's inventory needs to be isolated/quarantined and
prepared for return to Bleating Heart Cheese, which will provide a
full refund upon receipt of the cheese and verification of its
identity.

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the US Food
and Drug Administration. If you have any questions or seek
additional information, please call 858-472-1754 during our normal
hours of operations (Monday-Friday 9:00am-4:00pm PST) or email us
at dave@bleatingheart.com.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428500.htm


CHICAGO, IL: Sued for Overcharging Drivers Caught Using Phones
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that overcharging drivers caught
using their cellphones while driving constitutes an excessive fine
under the Eighth Amendment, alleges a federal class action against
the city of Chicago.


CIGNA LIFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Disability Benefits Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Glantz, an individual v. CIGNA Life Insurance Company; Life
Insurance Company of North America; Omnicom Benefits Inc.; Omnicom
Benefits Inc. Insurance Plan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00211 (N.D. Cal.,
January 14, 2015) asserts claims for relief pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Mr. Glantz is a resident of California.  He was an employee of
Access Communications and a participant in and beneficiary of
Defendant Omnicom Benefits Inc.'s Insurance Plan.  He seeks relief
against the Defendants on behalf of the Plan and all similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, for the
betterment of the Plan.

While the Plan was in full force and effect, the Plaintiff says he
became entitled to receive disability benefits under the Plan.
After receiving those disability benefits for one year, the
Plaintiff alleges that his benefits were improperly terminated as
of March 1, 2014.

The Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan.  Omnicom Benefits
Inc. is the Plan Administrator, Plan Sponsor and Policyholder of
the LINA Group Policy No. LK-980036.

CIGNA Life Insurance Company and Life Insurance Company of North
America are the de facto Plan Administrators, the Claims
Administrators and the fiduciaries responsible for making benefits
determinations under the Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca Grey, Esq.
          Lauren Curtis, Esq.
          THE GREY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Russ Building
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1101
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 262-9926
          Facsimile: (415) 262-9981
          E-mail: grey@greylaw-sf.com
                  lauren@greylaw-sf.com


COSTA DEL SOL: Faces "Cohan" Suit Alleging ADA Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Cohan v. Costa De Sol Resort Condominium Association, Inc.
d/b/a Costa Del Sol, Case No. 0:15-cv-60065-KAM (S.D. Fla.,
January 13, 2015) alleges that the Defendant has discriminated and
continues to discriminate against the Plaintiff and others who are
similarly situated, by denying access to, and full and equal
enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages
and accommodations located at the Defendant's property located in
Lauderdale, Florida.

Mr. Cohan is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and
suffered from a "qualified disability" under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  He has numerous disabilities, including spinal
stenosis, which causes a restriction to his spinal canal,
resulting in a neurological deficit.

Costa De Sol Resort Condominium Association, Inc., doing business
as Costa Del Sol, is authorized to conduct and is conducting
business within the state of Florida.  The Company is the lessee,
operator, owner and lessor of the Subject Facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Cohen, Esq.
          MARK D. COHEN, P.A.
          Presidential Circle
          4000 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 435 South
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962-1166
          Facsimile: (954) 962-1779
          E-mail: mdcohenpa@yahoo.com


CR BARD: Judge Rejects Attempt to Halt Mesh Bellwether Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has rejected an attempt by C.R. Bard Inc. to
halt a bellwether trial due to comments he made in court that were
published in an online news article.

Bard is one of seven manufacturers sued over pelvic mesh devices,
which are implanted in women to treat pelvic organ prolapse and
urinary incontinence.  Bard, which faces 10,000 lawsuits, is set
to go to trial on Feb. 18 against an Ohio woman who claims she
suffered pain and urinary problems after having its Avaulta device
implanted in 2007.

Bard moved to continue the trial and suspend all future trials
based on statements made by U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin on
Dec. 9 that the company faced potentially "billions of dollars" in
liability and should consider settling its cases.  Those
statements, Bard said in a Dec. 24 motion, were "distorted" by a
Bloomberg.com news story and financial analysts.

Judge Goodwin denied the motion on Jan. 9.

The company's attorney, Lori Cohen, chairwoman of Greenberg
Traurig's pharmaceutical, medical-device and health care
litigation practice and of the trial practice in the firm's
Atlanta office, declined to comment.  Lead plaintiffs attorney
Joseph Rice, co-founder of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C.,
called Judge Goodwin's decision a "fairly straightforward ruling."
"It requires a factual finding, and they don't give him factual
support," he said.

Bard, in a motion filed on Jan. 9 by Eric Alexander, a partner in
Reed Smith's Washington office, immediately moved for summary
judgment, claiming the plaintiff, Debra Wise, had a "longstanding
history of pelvic issues" before having the device implanted in
West Virginia.  Bard also claimed her surgeon was aware of the
device's risks and that claims for negligence, manufacturing
defect, failure to warn and punitive damages fail under both Ohio
and West Virginia laws.

Mr. Rice called those arguments "general questions of fact for the
jury, and based on what I've seen in the preparation for the case,
there's disputes by the experts going both ways."

Judge Goodwin is in the process of remanding large groups of cases
in coming months for trial.  On Jan. 9, Bard filed a separate
motion to toss out claims for punitive damages in those cases,
saying that its actions "lack the malice, intent to harm, and
outrageous behavior required for exemplary damages."


CR BRANDS: Recalls Mean Green Cleaner and Degreaser Products
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
CR Brands, Inc., West Chester, OH, announced a voluntary recall of
about 83,800 Mean Green Super Strength Cleaner & Degreaser and
Mean Green Industrial Strength Cleaner & Degreaser.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The products are labeled "Does not contain Ammonia."  The products
may contain ammonia.  The mislabeling of the bottles can pose a
chemical hazard to consumers.  If ammonia is mixed with bleach or
other household chemicals, irritating or toxic gases could be
produced.

The recalled cleaning products came in white plastic spray bottles
and white or green plastic containers.  The words "Mean Green
Super Strength Cleaner & Degreaser" or "Mean Green Industrial
Strength Cleaner & Degreaser" are on a label on the front and the
UPC number is on the back.  The recall involves products with date
codes 4225, 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229 and 4230.  The date code is
printed on the back of the bottle near the QR code.  The recalled
units include:

          Size                                UPC
          ----                                ---
Mean Green Super Strength Spray 20oz      720547001208
Mean Green Super Strength Spray 40oz      720547001406
Mean Green Super Strength 128oz           720547001017
Mean Green Industrial Strength 128oz      720547001024

There were no incidents that were reported.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/LpIM7Q

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Fred's, Walmart and
small retailers nationwide from August 2014 to November 2014 for
between $1 and $8.

Consumers who have a product with the UPC and date code should
immediately discontinue use of the product and return it to the
retailer for a replacement.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Seeks Arbitration in No-Poach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that if
defendants have their way, round two of Silicon Valley's "no-
poach" litigation will play out behind closed doors in arbitration
instead of in high-profile courtroom battles.  Lawyers for a group
of California animation studios accused of entering
antirecruitment pacts and conspiring to fix wages say plaintiffs
are bound to arbitrate their claims because named plaintiff Robert
Nitsch Jr. signed employment agreements with DreamWorks Animation
SKG Inc. that included arbitration provisions.

DreamWorks is represented by lawyers with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Attorneys for the company's co-defendants, including The Walt
Disney Co., Pixar, Lucasfilm Ltd. and Sony Pictures Animation
Inc., say the DreamWorks arbitration agreement shields their
clients by extension.

"Despite having agreed to binding arbitration," the lawyers wrote
on Jan. 9 in a joint motion to compel arbitration, "Nitsch filed
the instant action pleading nothing but arbitrable claims."

If U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh sides with the defense lawyers, it
would be a significant departure from the path of similar
litigation against Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and
Intel Corp.  In that case, Judge Koh's San Jose courtroom was
often packed, even for routine hearings.  Emails related to
Apple's late founder and CEO Steve Jobs that surfaced in the
litigation made national headlines.  The parties agreed to a
$324.5 million settlement last year, which Judge Koh rejected as
too low, and the companies have appealed her ruling to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Defendants in that case never tried to force the claims into
arbitration.  Two lawyers involved in the no-poach litigation
wouldn't comment on the record.  Attorneys familiar with the case
speculated that the first set of defendants may simply not have
had enforceable arbitration agreements with their employees.

Plaintiffs firms including Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman
Godfrey and Hogue & Belong filed suits last year accusing the
animation executives of meeting regularly over dinner and drinks
to set caps on industry salaries. The lawyers also claim the
executives made pacts not to poach each other's employees.

Fisher & Phillips partner John McLachlan --
jmclachlan@laborlawyers.com -- a San Francisco employment defense
attorney, called the animation studios' argument for arbitration
"creative."

"I can certainly see that DreamWorks probably has a very good case
to compel arbitration," he said.  "But it's much more of a stretch
to say, well you've got to compel arbitration vis-…-vis the other
defendants.  That's the big leap."

Covington & Burling is representing Walt Disney, Lucasfilm and
Pixar in the animation studio litigation.  Pixar and Lucasfilm
settled previous no-poach claims for $9 million.  Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe is representing Sony Pictures; and Williams
& Connolly is representing Blue Sky Studios.

The lawyers argue their clients are protected under the doctrine
of equitable estoppel, because plaintiffs' claims rely on the
DreamWorks agreement. There is no way to calculate lost wages
without reference to Nitsch's employment agreements, the lawyers
argue.

They may be treading on uncertain ground.  The courts have yet to
make clear when an arbitration agreement must extend to a third
party.  Last year U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern
District of California denied a group of cellphone manufacturers'
attempt to push a privacy case regarding Carrier IQ tracking
software into arbitration.  The manufacturers had tried to find
shelter in arbitration agreements their customers signed with
service providers, but Chen ruled plaintiffs' claims stood
independent of those contracts.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: 9th Circuit Frowns at "Incidental Use" Defense
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts cannot use incidental use as a defense for its
depictions of football players in video games, the 9th Circuit
ruled on January 6, rejecting the company's claims that the
athletes' images add little commercial value, according to Maria
Dinzeo, reporting for Courthouse News Service.

Retired NFL players Michael Davis, Vince Ferragamo and Billy Joe
Dupree had brought the lawsuit against EA in 2010, objecting to
the use of avatars that closely resembled them in "Madden 2009," a
game that allowed players to pit "historical teams" against one
another.

EA had hoped to avoid paying licensing fees with some slight
changes to all the retired players' characteristics. In one case,
the company changed a player's weight by a few pounds.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg disagreed with EA that
California's anti-SLAAP (Strategic Litigation Against Public
Participation) law required dismissal of the lawsuit, and a three-
judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed January 6.

"EA goes to substantial lengths to incorporate accurate likenesses
of current and former players, including paying millions of
dollars to license the likenesses of current players," Judge
Raymond Fisher wrote for the court.  "Having acknowledged the
likenesses of current NFL players carry substantial commercial
value, EA does not offer a persuasive reason to conclude otherwise
as to the former players."

Fisher also found no basis for EA's "sweeping statement" that the
likeness of any individual player "has only a de minimis
commercial value" since 'Madden NFL' depicts several thousand
players.

EA's transformative-use defense, which characterized the games as
creative enough to fall under First Amendment protections,
meanwhile remains precluded by the 9th Circuit's ruling in Keller
v. EA.

That case involved a class of former college athletes upset over
the uncompensated use of their images in EA's NCAA-based video
games.

The court found in 2013 the games were not covered under the First
Amendment's protections for artistic creations.

That same reasoning applied in January 6's ruling.

"Like 'NCAA Football,' 'Madden NFL' replicates players' physical
characteristics and allows users to manipulate them in the
performance of the same activity for which they are known in real
life -- playing football for an NFL team," Fisher wrote.  "Neither
the individual players' likenesses nor the graphics and other
background content are transformed more in 'Madden NFL' than they
were in 'NCAA Football.'  Indeed, EA does not attempt to
distinguish 'Madden NFL' from 'NCAA Football.'  Instead, EA
contends the court erred in Keller by focusing on whether the
individual avatars were transformed, rather than whether the work
as a whole was transformative.  Absent 'intervening higher
authority,' however, we are bound by the factually
indistinguishable holding in Keller."

The panel also rejected EA's claim that the players' right of
publicity was barred by public interest, another defense EA had
tried in Keller.

"In Keller, we rejected EA's reliance on these defenses,
explaining that, unlike the cases on which EA relied, involving a
documentary, a newspaper photograph and a game program, EA was
'not publishing or reporting factual data,'" Fisher wrote.

Though EA's "Madden NFL" does contain some factual data about
current and former football players, it is still a game like "NCAA
Football," the court found.

The appellate case is Michael E. Davis, et al. v. Electronic Arts
Inc., Case No. 12-15737, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The underlying case is Michael E. Davis, et al. v.
Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


FULL TILT: Recalls Dairy Ice Cream Over Listeria Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Full Tilt Ice Cream of Seattle, Washington is voluntarily
recalling all Dairy Based Ice Cream flavors (except the non-dairy
frozen desserts), sold under brand Full Tilt, because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The Full Tilt dairy base ice cream products distributed in Oregon
and Washington through grocery stores and retail scoop shops.

The ice cream was sold in 16oz paper containers with a 7 digit
code ending in 14x (ie: 0219142), as well as 1.5 gallon and 3
gallon plastic gallon tubs produced before 12/19/2014. The
following table summarizes the affected products:

  Name of product   Size   Production Dates   Type of Packaging
  ---------------   ----   ----------------   -----------------
Full Tilt Ice Cream   16 oz      01/01/2014-12/19/2014    paper
                    containers

Full Tilt Ice Cream   1.5        01/01/2014-12/19/2014    plastic
                   gallon containers                      gallon

Full Tilt Ice Cream   3          01/01/2014-12/19/2014    plastic
                   gallon containers                      gallon

No illnesses have been reported to date.

These dairy base ice cream products contain ice cream base
produced and recalled by Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream, Inc. as an
ingredient. Full Tilt has since performed a rigorous sanitation
schedule to prevent further contamination.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and Washington State Department of Agriculture
(WSDA).

Consumers who have purchased Full Tilt are urged to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-206-963-5038 between 9am and 4pm PST
Monday thru Friday

Photo of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428770.htm.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Frank" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Frank v. General Motors LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-21652, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00263-JMF
to the proceeding.

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

The case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose,
indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM
vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout
the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which
the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the
"run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in
a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a
failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the
complaint.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM
was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired
substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of
General Motors Corporation through a Section 363 sale under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com

               - and -

          David Buckner, Esq.
          Seth Eric Miles, Esq.
          Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 11th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
          Telephone: (305) 442-8666
          Facsimile: (305) 285-1668
          E-mail: dbu@grossmanroth.com
                  sem@grossmanroth.com
                  bvb@grossmanroth.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William L. Kirk, Jr., Esq.
          RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL
          300 S Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
          PO Box 1873
          Orlando, FL 32802-1873
          Telephone: (407) 872-7300
          E-mail: bkirk@rumberger.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Precht" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Precht v. General Motors
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-20971, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00264-JMF to the proceeding.

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

The case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose,
indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM
vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout
the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which
the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the
"run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in
a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a
failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the
complaint.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM
was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired
substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of
General Motors Corporation through a Section 363 sale under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C. Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Jon Michael Herskowitz, Esq.
          BARON & HERSKOWITZ
          One Datran Center, Suite 1704
          9100 S Dadeland Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33156-1619
          Telephone: (305) 670-0101
          Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
          E-mail: jon@herskowitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          A. Erin Dwyer, Esq.
          Timothy A. Daniels, Esq.
          FIGARI & DAVENPORT LLP
          901 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 939-2000
          E-mail: erin.dwyer@figdav.com
                  tim.daniels@figdav.com

               - and -

          Laurie Michele Riley, Esq.
          JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, POITEVENT, CARRERE
          & DENEGRE, LLP
          Miami Center, Suite 2600
          201 Biscayne Blvd.
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 679-5700
          Facsimile: (305) 679-5816
          E-mail: lchess@joneswalker.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No.
1:15-cv-00167 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2015) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


I LOVE NINO'S: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frelkiey Hurley, individually v. I Love Nino's Pizza of New York,
Inc. d/b/a Nino's Pizza, a New York for profit corporation and
Avenue A at St. Marks Associates, LLC a New York for profit
limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00229-RJS (S.D.N.Y.,
January 13, 2015) is brought for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Florida Accessibility Code.

Mr. Hurley is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair.
He contends that when he was visiting Nino's Pizza, he encountered
architectural barriers at the Defendants' property precluding him
from reasonably accessing the goods and services provided to non-
disabled individuals.

The property at issue is located in New York County, New York.
Defendant Avenue A at St. Marks Associates, LLC is the documented
owner of the Property.  The Property is being operated as a food
service establishment -- a "place of public accommodation -- by
Defendant I Love Nino's Pizza of New York, Inc., doing business as
Nino's Pizza, who is a tenant on the Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IKEA: Recalls Crib Mattresses Due to Risk of Entrapment
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 169,000 VYSSA crib mattress.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The crib mattresses could create a gap between the mattress and
crib ends larger than allowed by federal regulations, posing an
entrapment hazard to infants.

The recall involves IKEA VYSSA style crib mattresses with the
following five model names: VACKERT, VINKA, SPELEVINK, SLOA and
SLUMMER.  The involved mattresses were manufactured on May 4, 2014
or earlier.  An identification label attached to the mattress
cover has the date of manufacture in Month-DD-YYYY format and the
VYSSA model name.  A gap between the mattress and crib ends larger
than two finger width is an indication of the defective mattress.

The firm has received two reports of infants becoming entrapped
between the mattress and an end of the crib.  The children were
removed from the gap without injury.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/wuymOh

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold
exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide and online at
www.ikea-usa.com from August 2010 to May 2014 for about $100.

Consumers should inspect the recalled mattress by making sure
there is no gap larger than the width of two fingers between the
ends of the crib and the mattress.  If any gap is larger,
customers should immediately stop using the recalled mattresses
and return it to any IKEA store for an exchange or a full refund.


INVENSENSE INC: Faces Securities Suits Over Apple Sweetheart Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that executives
at San Jose-based InvenSense Inc. thought they'd found the holy
grail when Apple Inc. agreed to use their sensors in its new
iPhone 6.  But profits from the partnership fell short of
expectations, and now the company has a line of securities lawyers
at its door.

Lawyers with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd sued InvenSense on
Jan. 7 in the Northern District of California, and a team from
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg followed with a lawsuit on Jan. 12.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro lawyers also seem to be planning their
move, and put out the call on Jan. 9 advertising for a potential
plaintiff.

In the Glancy Binkow complaint, plaintiffs lawyers allege
InvenSense executives artificially drove up stock prices by
touting the Apple deal to investors, while downplaying risks the
company faced.  InvenSense gave Apple a "sweetheart deal," the
lawyers argue, which hurt InvenSense's bottom line.   The company
also faced manufacturing problems connected to the iPhone 6, and
lost money when it was forced to write off a stockpile of old,
unwanted inventory.  When those factors forced the company to
announce disappointing financial results in October, plaintiffs
lawyers say stock prices plummeted more than 25 percent in a day.

"Instead of revealing the true condition of the company and its
prospects," the Glancy Binkow lawyers wrote, "defendants hid those
facts from investors and chose to issue strong guidance and paint
a picture of a bright future with a new mega-customer."

InvenSense, which makes components such as sensors and microphones
for smartphones, tables and video game systems, sent out a news
release in July assuring investors of "market share increases" and
"healthy growth drivers through the current fiscal year."

Defendant Alan Krock, InvenSense's former vice president, did not
mention Apple by name to investors, plaintiffs concede.  He wasn't
allowed to reveal the deal because of the "highly secretive nature
of the way Apple does business," according to the complaint.

Nevertheless, in a conference call following the release, he
described a new, larger customer he said would account for 10
percent of InvenSense's revenue.  Plaintiffs say the market
correctly inferred the mystery party was Apple.

A pending decision in a similar case argued before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last month may have some bearing
on plaintiffs' claims against InvenSense.  In In re Yahoo, 12-
17080, plaintiffs claim Yahoo Inc. executives made misleading
statements that hinted at their ownership of Alipay, a lucrative
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. company similar to PayPal.  U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of
California tossed those claims in 2012 because defendants didn't
mention Alipay by name.


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Xarelto-Related Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Major Porterfield v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, f/k/a
Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC,
Janseen Ortho LLC, Janseen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., f/k/a Ortho-
McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer Corporation, Bayer
Healthcare, LLC, Bayer Healthcare AG, and Bayer AG, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00011 (E.D. Tenn., January 13, 2015) arises from alleged
injuries suffered as a result of the Plaintiff's use of Xarelto.

The Plaintiff was prescribed and used Xarelto, also known as
rivaroxaban, for one or more of these conditions: to reduce the
risk of stroke and systemic embolism associated with non-valvular
atrial fibrulation; to treat or prevent potential deep vein
thrombosis and pulmonary embolism; to reduce the risk of
recurrence of DVT or PE, and for prophylaxis of DVT.

The Defendants designed, researched, manufactured, tested,
advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed Xarelto.

When warning of safety and risks of Xarelto, the Defendants
negligently and fraudulently represented to the medical and
healthcare community, the Food and Drug Administration, to the
Plaintiff and the public in general, that Xarelto had been tested
and was found to be safe and effective for its indicated use,
according to the complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants concealed their knowledge of Xarelto's defects from the
Plaintiff, the FDA, the public in general and the medical
community specifically.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jimmy F. Rodgers, Jr., Esq.
          SUMMERS, RUFOLO & RODGERS, P.C.
          735 Broad Street, Suite 800
          Chattanooga, TN 37402-2913
          Telephone: (423) 265-2385
          Facsimile: (423) 266-5211
          E-mail: jrodgers@summersfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph D. Lane, Esq.
          THE COCHRAN FIRM-DOTHAN
          111 E. Main Street
          Dothan, AL 36301
          Telephone: (334) 673-1555
          Facsimile: (334) 699-7229
          E-mail: JoeLane@CochranFirm.com


JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Recalls Fisher 8 oz. Walnuts & Pecan Cookies
----------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. (JBSS) announced that it is
voluntarily recalling Fisher 8 oz. Chopped Walnuts and Fisher 8
oz. Pecan Cookie Pieces packaged in plastic bags because some of
these products may be contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

Consumers who have recently purchased the items with the BEST BY
DATES listed below at stores located in AR, AZ, CO, KS, LA, MO,
NM, OK, and TX or online should not consume this product and
should return it to the store of purchase for a full refund or
replacement. The BEST BY DATES can be found on the back of the
bags.

Item Description:

JBSS   Item UPC#   BRAND   PRODUCT      UNIT WT.  UM   BEST BY
Code   ---------   -----   DESCRIPTION  --------  --   DATE
----                       -----------                 -------
P02352    070690    Fisher  Chopped          8     oz. 10/31/15
          02360 3           Walnuts                    TQ2
P02352    070690    Fisher  Chopped          8     oz. 11/01/15
          02360 3           Walnuts                    TQ1
P02352    070690    Fisher  Chopped          8     oz. 11/01/15
          02360 3           Walnuts                    TQ2
P02352    070690    Fisher  Chopped          8     oz. 11/03/15
          02360 3           Walnuts                    TQ1
P02352    070690    Fisher  Chopped          8     oz. 11/03/15
          02360 3           Walnuts                    TQ2

P02351    070690    Fisher  Peanut           8     oz. 11/03/15
          02351 1           Cookies                    TQ1
                            Pieces
P02351    070690    Fisher  Pecan            8     oz. 11/03/15
          02351 1           Cookie                     TQ2
                            Pieces

To date, JBSS has not received any reports of illnesses in
connection with the items listed above.

This voluntary recall is the result of a routine sampling program
conducted by the FDA in the retail marketplace which revealed that
a package of Fisher Chopped Walnuts contained Salmonella.

Contact for Consumers:
Consumers or customers who have questions about the above recall
may contact John B. Sanfilippo and Son, Inc. Customer Service
toll-free at (800) 874-8734 Monday through Friday from 8:15 AM to
5:15 PM Central Time.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428490.htm


JOHNSON HEALTH: Recalls Matrix Fitness Strength Training Machines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JHTNA Manufacturing LLC, of Milwaukee, Wis., announced a voluntary
recall of about 400 Matrix Fitness Varsity series strength
training machines.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The handle attachment on the strength training machines can detach
during use and hit the user with force and/or cause the user to
lose balance and fall.  This poses a risk of impact injury,
laceration and fall hazards.

The recall involves five models of the Matrix Fitness series
strength training machines with chrome frames, stacked weights,
overhead pulleys, and some with black or blue vinyl seats and
thigh supports.  Models include VY-6021 Lat Pulldown, VY-6042
Bicep/Triceps Press, VY-6046 Lat Pulldown/Low Row, VY-6099 Total
Body Trainer, and the J7021 Special Order Lat Pull. "Matrix" and
the model number are printed on a white sticker at the base of the
machines.  They are used in commercial fitness facilities such as
health clubs, hotels, apartment complexes and rehabilitation
centers, schools and municipal facilities.

Johnson Health Tech is aware of two injuries, including a man who
was hit and cut on the head when the handle detached and another
man who fell when the handle detached on his machine.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/WTDfCL

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Johnson Health Tech North America and its fitness equipment
dealers nationwide from July 2013 through October 2014 for between
$3,300 and $4,000.

Owners should immediately prevent people from using the strength
training machines and contact Johnson Health Tech North America to
schedule a free repair.


JUMP YOUR BONES: Recalls Roo Bites Pet Treats Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jump Your Bones, Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida is voluntarily
recalling Jump Your Bones brand name Roo Bites (Cubes) because it
has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. No pet or
consumer illnesses from this product have been reported to date.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody
diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can
result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections,
endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary
tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having
contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever, and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

The affected lots of Jump Your Bones Pet Treats were distributed
to retail pet food stores nationwide and through pet food
retailers/distributors.

The affected products are sold in Boutique Bags and online stores.
The products affected by this recall are only identified with the
following UPC codes:

63633010041 for 80g. / 2.82oz. including samples of .32 oz.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased the above product of Jump Your Bones,
Inc. pet treats are urged to stop feeding them and return product
to place of purchase for a full refund or dispose of them
immediately. For further information about the recall please call
(888) 249-6755 from Monday - Friday 9am - 5PM EST.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428673.htm


LA-Z-BOY: Recalls Control Wands With Silver Luxury Lift Chairs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
La-Z-Boy Incorporated, of Monroe, Michigan, announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,000 La-Z-Boy Control Wands sold with Silver
Luxury Lift Chairs.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wand that controls the chair's movements can overheat, posing
a burn hazard.

The recalled control wands were sold with the La-Z-Boy Silver
Luxury Lift model chairs only.  These electric wands allow the
user to control the movement of the chair, i.e. to recline it and
or to make entering or exiting the chair easier.  The rectangular-
shaped black plastic wands have a large round circle on the top of
the wand with two circle-shaped graphics that read "LIFT" and
"RECLINE" and the La-Z-Boy logo printed in white lettering at the
bottom of the wand.  The words "La-Z-Boy," "REV: 0" and S/N number
37205143800005310 are printed on a label on the back of the wand.
The Silver Luxury Lift model chairs were sold in a variety of
sizes, colors and fabrics including leather.

La-Z-Boy has received three reports of the control wands on floor
samples becoming warm.  No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/0nIlit

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at La-Z-
Boy Furniture Galleries stores and independent furniture stores
nationwide from August 2014 through November 2014 with the Silver
Luxury Lift Chair for between $900 and $1700.

Consumers should unplug the chair from the wall outlet and contact
the local dealer from whom they purchased the chair who will
schedule a time for a service technician to install a free
replacement control wand.


MARICOPA, AZ: Court Bars Workplace Raid by Sheriff Arpaio
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge on January 5 barred Maricopa County Sheriff Joe
Arpaio from ordering workplace raids to arrest undocumented
immigrants using stolen identities to work under two Arizona
identity theft laws.

U.S. District Judge David Campbell found that the raids by Arpaio
and his deputies were probably unconstitutional and prevented by
federal law.

Puente Arizona, a civil rights group, filed a class action
challenging the constitutionality of the raids against Arpaio,
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, and Robert Halliday,
director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, in June 2014.

Arpaio used the state laws, which criminally punish people who use
another person's identity to secure a job, to conduct his
workplace raids.

Arizona House Bill 2779 in 2007 created a new offense of
aggravated identity theft for people using false information or
the information of another person. Arizona House Bill 2745
supplemented the act in 2008 by adding the intent to gain
employment as part of the offense.

Arpaio announced in December that he would disband his immigration
investigation unit at the end of January or in early February,
once they complete an ongoing theft investigation.

Judge Campbell found that the class had standing to sue Arpaio,
despite his decision to disband his unit. Other law enforcement
agencies in Maricopa County could still enforce the laws,
including Montgomery, placing members of the class at risk of
prosecution.

"First, many Puente members, including leaders, have reduced their
participation in Puente's activities because the identity theft
laws have caused financial difficulties and made them afraid of
arrest and retaliation," Campbell wrote.  "Second, Puente has
diverted substantial resources to respond to the workplace raids
through which the MCSO has enforced the identity theft laws."

Plaintiff Noemi Romero, who was arrested in a raid in 2012, said
she never thought she would see the day when Arpaio and Montgomery
would be taken to court.

"We lost our fear and made this lawsuit happen, and now others in
our community won't have to suffer like we did," Romero said in a
statement.

Campbell also found that the laws were pre-empted by federal
immigration law, and that the class would likely succeed in
proving that regulation of identity theft by unauthorized
immigrants is in the hands of the federal government.

"The Arizona identity theft laws include only a criminal sanction.
They make the use of false documents to obtain employment a felony
offense punishable by a prison term that may exceed five years,"
Campbell wrote.  "Under the federal scheme, federal authorities
have a range of options," including penalties, immigration
consequences, or prison terms less than five years.

While the laws are facially neutral in that they apply to U.S.
citizens and undocumented immigrants, the "titles of H.B. 2779 and
H.B. 2745 -- the 'Legal Arizona Workers' Act' and 'Employment of
Unauthorized Aliens' -- reflect a clear intent to regulate
employment of unauthorized aliens" by the Arizona Legislature,
Campbell found.

"This is an enormous victory for our community," Carlos Garcia,
executive director of Puente, said in a statement.  "Arpaio and
Montgomery are being stripped of the tools they use to illegally
terrorize immigrant workers and families.  We hope that justice
will continue to prevail, that not one more worker is arrested for
providing for his or her family and that the racist, anti-
immigrant machine for which Arizona is known is dismantled
completely."

The case is Puente Arizona, et al. v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01356-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.


MARTIN MARIETTA: Judge Rejects "Disclosure-Only" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that for the
second time in recent weeks, a New York state judge has rejected a
"disclosure-only" shareholder settlement of litigation over a
merger deal.  In a Jan. 7 ruling, Judge Shirley Kornreich lashed
out at the tactics of a plaintiffs firm and rejected a proposed
agreement to resolve claims over Martin Marietta Materials Inc.'s
$2.7 billion acquisition of Texas Industries Inc.

The decision come less than a month after Judge Melvin Schweitzer
refused to approve a settlement that would have ended litigation
over Verizon Communication Inc.'s $130 billion purchase of
Vodaphone Group plc's interest in Verizon Wireless.

In the Martin Marietta case, the plaintiffs -- represented by
New York's Brualdi Law Firm -- claimed that proxy materials
explaining the deal to shareholders were inadequate.  The firm's
clients are an investment partnership called City Trading Fund and
its two individual investors, who held just $1,200 of Martin
Marietta stock as of last April.  The settlement required the
companies to add more disclosures to their proxies.  The
plaintiffs lawyers would have received $500,000 in the deal.

In her 37-page ruling tossing the settlement, Judge Kornreich
wrote that the case stood out for its "downright frivolity."  She
called the additional disclosures "grossly immaterial," citing,
for example, one added passage stating that the compensation of
Martin Marietta's CEO might increase after the merger due to his
additional responsibilities.

Judge Korneich's decision follows an unusual filing by Martin
Marietta and TI, which blasted the lawsuit even after agreeing not
to oppose the settlement.  After the parties announced their
settlement in June, Judge Kornreich raised concerns about it and
asked the defendants to outline their position on the deal.  In an
August court filing, they accused the plaintiffs of filing
"meritless, eleventh-hour claims brought on behalf of plaintiff
entities whose sole purpose is to extract attorney fees."  They
only agreed to settle the "pernicious" litigation, they explained,
because of the enormous harm that would have resulted if the
merger were delayed.

Sandra Goldstein -- sgoldstein@cravath.com -- of Cravath, Swaine &
Moore represents Martin Marietta. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz's
Rachelle Silverberg -- RSilverberg@wlrk.com -- represents Texas
Industries.

Using information from the defendants' filing, Judge Kornreich
pointed out that since 2010 the Brualdi firm has filed at least 13
suits in New York state court on behalf of different investment
partnerships that appear to exist only to pursue litigation.  She
also noted that the Delaware Chancery Court had sanctioned the
firm $25,000 in 2008 in another shareholder case for unethical
conduct, including making false statements to the court.

Judge Kornreich stressed the importance of judges scrutinizing
shareholder settlements.  "Without the court serving as a
gatekeeper, plaintiffs who file such litigation will continue to
unjustifiably extract money from shareholders, who get no benefit
from litigation but nonetheless end up paying two sets of
attorneys, plaintiffs and defendants. This is a perverse result,"
she wrote.

Martin Marietta sent us this statement: "Martin Marietta is very
pleased that the court recognizes just how costly meritless merger
litigation is to companies and their shareholders.  We expect that
going forward, plaintiffs lawyers who are primarily looking for a
quick and easy payoff will think twice before bringing frivolous
lawsuits challenging transactions, particularly where they purport
to represent a class of shareholders of the acquirer."

Plaintiffs lawyer Richard Brualdi told The Litigation Daily he
respectfully disagreed with Judge Kornreich's ruling.  "Plaintiffs
believe that the court's decision that the disclosures were not
material is flatly inconsistent with many other decisions by
courts in both New York and Delaware," he said.  "Plaintiffs are
considering their options, including an appeal."

In the Verizon case, Schweitzer refused on Dec. 19 to approve a
deal negotiated by plaintiffs firm Faruqi & Faruqi.  Like Judge
Kornreich, he found that the language added in the settlement
wasn't material.


MEMPHIS, TN: Ex-City Atty. Can't Try Mishandled Rape Kits Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal magistrate ruled on January 5 that a former Memphis city
attorney can't represent a group suing the city for the alleged
mishandling of rape evidence kits, reports Kevin Lessmiller,
writing for Courthouse News Service.

Robert L. J. Spence had "substantial involvement" in policymaking
and leadership with the City of Memphis, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Charmiane Claxton found, but his firm can still handle the case.

The Jane Doe class action was filed in December 2013.  Doe says
she was raped by a home intruder in March 2001, and provided
bodily fluid samples at a rape crisis center, but the Memphis
Police Department ignored the evidence.  The lawsuit alleges that
the city didn't test more than 15,000 evidence kits for reported
sexual assaults and caused spoliation of the evidence.

The City of Memphis claims that Spence not only had access to
confidential information, he was actually part of a group that
"turned a blind eye" to the allegations in the class action
lawsuit.

"The city argues that Mr. Spence acquired confidential information
about it that would be highly relevant to the claims of systematic
wrongs alleged by plaintiffs," the ruling states, citing Memphis'
motion to disqualify counsel.  "The city further argues that
plaintiffs' allegations call Mr. Spence's own conduct directly
into question, as he was one of the 'persons with final
policymaking authority with the City of Memphis.'"

But Spence said in his affidavit that he never dealt with rape
evidence kit issues while working as a city attorney.

"The issue of testing sexual assault evidence kits was never
discussed or made known to Mr. Spence in any context whatsoever
while he served as city attorney," his affidavit states.  "Mr.
Spence never received any confidential information, or
participated personally or substantially, in the MPD's policies
pertaining to criminal investigations."

Claxton granted the city's motion to disqualify for Spence himself
but denied it in regard to The Spence Law Firm.  She ruled that
his former city leadership role disqualifies him, regardless of
his alleged lack of knowledge about the rape evidence matter.

"The scope of Mr. Spence's role as city attorney was exceptionally
broad, and its relationship to the former matter is closely
intertwined because of his role in policymaking and leadership --
both of which are at issue in plaintiff's case," Claxton wrote.
"Thus, simply because Mr. Spence did not have specific knowledge
of the failure to test the sexual assault evidence kits or was not
involved in other ways with this issue does not suffice to permit
him to represent plaintiffs when he previously had such a broad
policymaking and leadership role with the city.

Attorney Ricky Wilkins, who also represents the class, told
Courthouse News that the legal team plans to appeal the
disqualification ruling.

The case is Jane Doe, Individually and as Class Representative of
All Others Similarly Situated v. City of Memphis, Case No. 2:13-
cv-03002-JTF-cgc, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Western Division.


MONTREAL MAINE: Settlement May Grow as Much as $500 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that bankrupt railroad operator Montreal Maine and Atlantic Canada
Co. and others tied to a 2013 derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec,
have agreed to pay $200 million to compensate victims, including
48 people who died.  The settlement, announced on Jan. 9, could
grow to as much as $500 million if additional defendants come on
board.  Peter Flowers -- pjf@meyers-flowers.com -- a partner at
Chicago's Meyers & Flowers who represented the families of those
who died, talked to The National Law Journal about how he used
Illinois law to obtain more money for his clients.

NLJ: Tell me about this disaster. What happened?

Flowers: It was in July of 2013.  Some oil was fracked out of
North Dakota and the oil was going to be brought down into Maine
and delivered to an Irving Oil refinery.  So 72 rail cars make
their way through Canada, and they eventually reach the town of
Lac-Megantic.  And in Lac-Megantic, the cars -- and there's a lot
potential reasons why -- in the middle of the night actually come
into town, flip over and blow up.  It looks like someone dropped a
nuclear bomb in the middle of the town.  Forty-seven people died
out of that.  There was a 48th death of a fireman who committed
suicide after seeing this disaster.

NLJ: Your firm represents the families of the people who died. How
many lawsuits did you file?

Flowers: We filed 19.  And we subsequently ended up filing suit in
Illinois because one of the main railroads involved was located in
Illinois.  The oil . . . gets transported into Canada through
Canadian Pacific Railway, which hands it off to MMAC -- Montreal
Maine and Atlantic -- and that company is associated with another
company called Rail World.  And it's owned by a gentleman by the
name of Edward Burkhardt.  Rail World is located in Illinois, and
a lot of what was happening was being directed out of Illinois.
Burkhardt lives in Illinois.

NLJ: Why file in Illinois?

Flowers: Canadian damage law is pretty tough. It's got caps on it,
somewhere in the range of $500,000 to $600,000.

NLJ: Where does the $200 million come from and who gets it?
Flowers: There are essentially five classes of people who are
entitled to recover from this. The 48 wrongful-death victims are
one class.  There are property damage people in another class, and
then people with PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder] from this,
which is another class.  And then two government classes: the
[Canadian] government, which had a large outlay of money for
environmental repairs . . . and the province itself.
The proceeds are coming from a variety of sources, some of which
is not public.  Part of it is from the railroad that no longer
exists because it filed for bankruptcy, part from insurance
carriers, part from some other players and defendants involved in
this.

NLJ: You sued at least three additional companies over the
disaster that aren't part of this settlement.  What's your case
against them?

Flowers: The three main responsible players are a company called
World Fuel Services, which is involved in the actual removal of
the oil from the ground; Canadian Pacific; and Irving Oil.  The
case is extremely strong against all three remaining defendants,
from what their conduct was to what happened.  Simply put, each of
them knew or should have known of the combustibility of this crude
and should have known that you cannot transport this in the method
that they did.

NLJ: The trustee in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of MMAC's parent
company in the United States hopes to obtain a total of $500
million for victims.  What do you think?

Flowers: If this proceeds in the U.S., it will be well in excess
of this.  You have 48 families who lost loved ones.  The numbers
that the trustee is throwing out there are very large numbers, but
they're numbers properly under the law and easily obtainable in
the United States.


MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
dismissal of a securities fraud class action alleging Morgan
Stanley concealed its exposure to and losses during the subprime
mortgage market meltdown has been upheld by a federal appeals
court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made new law as
it said a lower court was right to dismiss the case against Morgan
Stanley and six of its officers because plaintiffs alleging fraud
failed to adequately plead scienter.  The court decided a case of
first impression on the disclosure requirements of Item 303 of
Regulation S-K, which include the obligation to disclose "any
known trends or uncertainties" in Securities and Exchange
Commission mandated quarterly Form 10-Q reports that the filer
believes will have an "unfavorable impact" on revenues or income.

Judges Jose Cabranes, Richard Wesley and Debra Ann Livingston held
that the failure to make a required Item 303 disclosure in a 10-Q
filing is an omission that can serve as a basis for a securities
fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The plaintiffs in Fjarde AP-Fonden v. Morgan Stanley, 13-0627-cv,
alleged Morgan Stanley made misstatements and omissions in filings
between June 20, 2007 and Nov. 19, 2007 that concealed their
exposure to billions of dollars in losses in the subprime mortgage
market.

Morgan Stanley had made huge bets in 2006 that were backed by
subprime mortgages -- the first was a $2 billion short position
and the second was a $13.5 billion long position.  Morgan Stanley
lost billions on the long position and lead plaintiffs State-
Boston Retirement System and AP-Fonden said they suffered because
the value of Morgan Stanley stock was artificially inflated due to
the misrepresentations and omissions about both the exposure to
credit risk and the amount of losses.

Southern Judge Deborah Batts dismissed the case and the plaintiffs
appealed to the Second Circuit in 2013.

Writing for the circuit on Jan. 12, Judge Livingston said, "This
court and our sister circuits have long recognized that a duty to
disclose under Section 10(b) can derive from statutes or
regulations that obligate a party to speak."

Citing the regulation, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 229.303(a)(3)(ii), Judge
Livingston said "a reasonable investor would interpret the absence
of an Item 303 disclosure to imply the nonexistence of 'known
trends or uncertainties'" that could effect revenues.

"It follows that Item 303 imposes the type of duty to speak that
can, in appropriate cases, give rise to liability under Section
10(b)," she said.

The judge said the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded Morgan
Stanley had an Item 303 duty to disclose it faced a deteriorating
subprime mortgage market that could affect its financial
condition.

But the plaintiffs failed to properly allege scienter -- a
connection between the omission and the purchase or sale of a
security, reliance on that omission by the purchaser and a
resulting economic loss.

To succeed, Judge Livingston said, they had to allege defendants
"were at least consciously reckless regarding whether their
failure to provide adequate Item 3003 disclosures during the
second and third quarters of 2007 would mislead investors about
material facts."

Instead, Judge Livingston said the complaint itself showed that a
top official ordered employees to cut Morgan Stanley's long
position and that an internal task force "discussed strategies to
reduce the Long Position while also developing a better sense of
the 'range' of losses the company could face."

"Given the rigidity of the Form 10-Q filing deadlines, we find no
basis to infer anything more than 'a heightened form of
negligence' (if that) about whether Morgan Stanley's 10-Qs would
mislead investors about these internal deliberations, especially
after taking into account that Morgan Stanley was also 'profiting'
from the declining market through its short position," she said.

And, as the court decided in an accompanying summary order also
issued on Jan. 12, Judge Livingston said, "Morgan Stanley's
affirmative statements about its exposure to the mortgage
securities market during the relevant time period were not
misleading."

David Kessler -- dkessler@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check is lead counsel for plaintiff Fjarde AP-Fonden and for the
class.

Partner Jonathan Plasse -- jplasse@labaton.com -- of Labaton
Sucharow is lead counsel for plaintiff Boston Retirement System
and the class.

Robert Wise -- robert.wise@davispolk.com -- senior counsel at
Davis Polk & Wardwell, argued for the defendants.


NEW PACIFIC: Recalls Dining Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
New Pacific Direct, Inc., of Newark, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 250 Abby Dining Chair.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Chair legs can break unexpectedly, posing a fall hazard.

The recall involves The Abby Dining Chair has dark brown wooden
legs with seat and back upholstery in either gray or green fabric
with black or white edge piping.  The chair is approximately 20
inches wide, 24 inches deep and 36 inches tall.  The SKU number
428136-CS-C or 428136-GS-C is printed on the product packaging.
There are no identifying labels on the product itself.

The company has received four reports of a chair leg breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/1k55SY

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
various home furnishing retailers nationwide between July 2014 and
November 2014 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
NPD Furniture for a full refund.


NEW YORK, NY: Supreme Court Won't Hear High Line Park Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of eight Manhattan
property owners who claimed an unconstitutional taking when their
lots were rendered less valuable due to the preservation of an
elevated railroad track above the lots that eventually became the
High Line park.

The high court on Jan. 12 declined without comment to disturb the
ruling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in West Chelsea
Buildings, LLC v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 5, 28 (2013), aff'd,
554 F. App'x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

The case stemmed from the 2005 decision of New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg to transform the elevated line into a public
park under a federal statute allowing conversions of "rails to
trails."  Federal authorities reclaimed the property from the
railroad, which originally had been the New York Central Railroad
Company, and conveyed it to New York City.  West Chelsea and other
property owners consented to the High Line and executed covenants
not to sue in favor of both the U.S. and New York City.

The developers in their lawsuit, however, asserted they never
intended to release the U.S. from a takings claim.  They also
argued that under New York law, the federal government could not
be a third-party beneficiary to such an agreement, and that
Supreme Court precedent precludes enforcement of such waivers of
constitutional rights to bring takings claims under the Fifth
Amendment.

The trial court ruled against them.  Court of Federal Claims Judge
Nancy Firestone held that the plaintiffs received valuable
development rights for granting the covenants not to sue, as well
as releases from environmental claims and indemnifications and
guarantees regarding the High Line development plans.

Judge Firestone also said the plaintiffs, who were sophisticated
property developers, had adequate legal representation when they
signed the covenants, and noted they had waited nearly six years
after the High Line had been built to bring their claim.

The High Line is a 1.4 mile-long park built on the elevated former
rail bed that winds from Gansevoort Street to West 34th Street
between 10th and 12th avenues.

According to the plaintiff's briefs, since the High Line opened in
2009, more than 2,500 new residential units, 1,000 hotel rooms,
and 500,000 square feet of new office and art gallery space sprung
up in the surrounding neighborhood.  Between 2003 and 2011, the
value of nearby properties not directly under the park climbed by
103 percent, they said, claiming their properties were stymied by
the physical presence of the overhead viaduct and did not
appreciate in value.

But, Judge Firestone said, "The express language of the agreements
demonstrates the parties' clear intent that plaintiffs would not
sue the United States in connection with the High Line.  Under New
York law, this clear language conveys third-party beneficiary
status on the United States."

Judge Firestone's ruling was affirmed without comment by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The developers had argued in their certiorari petition that
Firestone should have certified the issue of whether the U.S.
could be a third-party beneficiary to the covenant not to sue to
the New York Court of Appeals.

The developers, who were represented on appeal by Mark "Thor"
Hearne, a partner at Arent Fox, also argued that the covenant not
to sue was an unenforceable extraction of the constitutional right
to bring a takings claim under a Supreme Court case, Koontz v. St.
John's River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013),
decided after the lower court ruling.

Not all of the plaintiffs agreed to the covenant, however.
Romanoff Equities, the owner of a lot under the High Line,
preserved its takings claim after the West Chelsea group's claim
was dismissed.

Judge Firestone also dismissed the Romanoff claim last November in
Romanoff Equities, Inc. v. United States, 2014 U.S.  Claims LEXIS
1354, asserting that the original easement granted by the property
owners to the railroad in 1932 was broad enough to permit
construction of a public park.

"We have appealed the ruling," said Mr. Hearne, who also
represents Romanoff, "which we think is very much an anomaly."

"What's really at stake here is that while the property owners
around the High Line have seen their values skyrocket," Mr. Hearne
said, "those who are underneath or adjacent to it and cannot build
upwards and have had many millions taken from them.  Basically,
those properties are used as parking lots."

Mr. Hearne would not provide precise detail as to the effect of
the High Line on the properties' actual values.

In dismissing Romanoff's claim, Firestone noted that Romanoff had
sold the lot at issue for $81 million.  Romanoff argued that the
price would have been higher but for the encumbrance granting the
air rights to the High Line.

Firestone rejected the claim and credited the government's
arguments that Romanoff had received valuable development rights
in the West Chelsea neighborhood in return for acceding to the
High Line, and that those rights were what accounted for the lot's
value.

Emily Meeker, of the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment &
Natural Resources Division, represented the government in both
cases.

Beginning in the 1960s, trucks replaced trains bringing animals
into lower Manhattan's meatpacking district, according to court
papers.  Rail traffic fell substantially.  The last train, pulling
three boxcars of frozen turkeys, ran in 1980.


NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Judge Recommends Atty Fees in "Osborne" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the action BOBBY OSBORNE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NICHOLAS FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:12-00185 (M.D. Tenn.), Magistrate Judge John
S. Bryant recommends that the plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's
Fees and Costs be granted in part and denied in part in a Dec. 5,
2014 Report and Recommendation available at http://is.gd/QuV4zt
from Leagle.com.

The action was filed in February 2012 under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The parties agreed to settle the dispute, but were
unable to agree upon the attendant attorney's fees.  In September
2014, the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for a
recommendation.

Accordingly, in its Dec 5, 2014 report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends: (1) a reduction to $395 as a reasonable rate for
senior counsel; (2) a reduction of $30 for the less senior
counsel; and (3) a reduction to $75 for the paralegal and law
clerk work, with the exception of Ms. Pardee's calculation of
damages and back wages.

Therefore, the judge recommends: (1) $234,059.50 for the work of
counsel at Dickinson Wright PLLC; (2) $53,103.75 for the work of
counsel at the Higgins Firm; (3) $2,319.48 for costs of Dickinson
Wright; and (4) $350.00 for costs of the Higgins Firm.

Bobby Osborne, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Higgins, The
Higgins Firm, PLLC, Jonathan A. Street, The Higgins Firm, PLLC,
Martin D. Holmes -- mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Morris Reid Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com
-- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Scott A. Petz --
spetz@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Nicholas Financial, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith D.
Frazier -- keith.frazier@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Luther Wright, Jr. --
luther.wright@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


OREGON, USA: Rigged Poker Games Cost Players $134-Mil., Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon State Lottery's rigged video poker games have cost
players $134 million, a man claims in a class action lawsuit,
reports Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Justin Curzi claims the video poker machines'
"auto-hold" feature misleads players about how to increase their
odds of winning a hand.

The auto-hold feature recommends playing strategies, and allows
players to automatically discard and draw new cards with a single
button, according to the complaint.

"Thus, relying on the auto-hold feature is the easiest and fastest
way to play video poker, and the player must actively elect not to
rely on the auto-hold feature in order to avoid following its
recommended strategies," Curzi says in the complaint.

He claims that the auto-hold feature sometimes recommends
strategies "that materially decrease a player's chances of playing
a winning hand when compared against the best possible strategy."

The state lottery was audited by Gaming Laboratories International
in 2009, and the audit found that "there is virtually no
difference between actual payouts and the payouts achieved by
following the recommendations made by the auto-hold feature," the
complaint states.  "These payouts, however, are more than 3
percent less (on average) than the payouts that would be achieved
if the auto-hold feature actually did recommend the best playing
strategies."

Curzi claims the State Lottery knows that video poker players
believe that the auto-hold feature offers the best playing
strategy, but has not informed them that it is not the case.

"Instead, the Lottery publicly advertises the theoretical payouts
for each video game, including on its website, without disclosing
the fact that the auto-hold feature is programmed to pay out at
less than those odds," the complaint states.

Curzi claims that poker players "lost an estimated $134 million as
a result of defendants' wrongful conduct."

Also named as defendants are IGT Inc., GTech USA, and WMS Gaming
Inc.

Curzi seeks class certification and at least $134 million in
damages for fraud, misrepresentation, negligence and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Zollinger, Esq.
          OUTSIDE GENERAL COUNSEL SERVICES, P.C.
          10975 SW Avocet Ct.
          Beaverton, OR  97007
          Telephone: (503) 464-6787


PINK'S ICE: Recalls 2014 Ice Cream Due to Listeria Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Pink's Ice Cream LLC of Seattle, WA is recalling all ice cream
flavors produced in 2014 with the exception of Coconut Non-Dairy
Frozen Dessert, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Pink's Ice Cream was distributed through grocery stores and
restaurants around the Puget Sound Area including Uwajimaya and
Metropolitan Market in Washington.

The 16 oz. pints of ice cream are sold with a six-digit numerical
product code between on the bottom of the product. That six digit
code will start with two numbers between 00**** and 52****.  The
recall includes all codes within that range with the exclusion of
01**** and 41****.   The table below summarizes the affected
products.

  Name of Product Flavors   Size    Production Date    Type of
  --------------- -------   ----    ---------------    Packaging
                                                       ---------
Pink's Ice Cream  Black     16 oz   1/1/14-12/21/14    Paper
                  Sesame,                              Carton
                  Durian,
                  Green Tea,
                  Mango,
                  Red Bean,
                  Spicy Ginger,
                  Taro,
                  Thai Tea

Pink's Ice Cream  Black      1 gal   1/1/14-12/21/14   Plastic
                  Sesame,                              Gallon
                  Durian,
                  Green Tea,
                  Mango,
                  Red Bean,
                  Spicy Ginger,
                  Taro,
                  Thai Tea

The recall is the result of contamination found at Snoqualmie
Gourmet Ice Cream, Pink's dairy supplier. A routine sampling
revealed traces of Listeria in the finished product and on nearby
surfaces at the supplier's plant.  Pink's Ice Cream has recalled
all products made with potentially contaminated dairy ingredient,
sterilized all production surfaces and equipment, and has begun
sourcing dairy from an alternative source.

No illnesses related to the consumption of Pink's Ice Cream
products have been reported to date. Thisrecall is being made with
the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased Pink's Ice Cream, except the non-
dairy Coconut, are urged to return it to the place of purchase for
a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company
at 206-861-9098 during regular business hours (Monday - Friday
9am-5:00 PST).

Photo of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428526.htm


PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls SKLZ Resistance Trainers
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Primal Vantage Co., of Bernardsville, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 Ameristep Hyde Cliff Hanger and Sky Walker
Tree Stands.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The cast aluminum platform can break, causing the user to fall to
the ground and suffer serious injuries.

The recall involves two 2014 models of hang-on tree stands used by
hunters. They include the Ameristep Hyde Cliff Hanger with model
number 2RX1H008C and date code JH-2014-3-6 and the Ameristep Hyde
Sky Walker with model number 2RX1H009C and date code JH-2014-3-6.
The date code is stamped on the back of the tree stand's aluminum
seat frame.  The model number is printed on the packaging and in
the instruction manual.  "Hyde" is printed in red on the vertical
aluminum bar between the seat and the foot platform.

Primal Vantage has received six reports of the tree stand's
aluminum platform breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Yjy1ZR

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass
Pro Shops and other sporting goods stores nationwide from July
2014 through November 2014 for between $220 and $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Primal Vantage for a full refund.


PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaya F. Posen, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Primary Financial Services, L.L.C., Case No.
1:15-cv-00205 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015) accuses the Company of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRO PERFORMANCE: Recalls SKLZ Resistance Trainers
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pro Performance Sports LLC, of Carlsbad, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 52,000 SKLZ Recoil 360 All-Position
Resistance Trainers.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

A weld on a ring on the resistance trainer's belt can break during
use and cause the resistance trainer's flexible cord to quickly
and unexpectedly retract and hit an exercise partner who is
holding the other end.

The recall involves the SKLZ Recoil 360 All-Position Resistance
Trainers, which is a leash-type device that provides resistance
during exercise.  The resistance trainer consists of a belt, an 8-
foot flexible cord attachment leash, a safety handle and a storage
bag. "SKLZ" followed by an arrow is printed on the belt.  Users
wear the belt, which is connected to the flexible cord.  The
safety handle, connected to the flexible cord, is held by a coach
or partner to provide resistance while the user runs, jumps or
shuffles.  In lieu of a coach or partners, the safety handle can
be connected to a sturdy stationary object like a fence or post.
Belts with the arrow before the "SKLZ" are not included in this
recall.

The firm has received three reports of the weld on the resistance
trainer breaking and resulting in serious injuries, including
blunt trauma to a lower leg, a puncture wound and a laceration.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/IVIgrY

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Academy LTD, Dick's Sporting Goods and other sporting goods and
fitness stores; sporting goods and fitness catalogs; and online at
SKLZ.com and Amazon.com from January 2013 through December 2014
for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled resistance
trainers and contact SKLZ to return them for a free replacement
resistance trainer, including free shipping.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Remands Hygiene Wipes Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Procter & Gamble Co. has failed to dispose of a proposed class
action alleging the company misrepresents its hygiene wipes as
flushable, courtesy of a California federal judge who gave the
plaintiffs alternative routes to press their case.

In an unusual order, U.S. District Judge James Donato partially
remanded Machlan v. Procter & Gamble to California state court,
where the judge said San Francisco plaintiff David Machlan would
have a chance to win injunctive relief against the company for
alleged fraudulent marketing of the premoistened wipes as
appropriate for flushing, when municipal sewer pumps and septic
systems are allegedly becoming clogged by them.

Mr. Machlan's suit, which reached federal court in April from San
Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that Procter & Gamble
fraudulently touts Charmin Freshmates Flushable Wipes as safe for
flushing.  It makes the same claims against co-defendant Nehemiah
Manufacturing Co. and its Pampers Kandoo Flushable Wipes.
Nehemiah is a small manufacturer designated by P&G as a licensee
for the Kandoo wipes.  Similar putative actions have been lodged
against Target Corp., Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. over their brands of wipes.

In a Jan. 7 order in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Judge Donato agreed with the defendants that
Mr. Machlan lacked standing to ask for an injunction because he
did not allege that he intended to again purchase the wipes in
question.

Judge Donato said that to qualify for an injunction in federal
court, a plaintiff must demonstrate "a sufficient likelihood that
he will again be wronged in a similar way."  The judge added that
the nature of Mr. Machlan's alleged injury -- deception -- is such
that he personally cannot be harmed in the same way again.

Rather than dismiss Mr. Machlan's claims for lack of standing or
remand the full action, the judge ordered an uncommon "partial
remand" of just the portions of the claim that seek injunctive
relief under California consumer protection laws.  Unlike in
federal court, a state court can imposed an injunction even if the
plaintiff does not argue that he intends to buy the product again.
"A California state court ought to decide whether injunctive
relief is appropriate for plaintiff's claim," Judge Donato wrote,
in ordering the partial remand.  "Respect for comity and
federalism compel that conclusion, and just tossing aside the
state's injunction remedy because of this court's limited
jurisdiction is an unwarranted federal intrusion into California's
interests and laws."

The judge also suggested an end-run around Mr. Machlan's federal
claims about the Charmin wipes, which Mr. Machlan acknowledged he
never purchased.  Judge Donato dismissed those claims, with
prejudice, for lack of standing, but said the allegations could be
renewed with a new named plaintiff who did purchase the Charmin
product.

Defense counsel are attorneys with Covington & Burling and Dudnick
Detwiler Rivin & Stikker.  Mr. Machlan is represented by attorneys
with Gutride Safier.


PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaya Felberbaum, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00193 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015) seeks relief for
alleged 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


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Feig d/b/a American Medical Collectoin Agency, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated consumers v. Retrieval Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00196 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUSSELL GOLDMAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian P. Carney and William C. Gumpper, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Russell P.
Goldman, P.C. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00260-FLW-DEA
(D.N.J., January 13, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SOBERLINK INC: Accused of Misrepresenting Alcohol Testing Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Soberlink advertises its
alcohol breath-testing devices as "admissible and certified by the
courts," but they are not, a class action claims in California
Federal Court.


SONY PICTURES: Files Motion to Consolidate Data Breach Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers from
Keller Rohrback, Girard Gibbs and Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the seven
proposed class actions filed in federal court so far on behalf of
current and former Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.'s employees
whose personal information allegedly was compromised in the
cyberattack.  The unopposed motion, which is subject to approval
from U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District
of California, also proposes to have the three firms named interim
colead class counsel.

The lawyers "are uniquely qualified to represent the putative
class in this case because of their extensive expertise and
experience in consumer class actions, data breach litigation, and
employee representation, which will be applied in this case to
maximize the recovery for class members and move the litigation
forward efficiently," they wrote.

Keller Rohrback filed the first proposed class action stemming
from the Sony data breach on Dec. 16.  Separate lawsuits from
Girard Gibbs, and Lieff Cabraser followed a day later.  According
to the Jan. 12 filing, the law firms behind four proposed class
actions subsequently filed in federal court have consented to
consolidating the cases and having Keller Rohrback, Girard Gibbs
and Lieff Cabraser act as interim colead counsel.

Sony, which has hired Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to
handle the litigation fallout from the data breach, didn't take a
position on the Jan. 12 motion, according to the filing.


STAR RIDE: Recalls Children's Pajama Sets
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Star Ride Kids, of New York. N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 7,000 Children's Pajama Sets.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

The recall involves Star Ride Kids girl's pajama sets.  The
recalled pajamas are made of polyester and sold in sizes 4 through
14.  The pajama sets consist of polar fleece pants with a bow and
elastic at the waist and a jersey two-piece long-sleeve shirt.
Style reference number 5217 or 5250 is on a label in the side seam
of each shirt.  "Star Ride Taking It To The Next Level" is on a
label in the waistband of each pair of pants.  The logo "Star
Ride" is printed on the inside back of the neck of each shirt.
Some shirts have a hangtag on the wrist with the words "flame
resistant sleepwear."  The sets were sold in these combinations:

Style Reference No. 5217
Black and white zebra printed pants paired with a blue top with a
zebra printed heart on the center front.

Pink and black zebra printed pants paired with a white top with
pink, heart-shaped peace signs and the word "Peace" printed on the
center front.

Style Reference No. 5250

Blue pants with the words "Happy, Love, Dreams" in a multicolored
print paired with a white and blue top with the word "Hope"
printed on the center front.

Pink pants with the words "Happy, Love, Dreams" in a multicolored
print paired with a white and pink top with multicolored stars on
the lower left side.

There were no incidents that were reported.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/VlNjnK

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
children's boutiques and department stores nationwide from August
2013 through November 2013 for between $10 and $13.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from
children, stop using them and return them to the place of purchase
for a full refund.


STATE FARM: Majority of Wojcieszak Documents Protected
------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit MARK HALE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-
660-DRH-SCW (N.D. Ill.) is a class action complaint alleging two
Racketeer-influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims
against the Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company devised a scheme to elect Judge Lloyd
Karmeier to the Illinois Supreme Court, conceal its involvement in
the financing and management of the campaign from Plaintiffs and
the Illinois Supreme Court so that Judge Karmeier could preside
over the Avery case which was then pending before the supreme
court, and concealed their involvement by misrepresenting their
involvement in two written briefs submitted to the Illinois
Supreme Court in 2005 and 2011.  As part of the Avery case, Doug
Wojcieszak provided three affidavits in 2005 and 2011 in which he
made factual assertions regarding State Farm's role in the
Karmeier campaign.  Tactical Investigations is Wojcieszak's former
firm.

State Farm sought documents regarding Wojcieszak's and Tactical
Investigation's investigations into the Karmeier election
campaign. They sought all documents that Wojcieszak relied on or
collected in forming his affidavits in the Avery case.

Korein Tillery, Randall Bono, Brad Lakin, Jeff Cooper, and John
Simmons -- referred to as "the Tillery Group" -- objected to the
production of 413 documents they claim to be privileged under a
prior agreement with Wojcieszak and Tactical Investigations.

In a Dec. 5, 2014 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/zLBCUnfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Stephen C.
Williams granted in part and denied in part State Farm's Motion to
Overrule the Tillery Group's privilege assertions as to 413
documents.  The Illinois District Court held that the majority of
the 431 documents submitted for in-camera review are protected by
First Amendment or work product privileges.  However, the Court
said certain documents essential to the heart of State Farm's
defense and those public relation documents which were exposed to
the public domain must be produced to State Farm.

Tactical Investigations and Wojcieszak had until Dec. 19, 2014 to
produce those documents with the directed redactions.

Mark Hale, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett, Charles
Barrett, PC, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley Law Firm, Robert A.
Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., W. Gordon Ball, Ball &
Scott, Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law
Offices. P.C., David T. Brown, Much, Shelist et al., David Alan
Eisenberg, Much, Shelist et al., Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff,
Cabraser et al. - San Francisco, CA, George S. Bellas, Clifford
Law Offices P.C., Jessica A. Perez, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin,
L.L.P., John W. Barrett, Barrett Law Office, Kevin Reid Budner,
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Kristofer S. Riddle, Clifford Law Offices
PC, Lance K. Baker, Gordon Ball PLLC, Michael S. Krzak, Clifford
Law Offices. P.C., Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, L.L.P., Richard R. Barrett, Barrett Law Office - MS,
Richard M Heimann, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard H Taylor,
Taylor Martino P.C., Robert J Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser et al.,
Robert P Sheridan, Clifford Law Offices , Shannon M McNulty,
Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Sidney W. Jackson, III, Jackson
Foster, et al., Steven P Blonder, Much, Shelist et al., Steven A.
Martino, Taylor Martino P.C., Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA
& W Lloyd Copeland, Taylor Martino P.C..

Todd Shadle, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett, Charles
Barrett, PC, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley Law Firm, Robert A.
Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., W. Gordon Ball, Ball &
Scott, Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law
Offices. P.C., David Alan Eisenberg, Much, Shelist et al.,
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al. , George S. Bellas,
Clifford Law Offices P.C., John W. Barrett, Barrett Law Office,
Kevin Reid Budner, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Kristofer S. Riddle,
Clifford Law Offices PC, Lance K. Baker, Gordon Ball PLLC, Michael
S. Krzak, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Richard R. Barrett, Barrett
Law Office, Richard M Heimann, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard H
Taylor, Taylor Martino P.C., Robert J Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser et
al., Robert P Sheridan, Clifford Law Offices, Shannon M McNulty,
Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Sidney W. Jackson, III, Jackson
Foster, et al., Steven P Blonder, Much, Shelist et al., Steven A.
Martino, Taylor Martino P.C., Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA
& W Lloyd Copeland, Taylor Martino P.C..

Laurie Loger, Plaintiff, represented by George S. Bellas, Clifford
Law Offices P.C. & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott.
Mark Covington, Plaintiff, represented by George S. Bellas,
Clifford Law Offices P.C. & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Schiff Hardin LLP, Patrick
D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al., Ronald S. Safer, Schiff Hardin
LLP, Harnaik Kahlon, Schiff Hardin LLP, J. Timothy Eaton, Shefsky
& Froelich Ltd. & James P. Gaughan, Schiff Hardin LLP.

Edward Murnane, Defendant, represented by Richard J. O'Brien,
Sidley Austin LLP, David Gavin Jorgensen, Sidley Austin LLP, Karim
Basaria, Sidley Austin LLP & Patrick Edward Croke, Sidley Austin
LLP.
William G Shepherd, Defendant, represented by Russell K. Scott,
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC & Andrew J. Tessman, Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale PC.

Illinois State Bar Association, Movant, represented by Michael J.
Nester, Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Stanley Tucker, Movant, represented by Michael J. Nester, Donovan
Rose Nester PC.

April Troemper, Movant, represented by Michael J. Nester, Donovan
Rose Nester PC.

Lloyd A Karmeier, Interested Party, represented by A. Courtney
Cox, Sandberg, Phoenix et al. & Anthony L. Martin, Sandberg,
Phoenix et al..

Tillery Group, Interested Party, represented by J. William Lucco,
Lucco, Brown et al. & Joseph R. Brown, Jr., Lucco, Brown et al..


SYNGENTA CORP: "Brockman" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brockman v. Syngenta Corporation,
et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04879, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02218-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:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          Mark A. Wendorf, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  m.wendorf@rwblawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SYNGENTA CORP: "Brooks" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Brooks v. Syngenta AG, et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00162, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District
Court District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02189-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:

          Jonathan C. Little, Esq.
          Jessica A. Moland, Esq.
          SAEED & LITTLE LLP
          1433 N. Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 721-9214
          E-mail: Jon@sllawfirm.com
                  jessica@sllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick Pendley, Esq.
          Nick Rockforte, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN AND COFFIN, L.L.P.
          1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          Facsimile: (504) 523-0699
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
                  nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Clark Hill Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Clark Hill Farms, et al. v.
Syngenta AG, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03482, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to
the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02182-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:

          George M. Snellings, IV, Esq.
          David H. Nelson, Esq.
          Fred W. Sartor, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas G. Zentner, Jr., Esq.
          NELSON, ZENTNER, SARTOR & SNELLINGS, LLC
          PO Box 14420
          Monroe, LA 71207-4420
          Telephone: (318) 388-4454
          Facsimile: (318) 388-4447

               - and -

          Andrew K. York, Esq.
          Hugh A. Fuller, Esq.
          William B. Chaney, Esq.
          GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C.
          1601 Elm St., Suite 4600
          Houston, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 954-4135
          Facsimile: (214) 953-1332
          E-mail: dyork@grayreed.com
                  afuller@grayreed.com
                  wchaney@grayreed.com

               - and -

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          Gretchen Garrison, Esq.
          Jason D. Sapp, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, PC
          701 Market St., Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5620
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
          E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com
                  ggarrison@grgpc.com
                  jsapp@grgpc.com

               - and -

          Jason Earley, Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON
          2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 225-5500
          Facsimile: (501) 225-5501
          E-mail: jason@hwnn.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Powell, Esq.
          HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          2025 3rd Avenue, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "D&C" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled D&C Thornton Farms, et al. v.
Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01997, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas
City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
02192-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:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Edward Goodman, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          One Federal Place
          1819 Fifth Ave. North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521-8000
          Facsimile: (205) 521-8800
          E-mail: jgoodman@babc.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Moore" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Moore, et al. v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00127, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to the
U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02187-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:

          David E. Sykes, Esq.
          DAVID E SYKES, P.C.
          60 S. Main Street
          Fairfield, IA 52556
          Telephone: (641) 472-5141
          Facsimile: (641) 472-6800
          E-mail: davidsykes@davidsykeslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
          James A. O'Brien III, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water St., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com
                  dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
                  jobrien@seegerweiss.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Nixon" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Nixon v. Syngenta Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00397, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the
U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02196-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:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen Lee Thomas, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          P.O. Box 1789
          Jackson, MS 39215-1789
          Telephone: (601) 592-9912
          Facsimile: (601) 592-1412
          E-mail: sthomas@babc.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Falwell" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms, individually and on behalf of
a Class of others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation,
Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, Syngenta Seeds Inc., Michael Mack
and David Morgan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00012-DPM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 14,
2015) is brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel Bacine, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Poinsett Suit in Arkansas Over MIR162 Corn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Poinsett Rice - Osceola Division, LLC v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta
Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00013-
JM (E.D. Ark., January 14, 2015) arises from the Defendants'
alleged premature release of a genetically modified corn trait,
Agrisure VIPTERA (TM).

The Plaintiff is an Arkansas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Osceola, Mississippi County,
Arkansas.

The Defendants are foreign corporations actively doing business in
the state of Arkansas.

Beginning in 2009, Syngenta prematurely released a genetically
modified com trait, Agrisure VIPTERA (TM), into the U.S. market,
according to the complaint.  Syngenta's actions in turn caused the
contamination of the entire U.S. com supply with a genetic trait
called MIR162, which during all times relevant to this action, was
prohibited from import in countries, including China, that had not
approved it.

As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs contends
that sales of U.S. corn to China and other export markets stalled,
and China and other export markets have refused to accept and
import U.S. com marketed and handled by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin J. Phipps, Esq.
          PHIPPS ANDERSON LLP
          102 9th Street
          San Antonio, TX 78215
          Telephone: (210) 340-9877
          Facsimile: (210) 340-9899
          E-mail: mphipps@phippscavazos.com

               - and -

          Barry Deacon, Esq.
          DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A
          2524 Alexander Drive, Suite B
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 336-9300
          Facsimile: (870) 336-9301
          E-mail: bdeacon@deaconlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lynn Johnson, Esq.
          SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN
          2600 Grand, Suite 550
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 399-5596
          Facsimile: (816) 474-0003
          E-mail: ljohnson@sjblaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Quarles" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Quarles v. Syngenta Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00433, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S.
District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02183-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:

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          22 West 9th, 2nd Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          Facsimile: (513) 721-1178
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and -

          Nathan Dale Williams, Esq.
          BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER, PLC
          Marion E. Taylor Building, 6th Floor
          312 S. Fourth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587-2002
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2006
          E-mail: nathan@bccnlaw.com

               - and -

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: flaheym@locklaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Triple Farms Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Triple Farms of Indiana, LLC v.
Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02014, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas
City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
02188-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:

          Irwin Levin, Esq.
          Richard Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Vess Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com


TD BANK: Faces "Koshgarian" Suit in NY Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that despite recently paying $62
million to settle multidistrict litigation over its overdraft
practices, TD Bank's "egregious" scheme to maximize such revenue
continues, a New York federal class action alleges.

John Koshgarian filed the 34-page federal complaint against New
Jersey-based TD Bank and its Canadian parent, the Toronto-Dominion
Bank, on Dec. 31.

A New Yorker, Koshgarian filed as his first exhibit the March 2013
settlement that TD Bank reached in Miami regarding its overdraft
practices.

Though that settlement covered a class period from 2003 to 2010,
Koshgarian says the collection of excessive overdraft fees by TD
Bank has continued.

"Significantly, defendants continue to assess overdraft fees based
on the improper reordering of debit card transactions from highest
to lowest amount and to assess fees even at times when customers
would, but for the reordering, have sufficient funds in their
account to cover all merchant requests for payment," the complaint
states.

Many other banks were involved in the multidistrict litigation,
which was captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,
but Koshgarian says TD Bank stands out as one of the few to
"continue[] these practices even after it settled claims of
wrongdoing based on these very same practices."

"In the era of electronic banking and the ubiquitous use of debit
cards, the assessment of overdraft fees has become a major profit
center for United States banks, including defendants," the
complaint states.

Though banks used to waive the charge when their customers
occasionally bounced checks, the era of overdraft-protection plans
has for the last 20 years changed that protocol, according to the
complaint.

Koshgarian says overdraft fees brought banks more than $17 billion
in 2007.

"The number nearly doubled in 2008, as more and more consumers
struggled to maintain positive checking account balances," the
complaint states.  "In 2009, banks brought in $37.1 billion in
overdraft charges alone.  TD Bank has over $200 billion in assets
and over 1300 branches, and has been a notable beneficiary of
these staggering overdraft charges."

Since those most likely to maintain low balances are often poor,
Koshgarian says the effect on this class is disproportionate.

"Moebs Services, a research company that has conducted studies for
the government as well as banks, estimates that 90 percent of
overdraft fees are paid by the poorest 10 percent of banks'
customer base," the complaint states.  "Moreover, these fees have
the tendency to create a domino effect, because the imposition of
a fee on an account with a negative balance will make it less
likely that the account holder's balance will reach positive
territory, resulting in more fees."

Banks have the power to decline debit transactions when there are
insufficient funds, or warn customers that an overdraft fee will
be assessed if they proceed with the transaction, but they instead
process the transactions to then charge an overdraft, Koshgarian
says.

"Thus, defendants' automatic, fee-based overdraft scheme was and
is intentionally designed to maximize overdraft fee revenue," the
complaint states.

Koshgarian notes that overdraft fees can cost customers "hundreds
of dollars in a matter of days, or even hours."

"Even more egregious, customer accounts may not actually be
overdrawn at the time the overdraft fees are charged, or at the
time of the debit transaction," the complaint states.  "In these
instances, defendants manipulate and alters the timing of the
customer's transactions, in a manner inconsistent with Defendants'
contractual obligations, in order to maximize overdraft fees
imposed on the customer.  Thus, it is through manipulation and
alteration of customers' transaction records in a manner
inconsistent with defendants' contractual obligations that
defendants maximizes overdraft fees imposed on customers."  It was
such "rampant abuse of overdraft charges by banks" that led the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to institute
notice requirements for banks concerning overdraft charges,
according to the complaint.

Koshgarian says any overdraft fees TD Bank assessed on debit card
transactions after Aug. 16, 2010, thus violated federal law, since
the newly amended Regulation E (12 C.F.R. Section 205.17) under
the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, obligated banks "to obtain
customers' affirmative consent before assessing overdraft fees on
debit card transactions."

Katony, N.Y.-based attorney James Batson represents the class,
which seeks an injunction and damages for bad faith, breach of
contract, violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and
other wrongs.

The complaint notes that TD Bank has 1,300 branches in the United
States.


TD BANK: Faces "Klein" Suit in NJ Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
TD Bank is facing a half-dozen suits challenging its overdraft
fees as excessive, even after it agreed in 2013 to a $62 million
settlement of multidistrict litigation challenging its overdraft
fee practices.

TD Bank continued many of the practices that were challenged in
the prior litigation, even after agreeing to the settlement,
according to the six newly filed cases, which are all putative
class actions.

The latest case, filed Jan. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey in Camden, N.J., comes on the heels of
another Camden suit filed in December 2014 against TD Bank.

Additional overdraft fee suits were filed against TD Bank on
Jan. 8 in Tampa federal court, on Dec. 31, 2014, in the Southern
District of New York, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
March 2014 and in the District of South Carolina in August 2013.

The suits claim TD Bank account holders pay the $35 overdraft fee
more frequently than customers of other banks because the bank
posts point-of-sale transactions to customers' accounts based on
the amount -- larger ones before small ones -- instead of posting
them chronologically.

The latest complaint filed in Camden, Klein v. TD Bank, provides
the example of a customer with a $10 account balance who uses his
debit card to make a $3.50 purchase at 9 a.m. and a $12 purchase
at noon.  If the transactions are posted chronologically, the
customer will pay the $35 overdraft fee once, when the second
transaction is posted.  But if the transactions are posted from
largest to smallest, the bank charges two overdraft fees -- one
for each transaction, the complaint alleges.

The dispute stems from the bank's practice of approving debit card
transactions that exceed the customer's balance, according to the
suits.  Banks collect billions of dollars each year in overdraft
fees, which disproportionately impact the poor, the suits claim.

The complaints cite a study that says 90 percent of overdraft fees
are paid by the poorest 10 percent of the banks' customer base.

TD Bank's $62 million settlement in 2013 was part of a
multidistrict litigation in which similar claims were made against
30 banks.  In that settlement, TD Bank account holders received
credits in their accounts if they had paid overdraft fees based on
the reordering of transactions.

After the 2013 settlement, TD Bank said in public statements that
it would begin posting transactions chronologically, but it never
made that change, the suits claim.

Klein seeks to recover on a different basis than the other second-
round overdraft fee suits -- it focuses on the bank's imposition
of overdraft fees on the account's "available balance" rather than
the actual or ledger balance.  The available balance represents
the money in the account minus transactions that TD Bank
anticipates will or might occur in the future, according to the
complaint. At least 10 percent of the time an overdraft fee is
assessed, there is enough money in the account to cover the
transaction, the suit claims.

Basing the decision to charge overdraft fees on the available
balance is contrary to TD Bank's contracts with its customers, the
suit claims.  The suit seeks to recover for breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for
violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.

Of the 30 banks that were defendants in the previous multidistrict
litigation, TD Bank is the only one that did not change its
practices after the settlement was reached, said Richard McCune of
McCuneWright in Redlands, Calif., who represents the plaintiffs in
Klein.  Local counsel is Joseph Sauder --
JosephSauder@chimicles.com -- of Chimicles & Tikellis in
Haverford, Pa.


TEN BC: Recalls 10 oz. Tommy's Santa Fe Rice Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
TEN BC LLC of Austin, TX is recalling its 10 ounce packages of
"Tommy's Superfoods Santa Fe Rice" because they may contain
undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to peanuts run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The recalled "Tommy's Superfoods Santa Fe Rice" were distributed
nationwide in retail stores.

The product comes in a 10 ounce, white plastic package marked with
Best by 11/17/2015. Lot # C091X4K17 on the bottom and is sold in
the frozen foods section of the store.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the peanut-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of peanuts. Production of the product has been
suspended until the FDA and TEN BC LLC are certain that the
problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 10 ounce packages of "Tommy's
Superfoods Santa Fe Rice" marked with Best By 11/17/2015. Lot #
C091X4K17 on the bottom are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at info@tommysfoods.com


TIBOR SZABO: Court Dismissed Class Suit Over Sale of Pianos
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on January 7 dismissed a class action accusing the
owner of a chic San Francisco music and event space of defrauding
clients of hundreds of thousands of dollars, reports Arvin Temkar
at Courthouse News Service.

Tibor Szabo, owner of Hayes Valley's Salle Piano & Events, was
sued last October by Matthew Figures and Colleen Devlin in a class
action that claimed Szabo solicited deposits for pianos that did
not exist or never were delivered, and did not issue refunds.

U.S. District Judge James Donato dismissed the complaint in its
entirety on Jan. 7 hearing, according to the court reporter's
notes on the hearing.

Donato found the complaint "wholly lacking in explaining the 'who,
what when, where and how' details required" in a fraud case,
according to the court minutes.  The judge was also concerned
about whether the case adequately argued its racketeering claims

Timothy Rumberger, the attorney who filed the complaint for the
plaintiffs, did not appear at the hearing, according to the court
reporter's minutes.

Donato ordered Rumberger on Jan. 8 to "show cause in writing why
the court should not impose monetary sanctions . . . for counsel's
failure to appear."

Szabo emphasized this development in an interview January 8.

"They didn't even show up," Szabo said.  "Clearly none of these
things are founded, and they're accusing me of all these horrid
things."

Szabo called the lawsuit "deeply personal," tying the case to one
he filed nearly three years ago in San Francisco Superior Court.
Rumberger had represented the target of Szabo's previous lawsuit,
Henry Laughlin, and that individual was also mentioned in, but not
a party to, the more recent complaint Rumberger's clients filed
against Szabo.

Rumberger has not returned phone calls seeking comment.

Salle Piano & Events has a glowing 4.5 stars on Yelp, though there
are some scathing reviews.  Szabo has been sued several times,
according to Courthouse News and San Francisco Superior Court
records.

Judge Donato gave the plaintiffs until Jan. 21 to file an amended
complaint.

The case is Figures, et al. v. Szabo, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
04684-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Bombarding People With Spam Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Uber bombards people with spam text messages to cellphones to try
to recruit them as drivers, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

Four named plaintiffs from three states, from Oregon to New
Hampshire, claim Uber violates the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and invades their privacy on a massive scale. Citing a Dec. 11
article in Vice, called "Uber's Text Message Spam is Driving
People Crazy," the plaintiffs say: "People have been unable to get
Uber to stop sending them text messages even after telling Uber
multiple times to stop doing so."

One person complained of getting 42 text messages from Uber in two
weeks.  Another says Uber texted her at 1:44 a.m. and 4:10 a.m. on
Christmas Eve.

Fourteen of 53 complaints filed against Uber with the FTC were for
unsolicited text messages and calls, the complaint states, citing
the Vice article.

Plaintiff Julie McKinney says in the lawsuit that she has never
been an Uber member, driver or user, but that in December she
received at least three text messages from the company about
working as a driver.  Such prerecorded, automated phone calls are
illegal under the TCPA, McKinney says.

Lead plaintiff Kerry Reardon says she applied to be a driver, but
decided against it.  She says she has received dozens of automated
text messages from a welter of Uber numbers, for which she has to
pay, and which she cannot make them stop.

The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of $500 for each negligent
violation of the TCPA and statutory damages of $1,500 for each
willful violation.  They also seek punitive damages and an
injunction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


UNISYS TECHNICAL: "Renazco" Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Renazco sought and obtained a district court order for the
remand of his labor class action against Unisys Technical
Services, L.L.C., to state court in a Dec. 5, 2014 order available
at http://is.gd/27SRnPfrom Leagle.com.

The lawsuit is EDGAR RENAZCO, Plaintiff, v. UNISYS TECHNICAL
SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. C-14-4204 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff sued Unisys, an information technology company, alleging
violations of various wage and hour provisions of the California
Labor Code and corresponding violations of California's unfair
competition law.  On behalf of a putative class of Unisys' current
and former non-exempt hourly employees, Plaintiff seeks back wages
with interest, equitable relief, statutory damages, and attorney's
fees.

The action was originally filed in San Francisco County Superior
Court.  Defendants removed the case to federal court on September
17, 2014.

In his Dec. 5 order, District Judge Edward M. Cohen concluded that
the Defendant has not met its burden of establishing by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in
this case exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff's motion to remand this
matter to state court is thus GRANTED, the Court ruled.
Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees incurred in connection
with its motion to remand is DENIED, the Court further ordered.

Edgar Renazco, Plaintiff, represented by Norman B. Blumenthal,
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Aparajit Bhowmik, Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; & Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Unisys Technical Services, L.L.C., a Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Julie Anne Vogelzang --
jvogelzang@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP & Allegra Aine
Jones -- AAJones@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls 100ml, 6g Vial Virazole(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC (VPNA) is issuing a
voluntarily recall of one lot of Virazole(R) (ribavirin powder for
solution), 100 mL, 6g Vial, 4-pack to the user level.

Inhalation of a non-sterile product with microbial contamination
into the airways could increase the risk of respiratory infection.
The risk is higher in patients who are immuno-compromised (because
of underlying disease), and are more susceptible.

Virazole is indicated for the treatment of hospitalized infants
and young children with severe lower respiratory tract infections
due to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Valeant has not received
reports of adverse events or injuries, related to this recall.

Virazole is packaged in 100 mL, 6 g Vial, 4-pack NDC 00187-0007-14
which is to be reconstituted with 300 mL Sterile Water for
Injection or Sterile Water for Inhalation (no preservatives added)
and administered only by a small particle aerosol generator (SPAG-
2). The affected Virazole lot is Lot No. 340353F with an
expiration date of Oct-2018. Virazole was distributed in the U.S.
and Australia.

VPNA is notifying its distributors and customers by mail and is
arranging for return of all recalled product of this lot. This
recall only affects this lot of Virazole; all other lots are not
affected and are not involved in this recall.

Customers with questions regarding this recall can contact VPNA by
phone at 800-321-4576 Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm (Eastern) or by
e-mail address at pharmcs@valeant.com. Consumers should contact
their physician or healthcare provider for questions regarding
this product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to VPNA at 877-361-2719 or to the
FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program as follows:

About Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC:
Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC, is a specialty
pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets a
broad range of pharmaceutical products primarily in the areas of
dermatology, eye health, consumer healthcare and other
pharmaceutical products. More information about Valeant can be
found at www.valeant.com.


VALLEY SMOKERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Stroh v. Valley Smokers, LLC, an Arizona company; Carsten
Heyer and Jane Doe Heyer, husband and wife; Hans-Peter Lehmann and
Jane Doe Lehmann, husband and wife, Case No. 2:15-cv-00059-DJH (D.
Ariz., January 13, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Valley Smokers, LLC was incorporated in the state of Arizona.  The
Individual Defendants are residents of Arizona and are the owners
of Valley Smokers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Accused of Hiding Billion Dollar Profit Shortfall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen's board and other top officials have been sued for
allegedly failing to tell shareholders of an alleged multi-billion
dollar profit shortfall, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse
News Service.

In a derivative action filed in Chicago Federal Court, Walgreen
shareholder Anne Cutler says company CEO Gregory Wasson, Chairman
James Skinner, and 13 other corporate officers hid dire news about
the pharmacy chain's performance until an August 6, 2014
announcement that caused its share price to plummet nearly 15
percent.

Walgreens operates the largest pharmacy chain in America, with
8,309 locations.  Pharmacy sales have accounted for approximately
75 percent of the chain's total sales for the past three years.

In her complaint, Cutler says that with its announcement,
Walgreen's board slashed its 2016 EBIT [earnings before interest &
tax] goal by $2 billion, and reduced expected 2016 pharmacy
earnings by $1.1 billion.

A short time later, former Walgreen CFO Wade Miquelon claimed in
court that he was wrongly made the scapegoat for a "shocking"
calculation error leading to the reduction.

In his defamation suit, Miquelon claims company directors were
well aware that market forces would make Walgreens unable to meet
its fiscal year 2016 earnings forecast, but that activist
investors pressured the board not to revise the forecast.

Cutler's derivative complaint relies on Miquelon's insider
information, and also points to the "skyrocket[ing]" cost of
essential generic drugs, which increased as much as 600 to 1,000
percent in 2013.

"As generic drug prices continued to soar, the Company's internal
EBIT forecast continued to decrease," the complaint says.  "The
Company's executives initially lowered EBIT forecast to $8.7
billion in July 2013, and continued to spiral downward thereafter,
plummeting to an internal estimate of $7.2-7.5 billion by late May
2014."

Cutler claims the board's August 2014 disclosures erased almost
49.5 billion in market capitalization.

"Further, as a direct result of this unlawful course of conduct,
the company is now the subject of numerous federal securities
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who
purchased Walgreens' shares," she says.

Cutler seeks disgorgement and damages for breach of fiduciary
duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, as well as
a shareholder vote on proposals to improve Walgreens' disclosure
procedures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057
          E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com


WELLPOINT INC: "Ray" Suit Transferred From Indiana to Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ray, et al. v. Wellpoint Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02026, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern).  The
Alabama District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00052-RDP
to the proceeding.

The action is brought on behalf of subscribers of WellPoint, Inc.,
doing business as Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., for damages
and restitution.  Specifically, the action seeks to recover
damages in the form of a refund of inflated premiums that
WellPoint has charged Indiana subscribers as a result of an
alleged ongoing conspiracy between WellPoint and 37 other Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association member health plans in violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, and as a result of anti-competitive
conduct WellPoint has engaged in to establish and maintain
monopoly power throughout Indiana.

WellPoint is the largest health insurance company operating in
Indiana, and currently exercises market power in the commercial
health insurance market throughout Indiana.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan C. Little, Esq.
          SAEED & LITTLE, LLP
          1433 North Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 721-9214
          E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com

               - and -

          David Miller, Esq.
          SAEED & LITTLE, LLP
          1433 N. Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 371-5535
          E-mail: david@sllawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul A. Wolfla, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 237-0300
          Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
          E-mail: paul.wolfla@FaegreBD.com


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Bleating Heart Cheese Products
---------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling cheese sold in Arizona, California
and Hawaii that came from its supplier Bleating Heart Cheeses
because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women. Consumers should seek immediate medical care if they
develop these symptoms.

The recalled cheese was cut and packaged in clear plastic wrap and
sold with Whole Foods Market scale labels. Whole Foods Market
decided to recall the cheeses after its supplier, Bleating Heart
Cheese, issued a recall due to possible Listeria monocytogenes.

The following Bleating Heart Cheese products are included in this
recall:

  * Shepardista, PLU# 254704, all sell by dates up to and
    including Jan 20st, 2015
  * Goldette Tommette, PLU# 250302, all sell by dates up to and
    including Jan 20st, 2015
  * Fat Bottom girl, PLU# 254705, all sell by dates up to and
    including Jan 20st, 2015
  * Ewelicious, PLU# 299784, all sell by dates up to and
    including Jan 20st, 2015
  * Mixtress, PLU# 299785, all sell by dates up to and including
    Jan 20st, 2015
  * Moolicious, PLU# 299648, all sell by dates up to and
    including Jan 20st, 2015

No illnesses or infections have been reported to date. Signage is
posted to notify customers of this recall, and all affected
product has been removed from shelves.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
stores may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call
512-477-5566 ext. 20060 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
EST.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428679.htm


WYNDHAM VACATION: Execs Retaliated v. Worker & Class Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service reports that
executives with the Wyndham hotel and resorts chain retaliated
against an employee who sued them over unpaid wages, deeming him
the "Anti-Christ" before they fired him, a lawsuit claims.

Jesse Pierce filed his wrongful termination lawsuit against
Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc. and Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc.
in Federal Court on January 6.

In his complaint, Pierce says his problems began after he filed a
class action against the timeshare companies for unpaid overtime
compensation.

"Shortly after defendants were served with and became aware of Mr.
Pierce's FLSA lawsuit, they retaliated against him," the complaint
states.  "For example, on or about February 1, 2014, they
involuntarily removed him from the sales team and the experienced
manager that he had been working with for several years and
transferred him to another team at a different work site with a
different, inexperienced manager who had supported defendants in
the FLSA lawsuit."

Wyndham also allegedly wrote him up for poor performance when he
was a top salesman and suspended him without pay even though an
investigation found he had done nothing wrong.

Then, in June 2014, "Regional Vice President Dave Labelle stated
to Mr. Pierce, 'Corporate HR and corporate legal view you as the
Anti-Christ,' that 'you have rocked the boat' and 'cost the
company millions' and that 'there is nothing I can do to protect
you' from defendants' illegal conduct, among other admissions and
statements evidencing defendants' retaliatory motives," the
lawsuit says.

Pierce was fired the next month for alleged company policy
violations and Wyndham denied him an appeals process usually given
to discharged employees, the complaint states.  He says he was
fired for both filing the overtime pay lawsuit and for taking FMLA
leave for a heart condition that was made worse by stress at work.

"Defendants perceived and feared that Mr. Pierce would need
further medical treatment, reasonable accommodation, and FMLA
leave or short or long term disability leave and pay and willfully
acted to avoid the requirements of applicable laws and
implementing regulations," according to the complaint.

Pierce seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and lost
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZILKS FOODS: Recalls 8oz. Hummus Products Due to Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------
Zilks Foods, LLC of Austin, TX is recalling all of its 8 ounce
hummus products because they may contain undeclared peanuts.
People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

This recall affects the following products:

  Product         Size    Consumer UPC        Use by Dates
  -------         ----    ------------        ------------
Bacon Hummus      8oz     817719010097        01/06/15 - 02/09/15
Balsamic & Garlic 8oz     817719010073        01/05/15 - 02/09/15
Hummus
Hatch Green Chile 8oz     817719010035        01/05/15 - 02/09/15
Hummus
Jalapeno &        8oz     817719010042        01/05/15 - 02/09/15
Cilantro Hummus
Original Hummus   8oz     817719010011        01/05/15 - 02/09/15
Roasted Red       8oz     817719010028        01/05/15 - 02/09/15
Pepper Hummus
Spinach &         8oz     817719010059        01/05/15 - 02/09/15
Artichoke Hummus

The recalled hummus was distributed nationwide in retail stores.

The containers are clear plastic tubs with white lids. The brand
name "Zilks" can be found on each tub on both the top and side
labels.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

This recall was initiated after it was discovered that a spice
ingredient from a single supplier used in the affected products
was contaminated with peanut allergens.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at info@zilksfoods.com or
call 512-633-8904 Monday through Friday from 9am - 4pm CST.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428761.htm.


                             *********

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  * * *