CAR_Public/150127.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 19


                             Headlines

AETNA LIFE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Insurance Contract
AFFYMAX INC: Gets Final OK on "Bartelt" Class Suit Settlement
AIMCO/BETHESDA HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ALL AMERICAN: Jones Gets Green Light to Amend Complaint
ANADARKO E&P: A-W Land Can Amend Class Action Complaint

APPLE INC: Settles "No-Poach" Class Action for $324.5 Million
APPLE INC.: Court Narrows "Backhaut" Suit Over iMessages
ARIZONA: Appeals Court to Hear Suit Over Ethnic Studies Ban
ATTRACTION: Recalls Boys Hockey Sweatshirt with Drawstring
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Weiss" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Kickbacks

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Motion to Compel Response
BRIA HEALTH: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Vacation Pay
CAPICUA CORPORATION: Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
CARNICERIA ARGENTINA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHALAK-M&M ARl: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours,"Israsena" Suit Says

CHOCOLAT HARMONIE: Recalls Orientale Chocolate Fondue Products
COMCAST CORP: Bid to Compel Discovery in Martin Case Okayed
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Agrees to Settle "Hot-Fuel" Litigation
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Consumers Get Favorable Ruling in Mortgage Suit
DELICES DE: Recalls Artichoke Quarters Due to Presence of Tin

DELTA AIR: Settlement in "Bell" Suit Has Final Approval
DETROIT, MI: Court Rejects Class Decertification in "Brown" Suit
DIGNITY HEALTH: App. Ct. Finds "Sarun" Adequately Alleged Injury
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Palmer" Suit Claims
E & JERYG MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

FAMILY LIFE: "Hughes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES: Recalls Ceramic Baking Dish
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Dell" Suit Over Defective Engine Cradles
FOODSTATE INC: Falsely Marketed Multivitamin Product, Suit Claims
FORD MOTOR: "Sabol" Warranty Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.

FRED DEELEY: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Former President Faces New Fraud Charge
GENERAL NUTRITION: "Vigil" Case Transferred to S.D. Cal.
GOURMET CAJUN: Faces "Guzman-Maya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HARRIS FARMS: Deadline to File Bid for Settlement Approval Moved

HOME DEPOT: Faces Aneca Federal Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
HONG KONG CHINA: Recalls Harbor Breeze Belleisle Bay Ceiling Fan
HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Sued Over Inaccessible Hotel Vehicles
HOULIHAN SMITH: Judge Won't Reverse Ruling on FLSA Atty Fee Award
IMPRO SYNERGIES: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

INDIANA: Lawmaker Plans to File Bill to Require BMV Audits
KIDCENTRAL SUPPLY: Recalls Textured Blocks 80pc by Edushape
KILEY & KILEY: Sued in South Carolina Over Violations of TCPA
KULA KLIPS: Recalls Comb-Style Snap Klips
LENDY ELECTRIC: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MACH MINING: Supreme Court to Decide on Discrimination Suit
MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued Over Race, Gender Bias in Franchised Outlet
MASSAGE ENVY: Settles Massage Class Action for $177 Million
MEXX CANADA: Recalls Children's Winter Jackets With Flashlight
NATIONAL TAX: Faces "Franco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NATIONWIDE NATURAL: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk
NISSAN: Recalls Pathfinder, Sentra and X-Trail Models
NORDSTROM INC: Seeks Dismissal of False Marketing Class Action
NORFOLK STATE: Male Teachers' Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part
PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Boatright Suit

PROGENE HEALTHCARE: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
RECKITT BENCKISER: Court Narrows Claims in Suboxone Litigation
SA SAUSAGES: Recalls Serengeti Trading Ready-To-Eat Meat Products
SEI YING: Recalls Beverage Powders Due to Undeclared Milk
SEVENTH GENERATION: Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices

SHELL OIL: Faces "Binder" Suit in La. Over Benzene-Related Injury
SHELL OIL: Faces "Gaubert" Suit Over Benzene-Related Injury
SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Plaintiff's Counsel to Re-Depose Frankel
SPECIALTY TOYS: Recalls Lemur Plush Toy Due to Choking Hazard
STAR MARKETING: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk

STEPHEN YELVERTON: Case vs. Siblings Won't Proceed as Class Suit
TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk
UBC: Faces Class Action Over Damaged Sperm; April 27 Hearing Set
UNITED STATES: Commerce Dep't Workers Win Discrimination Suit
US SERVICO: Faces "Cody" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Cert. Order in "Salazar" Suit Altered
VISEMAR DI NAVIGAZIONE: Giambrone to Launch Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Jetta Model Due to Defective Software
VOXX International: Receives $5.2MM in Class Action Settlement
WALTER LEE: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

WARRIOR ENERGY: Cannot Choose Presiding Judge in "Cerini" Suit

* Australian Cos. Need to Counter Cyber-Attack to Avert Suits


                            *********


AETNA LIFE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Insurance Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fisher v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00283 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
purported to unilaterally alter the terms of the group health
insurance contract to effectively eliminate its obligation to
provide co-insurance for brand name prescription drugs for which a
generic equivalent existed.

Aetna Life Insurance Company is a provider of health care, dental,
pharmacy, group life, disability and long-term care benefits

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura Jean Scileppi, Esq.
      Richard Weiss, Esq.
      William Irvin Dunnegan, Esq.
      DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC
      350 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 332-8304
      Facsimile: (212) 332-8301
      E-mail: ls@dunnegan.com
              rw@dunnegan.com
              wd@dunnegan.com


AFFYMAX INC: Gets Final OK on "Bartelt" Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court granted final approval of the
settlement negotiated in the lawsuit TRICIA M. BARTELT, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AFFYMAX, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-
01025-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The Defendants agree to pay $6,500,000 in cash for the benefit of
the Class.  Among other things, the recovery of individual Class
Members depends on the number of shares of Affymax Securities
those Class Members purchased and sold and the prices at which
Class Members who filed claims purchased and sold those shares.

The Class, for purposes of settlement only, refers to:

   All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Affymax common
   stock during the Class Period, August 8, 2012 through February
   22, 2013, both dates inclusive. Excluded from the Class are
   Defendants, all current and former directors and officers of
   Affymax during the Class Period, and any family member, trust
   company, entity or affiliate controlled or owned by any of
   the excluded persons and entities referenced above. Also
   excluded from the Class are those Persons who timely and
   validly requested exclusion from the Class.

Tommy Jay Carter is certified as Class Plaintiff.  The Court
awards the Class Plaintiff a reimbursement award of $5,000.

Pomerantz LLP is certified as class counsel on behalf of the
Class.  The Court also awards Class Counsel $1,625 in attorneys'
fees and $71,079 in reimbursement of expenses.

A copy of the District Court's Dec. 12, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/PiFbvxfrom Leagle.com.

Tricia M. Bartelt, Plaintiff, represented by Leigh Handelman
Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, Jeremy A Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Leigh Handelman Smoller,
Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, Mark Bryan Goldstein, Pomerantz
LLP, Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Patrick
V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP.

Tricia M. Bart, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Tommy Jay Carter, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel
Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Jeremy A Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Leigh H
Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, Mark Bryan
Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP.

Affymax, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban,
Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Ritesh Kumar Srivastava,
Cooley LLP.

John A. Orwin, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban,
Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Ritesh Kumar Srivastava,
Cooley LLP.

Herbert C. Cross, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban,
Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Ritesh Kumar Srivastava,
Cooley LLP.

Anne-Marie Duliege, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael
Kaban, Cooley LLP.

Jeffrey H. Knapp, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban,
Cooley LLP.

Christopher Sprute, Movant, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan
Law, P.C..

Frank Estrada, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC.


AIMCO/BETHESDA HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karel Hernandez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case
No. 1:15-cv-20146 (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings Inc. is a Florida based real estate
investment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL AMERICAN: Jones Gets Green Light to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
In CHARLES A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. ALL AMERICAN AUTO PROTECTION,
INC.; et al., Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-0199-LRH-WGC, (D. Nev.),
District Judge Larry R. Hicks granted Charles A. Jones' motion for
leave to file an amended complaint.

Judge Hicks held that there is no undue delay, bad faith, or
dilatory motive on behalf of Jones in requesting leave to amend
his complaint. Furthermore, the court found that the matter is
early in discovery and that the defendants would not be prejudiced
by allowing amendment. The defendants also did not oppose Jones'
motion.

This class action seeks to determine whether defendants violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when they allegedly
placed telemarketing calls to Jones' cellular telephone in an
effort to sell extended auto service warranties.

A copy of the Court's January 13, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/BPNDUF from Leagle.com.

CHARLES A. JONES, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti,
Righetti Law Firm, P.C., Michael C Righetti, Righetti, Glugoski,
P.C. & Peter D Durney -- petedurney@gmail.com -- Durney, Brennan,
Ltd.

ALL AMERICAN AUTO PROTECTION, INC., Defendant, Pro Se.


ANADARKO E&P: A-W Land Can Amend Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe granted plaintiffs in the
lawsuit A-W LAND CO. LLC v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC leave to file
a second amended complaint.

The class action complaint is A-W LAND CO. LLC, VERNON JESSER and
MARY JESSER, KENT J. MCDANIEL and DEANNA R. MCDANIEL, and MARVIN
BAY and MILDRED BAY, co-trustees of the Bay Family Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC, and ANADARKO LAND
COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 09-CV-02293-MSK-MJW
(S.D.N.Y.), whereby the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants
trespassed by exceeding the scope of their right to use
Plaintiffs' surface estates while drilling Defendants' mineral
estates.

A copy of the judge's Dec. 12, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/SJAhSTfrom Leagle.com.

A-W Land Co., LLC, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton,
George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C.,
Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton,
P.C..

Vernon Jesser, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George
A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R.
Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C..
Mary Jesser, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A.
Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R.
Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C..
Kent J. McDaniel, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton,
George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C.,
Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton,
P.C..

Deanna R. McDaniel, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton,
George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C.,
Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton,
P.C..

Marvin Bay, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A.
Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R.
Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C..

Mildred Bay, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A.
Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R.
Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C..

Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, Defendant, represented by Gail L.
Wurtzler -- gail.wurtzler@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs,
LLP, Michael John Gallagher -- mike.gallagher@dgslaw.com
-- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Kyle Wesley Brenton --
kyle.brenton@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP & Thomas P.
Johnson -- tom.johnson@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP.

Anadarko Land Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gail L.
Wurtzler, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Michael John Gallagher,
Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Kyle Wesley Brenton, Davis Graham &
Stubbs, LLP & Thomas P. Johnson, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LL.


APPLE INC: Settles "No-Poach" Class Action for $324.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that parties in
the Silicon Valley "no-poach" class action have reached a new
settlement, five months after a federal judge rejected their
proposed $324.5 million deal as too low.

The new figure hasn't been made public, but a lawyer familiar with
the deal indicated it's above the $380 million threshold set by
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in August.  The New York Times
reported on Jan. 13 that Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google
Inc. and Intel Corp. have offered $415 million to settle the case.
Judge Koh had refused parties' first attempt to end litigation
over claims that the companies conspired not to recruit each
other's employees.  She suggested an extra $50 million would bring
the deal better in line with a prior settlement in the same case.
The parties announced the new accord in a short letter filed on
Jan. 13 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
dollar value was set to be disclosed in a filing on Jan. 14, said
plaintiffs lawyer Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein.

It's already clear the new settlement has one thing the last
lacked -- support from an ex-lead plaintiff.  Michael Devine, a
former engineer for Adobe who had said $324.5 million was "grossly
inadequate," is on board with the new deal, said his lawyer,
Daniel Girard -- dcg@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs.

Judge Koh had sided with Devine in rejecting the first settlement.
Citing an earlier deal reached with defendants Pixar Animation
Studios Inc., Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc. for $20 million, Judge Koh
said she was concerned that Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel would
be paying proportionately less than their codefendants.

Lawyers for Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel challenged the ruling
in an incendiary appeal to the Ninth Circuit, claiming Judge Koh
had "committed clear legal error" that could make it harder to
resolve class actions.  A group of academic economists agreed,
weighing in with an amicus brief in October.  The Ninth Circuit
accepted the case, and scheduled arguments for March.

Lawyers involved in the case wouldn't discuss what made the
parties change course.  They are expected to file a brief with the
Ninth Circuit after Jan. 14 on the status of the appeal.

Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm represents plaintiffs
along with Lieff Cabraser.  Keker & Van Nest and Mayer Brown
represent Google in the case, O'Melveny & Myers represents Apple,
Jones Day represents Adobe, and Munger, Tolles & Olson represents
Intel.


APPLE INC.: Court Narrows "Backhaut" Suit Over iMessages
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh partly denied Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned ADAM BACKHAUT, BOUAKHAY JOY
BACKHAUT, AND KENNETH MORRIS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 14-CV-02285-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Apple, Inc., is the "designer and seller" of the iPhone and other
mobile devices that run "Apple's proprietary messaging service
known as 'iMessage'" that runs on a client application called
"Messages.  Plaintiffs purchased iPhones and all used Apple's
iMessage.

Plaintiffs filed an action alleging that Apple continues to
knowingly intercept and access text messages sent to former
iPhone/iMessage Users and prevent their delivery. In addition,
Plaintiffs contended that Apple wrongfully receives and stores
these messages through the employment of a device, fraudulent
conduct, and material misrepresentations and omissions to
fraudulently induce consumers to purchase iPhones and iPads with
the iMessage service.

Plaintiffs alleged violations of the (1) Stored Communications Act
("SCA"); (2) the Wiretap Act; (3) California's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"); and (4) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA").

Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss and requested judicial notice.
Defendant asked the court to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on a
number of grounds, including that (1) Plaintiff cannot assert a
claim under the SCA or the Wiretap Act; (2) Apple's actions fall
within the good faith exception to both federal Acts; (3)
Plaintiffs lack standing under the UCL and CLRA; (4) Plaintiffs'
UCL and CLRA allegations do not satisfy  Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard; and (5) Plaintiffs
have otherwise failed to adequately plead claims under the UCL and
CLRA.

In his Order partly denying Defendant's motion, Judge Koh held
that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege facts supporting
a cause of action under the SCA. As to Wiretap Act claim, Judge
Koh ruled that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Apple's
interception of messages to former Apple device users neither
facilitates nor is incidental to the transmission of an electronic
communication.

A copy of the Order and Judgment dated November 19, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/hDA8g3from Leagle.com.

Adam Backhaut, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet --
waudet@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann --
jmann@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, Joshua Caleb Ezrin --
jezrin@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge
Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Theodore H. Chase, Audet
and Partners, LLP.

Bouakhay Joy Backhaut, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet,
Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP,
Joshua Caleb Ezrin, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton,
Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Theodore H. Chase, Audet and
Partners, LLP.

Kenneth Morris, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet
& Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Joshua
Caleb Ezrin, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr.,
Audet and Partners, LLP & Theodore H. Chase, Audet and Partners,
LLP.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq. --
dwalsh@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Kai Shields Bartolomeo --
kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung --
tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


ARIZONA: Appeals Court to Hear Suit Over Ethnic Studies Ban
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Sheehy, writing for Fronteras, reports that two court cases
involving education in Arizona education was set to go before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Jan. 12.  One
case is the state's 2010 ban on ethnic studies.  The court was
also set to hear arguments on a decades-old civil rights lawsuit,
addressing how Arizona teaches English Language Learners.

Flores v. Arizona is a class action lawsuit brought by parents of
English Language Learners in Nogales, Ariz., in 1992.  They argue
the state's four hour blocks to teach students English, put them
behind their peers in mainstream classrooms, violating the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act.

In 2013 a federal district judge in Tucson ruled in favor of the
state.  Tim Hogan is the Executive Director of the Arizona Center
for Law in the Public Interest.  He is the attorney for the
parents and filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

"I'm going to focus on the loss of academic content for these kids
and how that's not equal participation that's required by the law
and how the system in Arizona unduly segregates kids for a long
period of time, to no apparent purpose," Mr. Hogan said.

Mr. Hogan said testimony and exhibits show students who are in
mainstream classrooms progress at a higher rate than those placed
in English language instruction.  He also said the state doesn't
require schools to make up for the academic content these students
miss.

In December the Arizona State Board of Education approved optional
adjustments to the four hour block which will go into effect for
the 2015-2016 school year.  Christine Thompson is the board's
Executive Director.

"It's about providing more flexibility so you can provide more
individualized education and tailor a system a little bit better
to the specific needs to students in your schools," Ms. Thompson
said.

She said schools can choose to place students whose English is at
an intermediate level or higher in shorter blocks of two or three
hours.  The updates also allow for subjects such as writing and
grammar to be more naturally integrated for ELL students.

Mr. Hogan said because this is optional for schools, many children
will remain in the four-hour model.


ATTRACTION: Recalls Boys Hockey Sweatshirt with Drawstring
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 9, 2014
Posting date:             December 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42815

Affected products: Attraction boys hockey sweatshirt with hood,
style number# K05

The recall involves the Attraction boys hockey sweatshirt with
hood, style# K05.  The drawstring is found at the front, in the
neck area of the garment.

Health Canada's evaluation program has determined that drawstrings
on children's upper outerwear can become caught on playground
equipment, fences or other objects and result in strangulation, or
in the case of a vehicle, the child being dragged.

Neither Attraction nor Health Canada has received reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 1977 boys hockey sweatshirts were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
January 2014 to November 17, 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Attraction
                   Lac-Drolet
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirt to eliminate the hazard.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Weiss" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Kickbacks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Weiss and Robert Lessman, and Ann Harrell and Eddie
Harrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A.,
and Bank of America Reinsurance Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00062 (W.D. Pa., January 14, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
engaged in an intentional scheme to defraud borrowers into funding
kickbacks flowing from the Private Mortgage Insurers to
Defendants, which in turn inflated the premiums that borrowers had
to pay for private mortgage insurance.

Bank of America Corporation is one of the world's largest
financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small and
middle-market businesses, institutional investors, large
corporations and governments with a full range of banking,
investing, asset management and other financial and risk
management products and services.

Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association which
conducted business in Pennsylvania and throughout the United
States.

Bank of America Reinsurance Corporation is an active Vermont
Corporation and captive reinsurer regulated by the Vermont
Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care
Administration and a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen J. O'Brien, Esq.
      STEPHEN J. O'BRIEN AND ASSOCIATES
      650 Ridge Road, Suite 400
      Pittsburgh, PA 15205
      Telephone: (412) 788-7560
      E-mail: steve-obrien2@hotmail.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Motion to Compel Response
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney granted Plaintiff's motion to
compel further responses to interrogatories in the case captioned
IVAN POINTER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
et al., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-0525 KJM CKD PS (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant Bank of America as a Home
Service Specialist.  Plaintiff filed a wage and hour putative
class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay him the
appropriate rate for overtime pay including his non-discretionary
bonus payments in calculating the regular rate of pay which served
as the basis for overtime pay. Hence, Plaintiff claimed that
Defendant violated the California Labor Code and California Unfair
Business Practices Act.  Moreover, Plaintiff asked to represent a
sub-class comprising those members of the class whose employment
with time penalties and a class composed of all non-exempt
individuals that included commission and/or bonus pay at any time
within the four years preceding the filing of the action. In this
relation, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and
motion to compel Defendant to identify each class member.

In her Order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel, Magistrate
Judge Delaney ruled that the discovery sought by Plaintiff is
appropriate. Judge Delaney further stated that Plaintiff has
demonstrated the need for discovery to substantiate the class
allegations and that the privacy interests of the class members
will be adequately protected by the production of responsive
discovery being subject to the protective order previously entered
in this action.

A copy of the Order dated November 20, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/9u4CE0from Leagle.com.

Ivan Dexter Pointer, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti --
matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Law Firm PC, John James Glugoski
-- jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C. & Michael
C. Righetti -- mike@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C..

Bank of America N.A., Defendant, represented by Michael David
Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Matthew C.
Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Regina A
Musolino -- rmusolino@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Truc
T. Nguyen -- tnguyen@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


BRIA HEALTH: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Vacation Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ausencio Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Bria Health Services LLC, and Healthcare
Services Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00387 (N.D. Ill., January
15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
earned vacation pay to employees as part of their final wages.

The Defendants own and operate at least nine healthcare and
rehabilitation facilities within Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
      E-mail: aayala@wagetheftlaw.com


CAPICUA CORPORATION: Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abdias Cuellar Garcia, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Capicua Corporation, Rigo Pizza
Corporation, Rigoletto Pizza Corp., and Cristina Castaneda,
jointly and severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-00311 (S.D.N.Y., January
15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a limited-service restaurant in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARNICERIA ARGENTINA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Mercery, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Carniceria Argentina La Estancia, Inc. d/b/a Nahuen Doral, a
Florida Profit Corporation, Andres Amorosi, and Maria Amorosi,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20147 (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHALAK-M&M ARl: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours,"Israsena" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Israsena, Kayona Langston, Chauncey Durham, Jamuson Scott,
Britt Any Goodwin and Barbara Blackford, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chalak-M&M ARl, LLC,
Chalak-M&M AR2, LLC, and Chalak-M&M, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00038
(E.D. Ark., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours.

The Defendants own and operate a franchised restaurant chain with
locations in 24 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Holleman, Esq.
      Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
      Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
      HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      1008 West 2nd Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 975-5040
      E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
              maryna@johnholleman.net
              tim@johnholleman.net


CHOCOLAT HARMONIE: Recalls Orientale Chocolate Fondue Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Chocolat Harmonie Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9526

Chocolat Harmonie Inc. is recalling Orientale brand chocolate
fondue products from the marketplace because they contain milk
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
milk should not consume the recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


COMCAST CORP: Bid to Compel Discovery in Martin Case Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Before the court in NICHOLAS MARTIN, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION,
Defendant, CASE NO: 12 C 6421, (N.D. Ill.) is plaintiff's motion
to compel discovery, all of which is aimed at proving his class-
wide allegations that defendant Comcast has violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Plaintiff's allegations in his Amended Complaint center on eight
autodialed telemarketing calls made to his cell phone during the
week of October 8th to October 14th in 2011. Count One alleges
that the calls were made to plaintiff without his prior express
written consent in violation of the TCPA. Count Two alleges that
defendant violated the "Do Not Call" portion of the TCPA when it
made such calls after having received a demand from plaintiff not
to call and that it failed to adequately record the demand. Count
Three alleges that defendant violated the National Do Not Call
Registry of the TCPA by calling plaintiff.

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox, in an order dated January 13, 2015,
granted the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.  "However,
defendant's production of the materials is stayed pending the
District Judge [Coleman]'s ruling on defendant's motion for
summary judgment. Should defendant's motion for summary judgment
be denied, defendant will be required to produce the discovery
materials within thirty days following entry of the District
Judge's order," Judge Cox added.  A copy of the ruling is
available at http://is.gd/zolEc2 from Leagle.com.

Nicholas M Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ellen Terrell --
bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC,
Michael D. Daudt -- mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt &
Willie PLLC & Alexander Holmes Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com --
Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Comcast Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gordon B. Nash, Jr.
-- gordon.nash@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Gardner Carton, Justin
O'Neill Kay -- justin.kay@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
Michael W McTigue, Jr. -- Michael.McTigue@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle & Reath Llp & Seamus Duffy -- Seamus.Duffy@dbr.com --
Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP.


CONOCOPHILLIPS: Agrees to Settle "Hot-Fuel" Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that 28 oil companies and retailers
have agreed to settle litigation claiming customers were knowingly
overcharged when gas station fuel temperatures rose.

The plaintiffs' attorneys said in a news release on Jan. 23 that a
federal judge in Kansas City, Kansas, has given preliminary
approval to settlements in the so-called "hot fuel" litigation.

As temperatures rise during warmer months, gasoline expands,
meaning customers get less energy per gallon.  But gas is price
based on a standard of 60 degrees.

Defendants include ConocoPhillips Company, ExxonMobil Corp.,
Sinclair Oil Corp. and Sam's Club.  They've agreed to a take a
variety of steps, including upgrading to equipment that corrects
for the effects of temperature on fuel.  Some of the companies
also will help pay states for fuel oversight efforts.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Consumers Get Favorable Ruling in Mortgage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for Supreme Court Brief, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of consumers on Jan. 13,
interpreting a federal law to allow homeowners up to three years
to give notice to their banks that they want to rescind their
mortgage loans.

The ruling in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans was one of two
decisions issued on Jan. 13 that had these common characteristics:
unanimous, five pages long, interpreting federal statutes, and
written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who is not always known for
either coalition-building or brevity.

Justice Scalia did not get to announce the cases from the bench,
however.  He was stuck in traffic, leaving the task to Chief
Justice John Roberts Jr. Scalia arrived in time to hear the day's
oral arguments, which began after opinions were announced.

In 2007, Minnesotans Larry and Cheryle Jesinoski refinanced their
mortgage with Countrywide, and exactly three years later tried to
rescind the loan in a letter to Bank of America Home Loans, which
had acquired Countrywide during the housing finance crisis of the
period.

In doing so, the Jesinoskis relied on the Truth in Lending Act,
which gives borrowers the right to rescind a loan by "notifying
the creditor" within three years after the transaction is
consummated.  But the Bank of America tried to block the
rescission, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
ruled in the bank's favor, finding that the borrower must actually
file a lawsuit within three years, not just give notice.

The language of the law "leaves no doubt" that only notification
and not litigation is required within three years, Justice Scalia
said.

"We're pleased that the court unanimously upheld consumers'
statutory right to rescind certain home loans when lenders have
violated the rules," said David Frederick -- dfrederick@khhte.com
-- of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, who argued on
behalf of the Jesinoskis.  Representing Countrywide was former
solicitor general Seth Waxman -- seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com -- of
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, who made the 70th high
court argument of his career in the case Nov. 4.

In the other Scalia decision issued on Jan. 13, the court in
Whitfield v. United States agreed with the government's view that
bank robber Larry Whitfield could be prosecuted under a 1934
federal law that penalizes anyone who "forces any person to
accompany him without the consent of such person" while avoiding
apprehension for robbing a bank.

After a botched robbery attempt in 2008 in North Carolina,
Whitfield fled from the bank and tried to hide in the home of a
79-year-old woman.  He guided the woman from a hallway to a room
in the house, where she died of a heart attack.

Whitfield's lawyers argued that the law only applies to
"substantial" movement, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit ruled that "no more is required" by the law than
the short distance Whitfield moved the woman.

Justice Scalia agreed, invoking writings around the time of
passage of the law, as well as works by Charles Dickens and Jane
Austen, to show that the word "accompany" applies to short
distances.

Justice Scalia said that at the time Congress passed the law, it
"may well have had most prominently in mind John Dillinger's
driving off with hostages," but the wording it used encompasses
just brief accompaniments as well.


DELICES DE: Recalls Artichoke Quarters Due to Presence of Tin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Delices de la Foret Valli
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9339

Affected products: 398 ml. Delicia Artichoke Quarters with 8 04228
05104 8 UPC


DELTA AIR: Settlement in "Bell" Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers unconditionally approved the
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ANDREW BELL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. DELTA
AIR LINES, INC.; and DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
13-CV-01199-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The Court held that each of the requirements for certification of
the class are met and certified the following settlement class:

"All Ready Reserve Employees who were employed by Defendant, in
California, beginning March 18, 2009 through March 17, 2014."

Plaintiff asked for the confirmation of the appointment and
designation of (1) Plaintiff Andrew Bell as Class Representative
(2) Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP and the Law Offices of
Deborah C. England as Class Counsel and (3) Dahl Administration,
Inc. as the Settlement Administrator in this case. Subsequently,
all appointment and designation were confirmed by the court.

The court also approved:

     a. the Settlement Fund of $1,415,444 as provided for in the
Stipulation of Settlement.

     b. the $10,000 of the Settlement Fund to be allocated to
resolve PAGA claims, and that under Labor Code section 2699(i),
75% of that amount, or $7,500, will be paid to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency;

     c. the Named Plaintiff and Class Representative Andrew Bell's
requested service award of $7,500, which is justified by the time
and effort expended by Plaintiff on behalf of the class and risk
he assumed in bringing this action;

     d. Class Counsel's attorneys' fee request of $353,861 as 25%
of the $1,415,444 common fund settlement amount, finding that this
amount is below Class Counsel's lodestar without any multiplier,
and finding no reason to depart from the 25% benchmark within the
Ninth Circuit;

     e. Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation
expenses of $15,576.04;

     f. payment to Dahl Administration, Inc. of $13,367 as costs
and expenses of settlement administration;

     g. payment from the settlement fund of amounts determined by
the Settlement Administrator to be due to class members who did
not opt out, as specified in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, adequate and fully complies with all applicable
provisions of law. Further, Judge Rogers unconditionally approved
such settlement and ordered a res judicata effect and bar each
Plaintiff and each settlement class member from bringing any
action asserting Released Claims.

A copy of the Order and Judgment dated November 20, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Xy5byofrom Leagle.com.

Andrew Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Carol England --
dcengland@earthlink.net -- Law Offices of Deborah C. England &
Monique Olivier, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP.

Delta Air Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon
Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Andrew Paul Frederick -- afrederick@morganlewis.com -- One
Market & Larry Manuel Lawrence, Morgan Lewis & Bockius.


DETROIT, MI: Court Rejects Class Decertification in "Brown" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order denying a
Motion for Reconsideration and denying a request for class
decertification in the lawsuit JOHNATHAN AARON BROWN, Plaintiff, v
CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant, Case No. 10-CV-12162, (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others
that, like him, were allegedly mistreated while in the City's
custody upon arrest.

In April 2011, the Court entered a default as to liability against
the City of Detroit.  The Court denied the City's subsequent
motion to set aside the default as to liability because it
determined the sanction remained necessary to advance the case.
Subsequently, the Court also granted class certification to two
classes: Class I consisted of those arrestees who had been
detained "overnight" without a mattress/pillow/blanket and Class
II consisted of those arrestees who had been detained for longer
than 48 hours without a determination of probable cause.  The
Court however made clear that it was certifying for liability
purposes only; that is, the Court bifurcated the issues of
liability and damages as permitted by Civil Rule 23(c)(4).

In May 2013, the City filed a motion for relief from the default
order or for reconsideration of class certification.

In its Dec. 12, 2014 ruling, the Michigan district court
reiterates that "certifying Plaintiff's proposed liability classes
will materially advance the litigation and make the proceedings
more manageable. By litigating/defaulting these issues on a
classwide basis, both the parties and the Court can avoid the
extreme time and expense necessary to adjudicate each class
member's claims individually."

A copy of the district court's Dec. 12, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/t1BqDHfrom Leagle.com.

Johnathan Aaron Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai --
cindy@loevy.com -- Loevy & Loevy, David L. Haron --
dharon@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Lawrence S.
Charfoos, Charfoos Giovan & Birach LLP, Mercedes V. Dordeski --
mdordeski@foleymansfield.com --Foley & Mansfield PLLP & Michael I.
Kanovitz -- mike@loevy.com -- Loevy & Loevy.

City of Detroit, Defendant, represented by Charles N. Raimi,
Detroit Medical Center, Cindy Tsai, James R. Acho -- jacho@cmda-
law.com -- Cummings, McClorey, James D. Noseda, Detroit City Law
Department, Karen M. Daley -- kdaley@cmda-law.com -- Cummings,
McClorey & Ronald G. Acho -- racho@cmda-law.com -- Cummings,
McClorey.


DIGNITY HEALTH: App. Ct. Finds "Sarun" Adequately Alleged Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Sarun was uninsured when he received emergency healthcare
services from a hospital owned and operated by Dignity Health.
Upon admission, Sarun signed an agreement to pay the hospital's
"full charges, unless other discounts apply." The agreement
explained uninsured patients might qualify for government aid
programs or financial assistance from Dignity. After receiving an
invoice for $23,487.90, which reflected a $7,871 "uninsured
discount," and without applying for any other discount or
financial assistance, Sarun filed a putative class action
complaint asserting claims including unfair and/or deceptive
business practices under Business and Professions Code section
17200 (UCL) and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA). The complaint alleged Dignity had failed to disclose
uninsured patients would be required to pay several times more
than other patients receiving the same services, the charges set
forth on the invoice were not readily available or discernable
from the agreement, and the invoiced charges exceeded the
reasonable value of the services.

The trial court sustained Dignity's demurrer to Sarun's second
amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action
on the ground Sarun had not adequately alleged "actual injury,"
and, therefore, lacked standing.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed the
trial court's order in a Dec. 15, 2014 ruling available at
http://is.gd/ZZq6W6from Leagle.com.  The appellate court finds
that the Second Amended Complaint adequately alleges injury in
fact.

The appellate court points out that Paragraph 36 of the second
amended complaint alleged, "Plaintiff Sarun has already made a
partial payment toward his account, and had a financial liability
for the remaining balance of his account." The invoice even
included instructions as to the proper payee of a check, provided
space for payment by credit card and supplied information for
payment online. "Although Dignity had not begun any collection
activity, the existence of an enforceable obligation, without
more, ordinarily constitutes actual injury or injury in fact," the
appellate court opines.

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the trial court judgment
and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Sarun is to
recover his costs on appeal.

The complaint is TONY SARUN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIGNITY
HEALTH, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B251767.

Law Offices of Barry L. Kramer, Barry L. Kramer -
kramerlaw@aol.com ; Strange & Carpenter, Barry R. Strange --
lacounsel@earthlink.net -- and Gretchen Carpenter -- Strange &
Carpenter -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Ogloza Fortney, Darius Ogloza -- lacounsel@earthlink.net , David
Fortney -- dfortney@oglozafortney.com -- and Brian D. Berry --
bberry@oglozafortney.com , for Defendant and Respondent.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Palmer" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Palmer, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, a South Carolina
limited liability company and Cascade Capital, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 6:15-cv-00059 (M.D. Fla.,
January 15, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' practice of
sending letters seeking to collect time barred debt which did not
disclose that the statute of limitations has expired.

The Defendants own and operate a debt collection agency in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald Edward Petersen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. PETERSEN
      801 N Magnolia Ave-Ste 221, PO Box 1948
      Orlando, FL 32802-1948
      Telephone: (407) 648-9050
       E-mail: depecf@cfl.rr.com

          - and -

      O. Ronald Bragg, Esq.
      HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
      25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 372-8822
      E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com


E & JERYG MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Austin, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. E & Jeryg Management Corp., Emil Friedman, Dov
Sandberg, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 15, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and manage commercial and residential buildings
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Martin Dudelson, Esq.
      26 Court Street, Suite 2306
      Brooklyn, NY 11242
      Telephone: (718) 855-5100
      Facsimile: (718) 624-9552
      E-mail: adesq@aol.com


FAMILY LIFE: "Hughes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene Hughes, own behalf and others similarly situated v. Family
Life Care, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00007
(N.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Family Life Care, Inc. provides in-home care support services for
all ages and abilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Owen Massey, Esq.
      MASSEY & DUFFY PLLC
      855 E University Ave
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 505-8900
      Facsimile: (352) 414-5488
      E-mail: masseylaw@gmail.com


FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES: Recalls Ceramic Baking Dish
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 12, 2014
Posting date:             December 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42889

Affected products: Superior Ceramic Baking Dish with Silicone
Handles and Glass lid

The recall involves the Superior Ceramic Baking Dish with Silicone
Handles.  The white ceramic baking dish has red silicone handles
and a clear glass lid with a white lid knob.  The baking dish
measures 42.5 centimetres in length by 28 centimetres in width by
11 centimetres in height.  The recalled baking dishes have a UPC
of 77144853159.

Only the baking dishes that have a glass lid are subject to this
recall.

The plastic screw that attaches the white lid knob to the clear
glass lid can melt during use in the oven.  This can cause the
white lid knob to separate from the glass lid, posing a burn
hazard if the content is hot.

Federated Co-operatives have received one report of the plastic
screw on the lid melting.  No injuries have been reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these baking dishes.

Approximately 1,464 of the baking dishes were sold at Co-op stores
across Canada.

The recalled baking dishes were manufactured in China and sold
from Sept. 30, 2014 to Dec. 1, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Dragon Homeware Company Limited
                    Guangdong
                    CHINA

   Importer         Federated Co-operatives
                    Saskatoon
                    Saskatchewan
                    CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return it to the Co-op store where it was purchased for a refund.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Dell" Suit Over Defective Engine Cradles
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Dell, Brenda Baldwin, Anthony Soto, Darrell Holland, Jr. and
JAMES MORALES, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. FCA US LLC Fiat Chrysler Automobiles U.S., LLC
f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00103 (S.D. Ohio,
January 15, 2015), arises out of the 2004-2008 Chrysler Pacificas
manufactured by the Defendants with the Chrysler CS Platform
engine cradles that prematurely rust, corrode and perforate
creating a substantial risk of, or causing the engine to fall out
of the vehicle.

FCA US LLC Fiat Chrysler Automobiles U.S., LLC is among the
leading manufacturers of automobiles in the world and throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


FOODSTATE INC: Falsely Marketed Multivitamin Product, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Foodstate, Inc., d/b/a Megafood, d/b/a Innate Response
Formulas, Case No. 3:15-cv-00078 (S.D. Cal., January 15, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's false promotion of its One Daily
Multivitamin product as, primarily consisting of and providing
vitamins and nutrients from whole food, when in fact it contains
synthetically created vitamins or processed extracts such as
magnesium stearate.

Foodstate, Inc. is a leading producer in the United States of
health supplements purported to be created from whole foods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


FORD MOTOR: "Sabol" Warranty Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King granted Defendant's Motion to
Transfer Venue in the case captioned PATRICIA SABOL, Plaintiff, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-543 (S.D.
Ohio).

Plaintiff Patricia Sabol purchased a 2013 Ford Escape Class
Vehicle from the Defendant Garnet Ford, Inc., in Chadds Ford,
Pennsylvania. Later, Plaintiff filed an action on behalf of
herself and classes of plaintiffs asserting product liability
claims in connection with defendant's EcoBoost 1.6L and 2.0L
engines.  She asserted claims for breach of express and implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, and unfair trade practices in
violation of Pennsylvania law.

On the other hand, Ford filed its answer denying liability and
asserting a counterclaim for breach of contract in connection with
plaintiff's alleged failure to arbitrate warranty-related
disputes.   Ford also filed the Motion to Transfer seeking to
transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Ford argued that the forum has no connection with the matter in
controversy which the Plaintiff seeks to represent and the factor
favors transfer because the location of evidence, dealer records,
and substantial part of the events that gives rise to Plaintiff's
claims occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania including
the residence of the numerous third-party witnesses.

In his Opinion and Order in granting Defendant's Motion to
Transfer Venue, Magistrate Judge McCann King ruled that venue
would be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because
the purchase of vehicle, the facts forming the basis of
plaintiff's breach of warranty claim, and substantial part of the
events giving rise to the claim occurred in Pennsylvania.

Moreover, Judge McCann King held that the convenience of the
parties and Pennsylvania's greater interest in resolving the
dispute favors transfer of the action. In addition, Defendant has
met its burden of showing that the matter should be transferred.

A copy of the Opinion and Order dated November 19, 2014, is
available at bit.ly/1xDvcCT from Leagle.com.

Patricia Sabol, Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Arnold --
jarnold@arnlaw.com -- James E Arnold & Associates Co., LPA, Bryan
L Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP, Damion M Clifford --
dclifford@ag.state.oh.us -- James E. Arnold & Associates, LPA &
Gerhardt A Gosnell, II, James E. Arnold & Associates, LPA.

Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Elizabeth B Wright -- Elizabeth.Wright@ThompsonHine.com --
Thompson Hine & Flory, David J. Carey --
David.Carey@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine LLP, David M.
George, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Jennifer Mingus Mountcastle, Thompson
Hine LLP, John M Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
PLLC & Krista L Lenart, Dykema Gossett PLLC.


FRED DEELEY: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           1475
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014569
TC ID number:             2014569
Manufacturer recall
number:                   0163 / 0164

On certain motorcycles, the front brake master cylinder line
connection threads may corrode, which could cause a brake fluid
leak and a reduction in braking performance.  If operated in this
condition, this could eventually result in a loss of front brake
function.  These issues could increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will flush and replace brake fluid, as well as in inspect
the master cylinder and replace as necessary.

Affected products:

   Maker             Model                       Model year(s)
                                                 affected
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    DYNA WIDE GLIDE (FXDWG)    2012, 2012, 2012,
                                              2012, 2012, 2012
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    SOFTAIL DELUXE (FLSTN)             2012
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    SOFTAIL STANDARD (FXST)            2012
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    DYNA LOW RIDER (FXDL)              2012
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    DYNA SUPER GLIDE CUSTOM (FXDC)     2012
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    FAT BOY LO (FLSTFB)                2012
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    HERITAGE SOFTAIL CLASSIC
                     SHRINE (FLSTC)                   2012
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    HERITAGE SOFTAIL (FLST)            2012
HARLEY-DAVIDSON    SOFTAIL SLIM                       2012


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Former President Faces New Fraud Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pam Ramsey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
former Freedom Industries executive charged in a West Virginia
chemical spill is facing a new federal fraud charge stemming from
the company's bankruptcy.

A federal grand jury in Beckley handed up a superseding indictment
on Jan. 21 against former Freedom President Gary Southern and
three other former executives.  The indictment charges Southern
with a new count of fraud by interstate commercial carrier and
restates the original indictment's charges against him and the
others.

The new count alleges that Southern sent a $6.5 million check from
a personal bank account around Feb. 7, 2014, to an insurance
company to be deposited in an annuity as part of a bankruptcy
fraud scheme.

Southern is accused of scheming to defraud Freedom's creditors and
plaintiffs who sued the company and him following the Jan. 9,
2014, spill of a coal-cleaning chemical from a tank at the
company's storage facility along the Elk River in Charleston. The
alleged scheme included attempting to protect some of his assets
from possible verdicts and judgments.

Southern's lawyer, Robert Allen, didn't immediately return
telephone and email messages on Jan. 22.

The spill occurred just upstream of a West Virginia American Water
plant and prompted a tap-water ban for 300,000 people for days.
Freedom filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Jan. 17, 2014.

Southern and former Freedom executives William Tis, Charles
Herzing and Dennis Farrell previously were charged with violating
the federal Clean Water Act.  They're accused of failing to ensure
that the company operated the Charleston facility in a reasonable
and environmentally sound manner.

The former executives also are accused of ignoring or failing to
fund repairs and maintenance needed for compliance with
environmental regulations.

Southern also previously was charged with bankruptcy fraud, wire
fraud and lying in oath in relation to the bankruptcy case.

Each former executive pleaded not guilty on Jan. 8, a day after
the unsealing of an FBI affidavit that said Freedom knew about
critical flaws at its Charleston plant but never dealt with them.


GENERAL NUTRITION: "Vigil" Case Transferred to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White transferred to the Southern
District of California the case captioned RYAN VIGIL, Plaintiff,
v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. C 14-04866 JSW,
(N.D. Cal.).

GNC, a retailer of health and wellness products, is organized and
has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.  The
Plaintiff is an individual who resides in San Diego County,
California. He brings this putative class action, alleging that he
purchased a GNC product -- Staminol -- in reliance on GNC's
advertising that Staminol would enhance his sexual experience and
enjoyment. The Plaintiff was exposed to GNC's advertising for
Staminol, and purchased the product in La Jolla, California.
GNC moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of
California.

According to Judge White's January 13, 2015 order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/8Ry342from Leagle.com, GNC has met
its burden to demonstrate that in the interests of justice, this
action should be transferred to the Southern District.

Ryan Vigil, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Patterson,
Patterson Law Group, APC & Todd David Carpenter --
todd@carpenterlawyers.com -- Carpenter Law Group.

General Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allen
Brooks Gresham, II -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP & Blake S. Olson -- bolson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.


GOURMET CAJUN: Faces "Guzman-Maya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Guzman-Maya, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Gourmet Cajun Grill of Golf Mill, Inc. and
Kevin S. Tang, Case No. 1:15-cv-00390 (N.D. Ill., January 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


HARRIS FARMS: Deadline to File Bid for Settlement Approval Moved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone signed on January 13, 2015, a
stipulation and order continuing the filing deadline for, and
hearing date, of the motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement in the case captioned JOSE GONZALEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS
FARMS, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00038-LJO-SAB, (E.D.
Cal.).

Due to a calendaring conflict, Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez and
Defendant Harris Farms, Inc., agreed that the deadline for the
filing the motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement will be continued from January 14, 2015 to February 11,
2015, and the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement will be continued from January 28, 2015 to
February 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

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

DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. -- daniel@gaineslawfirm.com -- ALEX P.
KATOFSKY, ESQ. -- alex@gaineslawfirm.com -- SEPIDEH HIRMAND, ESQ.
-- sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com -- GAINES & GAINES, APLC, Calabasas,
CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSE GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public.

OLIVER W. WANGER, ESQ. -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- JAY A.
CHRISTOFFERSON, ESQ. -- jchristofferson@wjhattorneys.com -- WANGER
JONES HELSLEY PC, Fresno, California, Attorneys for Defendant
HARRIS FARMS, INC.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Aneca Federal Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aneca Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00129 (N.D. Ga., January 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection
for its computer systems containing customers' financial and
personal data.

The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a
wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and
construction supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Pitts Carrm, Esq.
      Alex D. Weatherby, Esq.
      W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES
      10 North Parkway Square
      4200 Northside Parkway NW
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Telephone:  (404) 442-900
      Facsimile: (404) 442-9700
      E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com
              aweatherby@wpcarr.com

          - and -

      Charles S. Zimmerman Esq.
      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com
              brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Kudulis, Esq.
      TRIMMIER, KUDULIS, REISINGER, LLC
      2737 Highland Avenue South
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Telephone: (205) 251-3151
      Facsimile: (205) 322-6444
      E-mail: jkudulis@trimmier.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      Francis J. Rondoni, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone:  (612) 339-7300
      Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
      E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
              frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com
              jbores@chestnutcambronne.com


HONG KONG CHINA: Recalls Harbor Breeze Belleisle Bay Ceiling Fan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 15, 2014
Posting date:             December 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42891

Affected products: Harbor Breeze Belleisle Bay Brushed Nickel
Finish Ceiling Fan

The recall involves the Harbor Breeze Belleisle Bay 52-inch
(132-centimetre) ceiling fan in a brushed nickel finish with three
blades, which comes with a remote control.  It can be identified
by model number 40120, item number 0424485, and UPC 671961402105,
which can be found on the product packaging.  Affected products
were sold prior to December 1, 2014.

The product can also be identified by its model number listed on
the certification label (Model: M52-3B/2LCR4E) found on the
brushed nickel base of the product, that houses the motor.

Blades from the fan can crack and break off during use, posing a
potential impact hazard to consumers.

Hong Kong China Electric Appliance Manufacture Co Ltd. has
received six reports of blades breaking during use, however no
injuries were reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries involving the fans.

Approximately 4,626 units of the affected ceiling fans were sold
at Lowe's stores across Canada and online at Lowes.ca.

The affected ceiling fans were manufactured in China and sold from
March 2013 to Dec. 1, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Hong Kong China Electric Appliance Manufacture
                      Co Ltd.
                    Hong Kong
                    China

   Importer         Lowe's Companies Canada, ULC
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected ceiling fans
and contact the manufacturer's Customer Service Line for free
replacement blades.


HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Sued Over Inaccessible Hotel Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, on behalf of
itself, and Ann Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Kenneth
Kilgore, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly
situated persons defined below v. Hospitality Properties Trust,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00221 (N.D. Cal., January 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to provide wheelchair-accessible
transportation in hotels that provide transportation to
nondisabled guests.

Hospitality Properties Trust is an investment trust incorporated
in Maryland that owns and operates hotels throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy P. Fox, Esq.
      Sarah M. Morris, Esq.
      CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER
      104 Broadway, Suite 400
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 757-7901
      E-mail: tfox@creeclaw.org
              smorris@creeclaw.org

         - and -

      Julia Campins, Esq.
      Hillary Benham-Baker, Esq.
      CAMPINS BENHAM-BAKER, LLP
      8 California #703
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 373-5333
      E-mail: julia@cbbllp.com
              hillary@cbbllp.com

         - and -

      Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
      Julie Wilensky, Esq.
      Joshua Davidso, Esq.
      LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
      476 9th Street
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 839-6824
      E-mail: blee@lewisfeinberg.com
              jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com
              mcaesar@lewisfeinberg.com

         - and -

      Kevin W. Williams, Esq.
      COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION
      655 Broadway #775
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 839-1775
      E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org


HOULIHAN SMITH: Judge Won't Reverse Ruling on FLSA Atty Fee Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois district court denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) attorney
fee award in the lawsuit HECTOR DE LA RIVA and ROSS PERLMUTTER,
Plaintiffs, v. HOULIHAN SMITH & COMPANY, INC., RICHARD HOULIHAN,
ANDREW D. SMITH, and CHARLES BOTCHWAY, Defendants, Case No. 10 C
8206 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs contended that the court erred in allowing them to
recover only 20% of their attorneys' pre-remand hours.

The District Court, however, held on to its conclusion that a $450
hourly rate is appropriate for Cotiguala's work in the case on the
individual FLSA claims.

A copy of the district court's Dec. 12, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/6Jn9vOfrom Leagle.com.

Hector De La Riva, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
     JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES
     431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606
     Chicago, IL 60605
     Tel: (312) 939-2100

Ross Perlmutter, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac
A. Cotiguala & Associates.

Brock Milligan, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A.
Cotiguala & Associates.

Charles J Bachmann, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala,
Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates.

Robert Becker, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A.
Cotiguala & Associates.

Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Howard J. Stein, Esq.
     70 W. Madison, Ste. 2100
     Chicago, IL 60602

Andrew D Smith, Defendant, represented by Howard J. Stein.

Richard Houlihan, Defendant, represented by:

     Daniel C. Meenan, Jr., Esq.
     Joseph R. Lemersal, Esq.
     KRALOVEC MEENAN LLP
     53 W Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1102
     Chicago, IL 60604

Charles Botchway, Defendant, represented by Mark V. Chester --
mvchester@jocolaw.com -- Johnson & Colmar, Sean F Darke, Wessels
Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C. & Nancy Lynn Martin --
nmartin@jocolaw.com -- Johnson and Colmar.


IMPRO SYNERGIES: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Rodriguez and all others similarly situated v. Impro
Synergies, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
2:15-cv-00022 (M.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Impro Synergies, LLC is a real estate investment company located
at 5901 N. Ocean Blvd., Ocean Ridge, FL 33435.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maria Alaimo, Esq.
      VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
      Suite A, 6350 Presidential Ct
      Ft Myers, FL 33919
      Telephone: (239) 334-3933
      Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
      E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com


INDIANA: Lawmaker Plans to File Bill to Require BMV Audits
----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Cook, writing for Indy Star, reports that a state lawmaker
plans to file a bill that would require beefed up audits of the
troubled Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Rep. Dan Forestal, D-Indianapolis, is drafting legislation that
would require independent audits of the BMV every other year in
addition to annual audits by the State Board of Accounts.  The
measure comes after a series of financial blunders that have
resulted in tens of millions of dollars in overcharges to Hoosier
motorists.

"Like most people, I've been watching what's unfolding over at the
BMV and it's concerning stuff," Mr. Forestal said.  "It's time for
some added oversight."

Josh Gillespie, a BMV spokesman, said the agency wouldn't comment
on a bill it hasn't seen.  He noted that the State Board of
Accounts already audits the BMV annually and that the agency
recently hired accounting firm BKD to review how the BMV
calculates and charges taxes and fees.

Mr. Forestal's legislation is a response to repeated problems at
the BMV.  In November, BMV officials acknowledged overpaying about
$60,000 in refunds to 254 motorists.  Those refunds were needed
because of an earlier $29 million mistake in calculating motor
vehicle excise taxes for about 180,000 customers.

The excise tax problems came after the BMV agreed as part of a
class-action lawsuit in August 2013 to refund $30 million to
drivers it overcharged for operator's licenses.

A second pending lawsuit seeks to refund millions more for earlier
operator license overcharges and excessive fees for other
services.

In that case, a former deputy BMV director has testified that top
agency officials knew they were improperly charging Hoosiers for
years but secretly continued the practice to avoid budget
troubles.

Audits by the State Board of Accounts did not catch those problems
and are clearly not sufficient, said Mr. Forestal, who is the
ranking Democrat on the Republican-controlled House Transportation
Committee.

State Examiner Paul Joyce has said budget and staffing cuts have
limited what the board of accounts can do.  But he said the
proposed budget Gov. Mike Pence recently submitted to state
lawmakers would allow an additional 100 state examiners to be
hired.  That should allow for a deeper dive into the books of
state agencies, he said.

Mr. Forestal said he is still drafting the legislation, but plans
to file it soon.


KIDCENTRAL SUPPLY: Recalls Textured Blocks 80pc by Edushape
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 15, 2014
Posting date:             December 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42939

Affected products: Textured Blocks 80pc by Edushape

The recall involves the Edushape 80 Pieces Textured Blocks Set
(SKU: EDU-716080).  This set consists of 80 assorted, multi-
colored, textured blocks in various shapes, sizes and colors foam
blocks.  This product is meant for ages 2+.  This set can also be
identified by the UPC number 729001042924 located on the flexible
plastic storage case.

The smallest semi-circular foam blocks in the set poses a choking
hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor KidCentral Supply Inc has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this toy.

Approximately 257 of the affected sets were sold in Canada.

The affected sets have been manufactured in China and sold from
January 2013 to December 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     EduShape Ltd.
                    Deer Park
                    New York
                    United States

   Importer         Kidcentral Supply Inc.
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    CANADA

Consumers should immediately remove and dispose the recalled semi-
circular blocks from the set.  There should be four differently
colored semi-circles in each set.


KILEY & KILEY: Sued in South Carolina Over Violations of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Kenzik, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Kiley & Kiley LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability
Company, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00201-DCN (D.S.C.,
January 15, 2015) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER
          1517 Hampton Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 779-0100
          E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com


KULA KLIPS: Recalls Comb-Style Snap Klips
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 10, 2014
Posting date:             December 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Jewellery
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42847

Affected products: Various Kula Klips comb-style snap hair clips

The recall involves Kula Klips comb-style snap hair clips.  The
metal hair clips have a yellowish surface coating with various
fabric type decorations attached to the clip.  They were sold in a
package of three hair clips.  The product can be identified by the
name Kula Klips and a New Comb Klips! sticker in the top left
corner of the package.  The package also has the statement Snap
Klips With No-Slip Grip.

The surface coating on the hair clips contains lead in excess of
the allowable limit, posing a chemical hazard.  Under the Surface
Coating Materials Regulations of the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act, it is illegal to import, advertise or sell articles
for children with a surface coating material containing more than
90mg/kg of lead.

Lead is very toxic to children, even at low exposure levels.
Children can ingest lead when they chew, suck or swallow jewellery
items containing lead which can cause damage to their bodies.
Potential health effects associated with exposure to high levels
of lead include anemia, vomiting, diarrhea, serious brain injury,
convulsions, coma as well as effects related to the liver,
kidneys, heart and immune system.  In extreme cases, there have
been deaths.

Neither Health Canada nor Kula Klips has received any consumer
reports of incidents or illnesses related to the use of these
products.

For more information on the risks and symptoms of lead and cadmium
exposure, visit the Government of Canada's website Lead and
Cadmium in Children's Jewellery.

Approximately 300 of the recalled products were sold at various
retailers across Canada and sold online at www.kulaklips.com.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
April 2014 to December 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Kula Klips
                    Edmonton
                    Alberta
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately take the recalled hair clips away
from children and contact Kula Klips for directions on obtaining a
replacement.  For more information, consumers can contact Kula
Klips by email.


LENDY ELECTRIC: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guo Mi Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similiarly situated v. Lendy Electric Equipment & Supply Corp.,
Jackson Lew, Pak Lew, Henry Lew, Jimmy Lew, and Kit Lew, Case No.
1:15-cv-00270 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that is a supplier of
electrical supplies, contractor supplies, and hardware supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued Over Race, Gender Bias in Franchised Outlet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Murphy, writing for The Associated Press, reports that several
fired McDonald's employees who say they were subject to racial
discrimination and sexual harassment have sued the fast-food
chain's corporate parent, which they say controls nearly every
aspect of how franchisees operate.

The workers say in a federal complaint filed on Jan. 22 that about
15 African-American employees of some southern Virginia
restaurants run by Soweva Co. were fired last May.  Many were told
by Soweva owner Michael Simon that while they were good workers
they "didn't fit the profile" he was trying to build for the
company, according to the complaint.  The employees said that when
they called corporate offices to complain about the dismissals and
"blatant racial discrimination," corporate officials did nothing.

A statement from McDonald's Corp. said the company had not seen
the lawsuit and couldn't comment on the allegations but that it
and its franchisees "share a commitment to the well-being and fair
treatment of all people who work in McDonald's restaurants."

Representatives of Soweva and Simon did not immediately return
calls from The Associated Press seeking comment.

The workers said in the complaint that restaurant supervisors
frequently demeaned African-American workers by using terms like
"ghetto" to describe them and complaining that there were "too
many black people in the store."  The complaint also states that
female employees were inappropriately touched by a supervisor who
also solicited sex and sent lewd photos.

Franchisees operate the vast majority of the chain's more than
14,000 U.S. restaurants, and the case reflects a growing point of
contention for the Oak Brook, Illinois-based restaurant chain.

The lawsuit comes a month after the National Labor Relations Board
designated McDonald's Corp. as a "joint-employer" with
franchisees.  The NLRB, a federal agency that resolves employee-
management disputes in the private sector, contends that the
company and its franchisees are joint employers because the
company wields extensive influence over how the franchisees
operate.

McDonald's has vowed to contest that designation.

That decision centered on pay and working conditions.  NLRB said
it found dozens of cases of unlawful conduct by the company,
including sanctions against workers who had sought job
improvements, including by participating in nationwide fast food
worker protests.

The general counsel office of the agency ruled in December that
the company violated the rights of employees openly seeking better
pay and working conditions.  Hearings are set for March on whether
to pursue disciplinary steps.

Over the past two years, workers at McDonald's and other fast-food
outlets in many cities have been engaging in brief "strikes" while
calling for an increase in the minimum wage from the current $7.25
to $15 an hour and the right to unionize.


MASSAGE ENVY: Settles Massage Class Action for $177 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
tens of thousands of California customers of the Massage Envy
Franchising chain of spas will have the opportunity to claim
unused sessions for which they had prepaid, under a tentative
class action settlement slated to go before a judge later this
month, according to federal court documents.

The proposed settlement, which the parties estimate to be worth
$177 million, wouldn't put any money in the pockets of as many as
130,000 class members, according to the agreement in Hahn v.
Massage Envy.  Instead, they would be granted free massages to
make up for the sessions they allege they were cheated out of
after they cancelled their memberships with Massage Envy Spas.
The lawyers, however, would reap as much as $7.8 million in
attorney fees and costs for their work on the case since it was
filed on Jan. 8, 2012, in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

Lead plaintiff Gail Hahn alleged she paid for 23 massages in
advance, at $59 each, but used only two.  She tried to cancel her
membership, but says the company wouldn't do so, and refused as
well to compensate her or allow her to partake of those paid-for
massages, according to her complaint.

The defendants argued that the membership agreement that every
customer signs explicitly states that members must continue to
purchase additional monthly massages as a condition of redeeming
the prepaid services.  The contract also states that when a member
cancels or stops paying, all outstanding prepaid massages are
"summarily and irreversibly forfeited," according to filings by
the defense.

But the plaintiffs alleged that the agreements were both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable as consumer
contracts, and should not stand.  They also alleged Massage Envy
violated the unlawful and unfair business practices provisions of
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Under the putative settlement, the aggrieved customers will be
eligible for one or more 50-minute or 90-minute massage sessions,
depending on the number of unused sessions they claim.

The deal provides for a new, more explicit membership agreement,
cancellation form and sales script designed to clarify the
company's policy that "any unused monthly member massages will
expire and will not be available for redemption or use if not
redeemed within 60 days following cancellation, nonrenewal or
termination for nonpayment," according to the documents.

The parties are scheduled to present motions for preliminary
approval and other matters to U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw
on Jan. 30.

Plaintiffs' counsel are with the firm Finkelstein & Krinsk.
Defense counsel are attorneys with the firms Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton; Sacks Ricketts Case; Dillon & Gerardi; Quarles
& Brady; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; and Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher.


MEXX CANADA: Recalls Children's Winter Jackets With Flashlight
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 11, 2014
Posting date:             December 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard, Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42883

Affected products: Flashlight attached to MEXX Children's Winter
Jackets

The recall involves the flashlight that comes attached to the Mexx
Winter Jackets sold in sizes 2 through 12.

The winter jackets can be identified by styles codes:

K1HCO015, K1HHO024, K1HHO019, K1HCO016, K1ICO008, K1HHO020,
K1HCO017, K1ICO009, K1HHO021, K1HCO018, K1ICO010, K1ICO014,
K1IHO015, K1JCO004, K1ICO016 and K1IHO017

The batteries of the flashlight can easily be removed by kids and
present both a chemical hazard and choking hazard.

MEXX has not received any incident report related to the use of
these products.

Health Canada has received one consumer report of a choking
incident in Canada.  The child had to be taken to the hospital for
medical treatment.

Approximately 15,092 units of the recalled product were sold in
Canada at the retail stores and online.

The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from
July 28, 2014 until Dec. 4, 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Mexx Canada Co.
                   Montreal
                   Quebec
                   CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the flashlight and remove
it from the jackets.  Mexx has identified that the Jackets without
the flashlights, are still safe to wear.  Consumers should discard
the flashlights and safely dispose of the batteries at a battery
recuperation center.


NATIONAL TAX: Faces "Franco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Franco, individually and for all others similarly
situated v. National Tax Search, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00386 (N.D.
Ill., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

National Tax Search, LLC provides commercial and residential
property tax management services to financial institutions all
over North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com
              jzouras@stephanzouras.com
              rstephan@stephanzouras.com


NATIONWIDE NATURAL: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Nationwide Natural Foods
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan, Yukon
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9512


NISSAN: Recalls Pathfinder, Sentra and X-Trail Models
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           13750
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014566
TC ID number:             2014566

On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury.  This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment.  Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the passenger
airbag inflator.  Note: This is an expansion of recalls 2013117
and 2014272.  Vehicles that were repaired under the previous
campaign are not affected because that remedy would have corrected
the subject condition.

Affected products:

   Maker            Model            Model year(s) affected
   -----            -----            ----------------------
   NISSAN           SENTRA           2004
   NISSAN           PATHFINDER       2003, 2004
   NISSAN           X-TRAIL          2005


NORDSTROM INC: Seeks Dismissal of False Marketing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the plaintiff in a proposed class action accusing Nordstrom Inc.
and a luxury denim maker of falsely marketing jeans as "Made in
the USA" is urging a California federal court to deny the
defendants' request for an interlocutory appeal in the case.

Defendants Nordstrom and A.G. Adriano Goldschmeid Inc. have failed
to establish that any exceptional circumstances exist for an
interlocutory appeal, claims plaintiff David Paz in a Jan. 5
memorandum filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

Mr. Paz alleges A.G. manufactures jeans with domestic and foreign-
made component parts and unlawfully labels and sells them in
California as "Made in USA."  Mr. Paz asserted he was deceived by
the label when he purchased the jeans at a Nordstrom store in San
Diego in May.  He sued the defendants for violations of California
law including the California "Made in USA" statute.

In court documents, the defendants denied the plaintiff's main
claims and filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the California
statute was preempted by the federal "Made in USA" statute and
federal fabric labeling rules and regulations.

But California federal judge Dana Sabraw denied defendants' motion
on Oct. 27, 2014, ruling the suit's claims are not preempted by
federal law.

Nordstrom and A.G. are now requesting that the court amend and
certify its October order for interlocutory appeal.

The plaintiff, in opposition to the defendants' motion, argues the
companies have failed to establish the grounds for such an appeal,
which include whether there is a controlling question of law.

The defendants argue in their motion that there is a controlling
question of law because the court's refusal to dismiss the case
"turned on the Court's legal determination that federal law did
not preempt California state law with respect to the use of 'Made
in USA'."  The defendants also argue that the court's legal
determinations in this case are subject to de novo review by the
Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Paz counters that not all preemption questions are appropriate
for such an appeal, particularly those that involve preemption
exceptions of a fact-intensive nature.  "In this case, Defendants'
motion fails to consider what additional factual issues are
necessary to the resolution of the preemption issue," he said.


NORFOLK STATE: Male Teachers' Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark S. Davis partly granted Plaintiff's motion in
the case captioned DR. ARCHIE EARL, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK STATE
UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF VISITORS OF NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, and
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Defendants, Civil No. 2:13cv148
(E.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Dr. Archie Earl alleged that Defendant Norfolk State
University ("NSU") violated the Equal Pay Act ("EPA") by creating
an inequity in pay as between female faculty at, for equal work on
jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility.  Plaintiff
asserted in his discovery that his own salary was "woefully
inadequate" compared to "recent hires, and white faculty, and
younger faculty, and female faculty," although Plaintiff alleges
that "he was at least as qualified" and that "the responsibilities
of the job[s] were essentially equivalent.

Plaintiff moved for conditional class certification of all
salaried male teaching faculty who worked for NSU for the past
three years and sought an order directing NSU to provide Plaintiff
a list in electronic database form with home addresses and contact
information and to provide notice in conspicuous places in campus.
Defendants responded to Plaintiff's motion for Conditional Class
Certification by arguing that Plaintiff failed to present
sufficient facts to warrant conditional certification of an EPA
collective action because professors outside Plaintiff's
department are not similarly situated to him.  Defendants argued
that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion because the
differences among NSU's departments render teaching faculty
members outside Plaintiff's department not similarly situated to
him.

In his Opinion and Order partly granting Plaintiff's motion, Judge
Davis held that Plaintiff has made the modest factual showing
sufficient to demonstrate that he and all salaried male teaching
faculty who worked for NSU at any time during the past three years
were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the EPA law.
Such allegations demonstrated that NSU was impermissibly
discriminating against men and in favor of women, hence, in
violation of the Equal Pay Act.

However, Judge Davis denied in part Plaintiff's request to the
extent of an order requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff with
the email addresses and telephone numbers of putative collective
action members and to post notice in conspicuous locations on the
NSU campus, including NSU's website.

A copy of the Opinion and Order dated November 18, 2014, is
available at bit.ly/1CdVUd4 from Leagle.com.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Boatright Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
the Schlesinger team wins a favorable verdict in Boatright case.

Details: When he was boy, Richard Boatright loved cowboys and "The
Magnificent Seven," a 1960 Western starring Yul Brynner, Eli
Wallach and Steve McQueen.

But attorneys say it was this love that would lead him to start
smoking cigarettes at 12, launching a decades-long nicotine
addiction and leading to chronic disease, two lung transplants and
a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against two powerful cigarette
manufacturers.

Case: Richard Boatright and Deborah Boatright v. Philip Morris USA
and Liggett Group

Case no: 53-2011CA-000158-0000-WH
Description: Products liability
Filing date: Jan. 12, 2011
Trial dates: Oct. 14-Nov. 12, 2014
Judge: Polk Circuit Judge John Radabaugh

Plaintiffs attorneys: Scott Schlesinger, Steven Hammer, Jonathan
Gdanski and Brittany Chambers, Schlesinger Law Officers, Fort
Lauderdale

Defense attorneys: Kenneth Reilly, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Miami,
for Philip Morris and Ann St. Peter-Griffith, Kasowitz Benson
Torres & Friedman, Miami, for Liggett
Verdict amount: $35 million

Plaintiffs case: His attorneys argued Mr. Boatright, now 61, was
the victim of a calculated corporate marketing strategy that tied
the theme song and imagery from the hit movie to an international
campaign to rebrand fledgling Marlboro cigarettes into a global
powerhouse.

"We've all been brainwashed by the Marlboro man," said
Mr. Schlesinger, a Fort Lauderdale attorney whose team helped win
the award against Philip Morris USA Inc. and Liggett Group LLC.
"The kids were watching Westerns.  What could be more
impressionable than that? Rich loved cowboys, but there was the
major disconnect. He thought he was a cowboy when really he was a
drug addict."

Mr. Boatright grew up to be a professional dance instructor and
smoked multiple packs of cigarettes daily for about three decades.
He needed a second lung transplant in 2012 after his body rejected
the first.

"He was graceful on his feet, but he was also heavily addicted
since childhood," Mr. Schlesinger said.

Mr. Boatright's case is one of thousands filed in Florida after
the state Supreme Court in 2006 decertified a $145 billion class
action verdict against major tobacco companies, forcing smokers or
their families to individually prove smoking caused injury or
death.  Miami Beach pediatrician Howard Engle was lead plaintiff
in the class action, and Mr. Boatright is among thousands of Engle
progeny litigants.

The Schlesinger team built a case that argued the Engle verdict
already answered all the questions of fault, holding cigarette
companies culpable for making unreasonably dangerous products that
caused cancer, emphysema and addiction.  They accused Philip
Morris and Liggett of fraud by concealment, breach of express and
implied warranties, and gross negligence, among other counts.

The attorneys successfully argued Philip Morris and Liggett hid or
omitted information when confronted by health agencies and kept
selling a deadly and addictive product as part of a corporate
conspiracy to boost sales despite injury to consumers.  They said
while the companies raked in massive profits, Mr. Boatright
struggled with addiction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
and two major lung surgeries.

Defense case: Philip Morris, the largest U.S. tobacco company,
denied all claims and said Mr. Boatright did not qualify as a
member of the decertified Engle class and was not entitled to
benefits awarded to that group.  Its attorneys argued
Mr. Boatright chose to continue smoking even though he knew the
risks.

Liggett attorneys did not respond to a request for comment by
deadline.

Outcome: The jury sided with Mr. Boatright, handing down a $35
million verdict in his favor.  Jurors concluded he was addicted to
nicotine and Philip Morris and Liggett hid information about the
health dangers of their products.  The panel assigned 85 percent
of the blame to Philip Morris and 15 percent to Liggett, awarding
Mr. Boatright $19.7 million in punitive damages against Philip
Morris and $300,000 against Liggett.  They also awarded $12.5
million for lost earnings and pain and suffering.

Comments: "They appeal everything," Mr. Schlesinger said.
"Fighting cases in court is a very important part of their
business.  Litigation is part of their business.  It's the back
end."

Post-settlement: Judge Radabaugh on Jan. 12 denied the tobacco
companies' request for retrial, starting the clock on a 30-day
window for filing a notice of appeal.


PROGENE HEALTHCARE: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swetlic Chiropractic & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Progene Healthcare, Inc., Proxi
Market Solutions, Inc., Michael Lee and John Does 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-00291 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2015), seeks to redress the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures all-
natural solution to help support the naturally declining
testosterone levels experienced by men over 20.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plaines, NY10606
      Telephone: (914) 358-5345
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
      E-mail: Avtan.Benin@beUinlaw.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


RECKITT BENCKISER: Court Narrows Claims in Suboxone Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order in IN RE
SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 13-MD-2445 (E.D. Pa.), whereby:

-- The motion to dismiss the Direct Purchasers' complaint is
    granted as to Count III. The motion is further granted in
    that the Direct Purchasers' claims against Reckitt Benckiser,
    Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
    (UK) Ltd. and Reckitt Benckiser Group plc are dismissed. The
    motion is denied in all other respects.

-- The motion to dismiss the End Payors' complaint is granted as
    to the following claims:

      i. The antitrust claims under the laws of Arizona, District
         of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
         Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,
         North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode
         Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and West
         Virginia;

     ii. The consumer protection claims under the laws of
         Arkansas, Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho,
         Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri,
         Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
         North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
         Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia; and

    iii. The unjust enrichment claims brought under the laws of
         Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
         Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
         Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
         Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana,
         Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North
         Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island,
         South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
         Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

     The motion is further granted in that the End Payors' claims
     against Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC and
     Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd. are dismissed. The
     motion is denied in all other respects.

A copy of the judge's Dec. 2, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/eFtJS1from Leagle.com


SA SAUSAGES: Recalls Serengeti Trading Ready-To-Eat Meat Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           SA Sausages
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9527

SA Sausages is recalling Serengeti Trading brand ready-to-eat meat
products from the marketplace because they contain mustard or
sulphites which are not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to mustard or a sensitivity to sulphites should not
consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard or a sensitivity to sulphites,
do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious
or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


SEI YING: Recalls Beverage Powders Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sei Ying Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9519


SEVENTH GENERATION: Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Tsan and Erica Wildstein, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Seventh Generation, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-00205 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's false misleading marketing practices of its cleaning
and personal care products as natural, when in fact they contain
non-natural ingredients.

Seventh Generation, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells natural
cleaning supplies, paper products, and personal care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
      REESE RICHMAN LLP
      875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com


SHELL OIL: Faces "Binder" Suit in La. Over Benzene-Related Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Binder v. Shell Oil Company, Shell Chemical LP d/b/a Shell
Chemical Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00097 (E.D. La., January 15,
2015) alleges injury due to exposure to benzene and benzene-
containing products.

Mr. Binder is a resident of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.  worked
as a contract tank cleaner for Rollins Environmental, Inc. at
Shell Oil and Shell Chemical cleaning tanks with benzene and other
chemicals from 1982-1986.  He alleges that he was regularly
exposed to benzene during this period.  He contends that he was
diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in August 2011 due to his
exposure to benzene and benzene-containing products.

Shell Oil Company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal
office in Texas.  Shell Chemical LP, doing business as Shell
Chemical Company, incorporated in Delaware with its principal
office in Texas.  The Defendants are manufacturers, distributors,
sellers, suppliers, or large industrial consumers of benzene or
benzene-containing products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Eric Williams, Jr., Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC
          433 Metairie Rd., Suite 401
          Metairie, Louisiana 70005
          Telephone: (504) 832-9898
          Facsimile: (504) 832-9811
          E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net


SHELL OIL: Faces "Gaubert" Suit Over Benzene-Related Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Gaubert, Individually and Theresa Gaubert v. Shell Oil
Company, Shell Chemical LP d/b/a Shell Chemical Company, Exxon
Mobil Corporation, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00099
(E.D. La., January 15, 2015)

The Gauberts are residents of Lockport, Louisiana.  Ms. Gaubert is
Mr. Gaubert's wife.  Mr. Gaubert worked as a contract
welder/pipefitter for various companies including LouCon, Brown
and Root and Turner Industries from 1968 through 1985 at Shell
Oil, Shell Chemical in Norco, LA, ExxonMobil in Chalmette, LA, and
Murphy Oil in Chalmette, LA.  He alleges that he was regularly
exposed to benzene during this period while performing new
construction and turn arounds.  Mr. Gaubert was diagnosed with
multiple myeloma in May 2014 due to his alleged exposure to
benzene and benzene-containing products.

Shell Oil Company and Shell Chemical LP were incorporated in
Delaware with their principal office in Texas.  Exxon Mobil
Corporation was incorporated in New Jersey with its principal
place of business in Texas.  Murphy Oil USA, Inc. was incorporated
in Delaware with its principal office in Arkansas.

The Defendants are manufacturers, distributors, sellers,
suppliers, or large industrial consumers of benzene or benzene-
containing products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Eric Williams, Jr., Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC
          433 Metairie Rd., Suite 401
          Metairie, Louisiana 70005
          Telephone: (504) 832-9898
          Facsimile: (504) 832-9811
          E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net


SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Plaintiff's Counsel to Re-Depose Frankel
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Showbiz Spy's Richard Head, RadarOnline.com is
exclusively reporting that Bethenny Frankel is expected to be
deposed again in her Skinnygirl Margarita lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit alleges the liquor has been falsely
advertised as "all natural," when it in fact contains
preservatives.

During a status conference, the judge ruled, "Plaintiff's counsel
may re-depose Ms. Frankel.  Discovery deadline remains as set."

As Radar reported in July, the new Real Housewives of New York
cast member, 44, refused to meet with the plaintiffs in an attempt
to settle.


SPECIALTY TOYS: Recalls Lemur Plush Toy Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 10, 2014
Posting date:             December 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42849

Affected products: Loki Lemur and Neon Loki Lemur Plush Toys

The recall involves Loki Lemur and Neon Loki Lemur plush toys.
Loki the Lemur plush toys are found in assorted colors: black,
blue, turquoise, purple; Neon Loki the Lemur come in neon green,
neon pink, violet, and blue.  The plush toy can also be identified
by their tags which states Specialty Toys Direct.

The eyes and nose of the plush toys can become detached posing a
choking hazard to young children.

Specialty Toys Direct has not received any reports of incidents.

Health Canada has received one report of the eye breaking off.  No
serious injury resulted.

Consumers can find information on how to choose safe toys and
protect their children when they play by visiting the General toy
safety tips page on the Healthy Canadians website.

Approximately 22,416 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled plush toy was manufactured in China and sold from
April 2014 to November 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Pinnacle Toy Corporation
                    Beijing
                    China

   Distributor     Specialty Toys Direct Inc.
                   Burnaby
                   British Columbia
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the recalled plush toys from
children's reach and return to Specialty Toys Direct Inc. for a
full refund.  They can also discard the toy in such a way that it
could be no longer used.


STAR MARKETING: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Star Marketing
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9506


STEPHEN YELVERTON: Case vs. Siblings Won't Proceed as Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge S. Martin Teel, Jr. denied a motion by Yelverton
for the certification of an adversary proceeding -- he filed
against his sisters, Deborah Marm and Phyllis Edmundson, asserting
various business law and tort causes of action -- as a class
action on behalf of all creditors and to amend the amended
complaint to bring class allegations.

"Because the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, there is no point in making such a
certification. Moreover, Yelverton is not an attorney who is a
member of the bar of the district court of which this court is a
unit under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 151 and thus he is not authorized to
represent any such creditors in this adversary proceeding," the
judge held.

The decision was handed down in In re STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON,
Chapter 7 Debtor. STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH
MARM and PHYLLIS EDMUNDSON, Defendants, CASE NO. 09-00414,
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO. 14-10024, (Bankr. Columbia).

A copy of the judge's Dec. 11, 2014 Memorandum Decision is
available at http://is.gd/elDubefrom Leagle.com.


TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Tree of Life Canada
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9513


UBC: Faces Class Action Over Damaged Sperm; April 27 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Nixon, writing for The Ubyssey, reports that the class
action lawsuit alleging UBC's negligence led to the destruction of
over 400 men's sperm when a circuit breaker tripped at a sperm
bank in 2002 has won another victory towards proving UBC liable.

UBC placed an exclusion clause in most contracts that would have
exempted them from liability in the loss of frozen sperm, but a
recent court decision ruled that sperm count as property and a
different set of rules applies, making exclusion clauses
irrelevant.

"Because [sperm] was property, it fell within the Warehouse
Receipt Act and therefore the exclusion clause was found to be
invalid," said Art Grant, one of the lawyers representing the
class-action suit.

The act overrules any exclusion clauses by requiring the business
storing property to be liable.

"You can put all sorts of clauses in your contracts but you can't
exclude your responsibility of a warehouser of the materials,"
said Mr. Grant.

UBC had argued that they used the standard of care necessary and
that all sperm donors signed agreements limiting liability. About
26 of the men said that they had never signed any agreement but
the recent decision makes it irrelevant.  The exclusion clause,
signed or not, is no longer valid.

The class action is seeking damages between $20,000 and $100,000
for each of the donors.  The lawsuit has been progressing since
2002, when a circuit break tripped and cut off power to the
freezer holding the sperm.  The alarm system didn't kick in, and
the sperm were damaged.

The freezer that failed had been purchased in 1987 from Forma
Scientific Inc. A representative from the company recommended that
freezers be replaced around every 10 years.

The class action must now attempt to prove UBC's negligence -- the
next court date is April 27.

"We'll be making a number of arguments about UBC's negligence,"
said Grant, "the system they used was inappropriate, the backup
system was non-existent, the checks and balances nonexistent."

UBC spokesperson Susan Danard released the following statement
when asked for comment.

"UBC recognizes this was an unfortunate situation and empathizes
with those directly impacted.  The university takes this matter
very seriously and looks forward to an early resolution.  As the
matter is before the courts, we cannot comment any further at this
time."


UNITED STATES: Commerce Dep't Workers Win Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
People's World reports that federal workers racked up a win on
employment discrimination when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
-- often called the nation's second-most-powerful court -- threw
out the Commerce Department's attempt to limit workers' rights to
file such discrimination cases.

In a case that began in 1995, Commerce Department workers Janet
Howard and Joyce Megginson sued for pay discrimination against
them because they were African-Americans.

The case bounced around the courts for years, under both
Democratic and Republican administrations, with arguments over
whether it should be a class-action suit on behalf of all Commerce
workers or not.

Finally, the two women decided to go ahead on their own, but a
lower federal court accepted the latest administration argument.
Commerce secretary Penny Pritzker, a wealthy former Chicago hotel
magnate, contended the six-year statute of limitations on civil
rights complaints outside the federal government should apply to
federal workers, too.

The appeals court judges found that Congress had explicitly said
that's not correct.

"In a novel attempt to reconfigure Congress's statutory scheme
more than 40 years after its enactment, the Commerce Department
would impose (the) six-year statute of limitations, regardless of
the status of the administrative proceedings" which workers first
must follow in employment discrimination cases, the 3-judge panel
said.

"Applying that time limit to truncate Title VII (of the Civil
Rights Act)'s more lenient limitations period irreconcilably
conflicts with Congress's comprehensive scheme.

"Federal employees who, as here, have pursued administrative
relief and, six years after their claim first accrued, had an
administrative class action provisionally certified and remanded
for further consideration would either have to abandon that
process or surrender the right to file suit following final
administrative action.  That is not part of Congress's scheme and
incorporating it would strike a different balance of interests
than was chosen by Congress.

"Accordingly, because the judicial role is to enforce the
congressionally determined balance," the statute of limitations
"does not apply to Title VII civil actions brought by federal
employees, and we reverse the dismissal of appellants' complaint
and remand the case to the district court" for trial, the panel
added.


US SERVICO: Faces "Cody" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Cody, Leeanne Snow, Alfred Sanders and Anthony Claiborne,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals
v. U.S. Servico, Inc., a Michigan and Brian Rogers, an
corporation, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:15-cv-10170 (E.D.
Mich., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay proper overtime wages for all hours of work
performed by their employees.

The Defendants own and operate a company that specializes in
commercial and janitorial cleaning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
      One Towne Square
      Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 936-2138
      E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
              kstoops@sommerspc.com


VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Cert. Order in "Salazar" Suit Altered
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Salazar, an exotic dancer, sued Victory Entertainment, Inc.
(doing business as VIP Showgirls), an adult entertainment club in
North Hollywood, alleging wage and hour violations arising from
the club's misclassification of dancers who performed at the club
as independent contractors.  Salazar appealed from the trial
court's order denying her motion to certify a class of all dancers
who have worked at VIP; the court ruled common issues did not
predominate over individual issues.

In a Dec. 15, 2014 ruling available at http://is.gd/x5Ul58from
Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
reversed the trial court's order.  The appellate court held that
the trial court erred by applying the common law test for an
employee relationship to claims falling within the scope of a wage
order.

The class action is STACY SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B249888.

Murray M. Sinclair & Associates, Murray M. Sinclair, Ryan C.
McKim; Manuwal & Manuwal, Robert I. Manuwal; Cohon & Pollack and
Jeffrey M. Cohon, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


VISEMAR DI NAVIGAZIONE: Giambrone to Launch Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mondaq reports that Giambrone, the Italian law firm whose Maritime
insurance lawyers have assisted the victims of the Costa Concordia
disaster and successfully recovered several thousand euros in
damages and compensation from the Italian cruise ship operator, on
Jan. 12 announced that they will be launching a similar class
action on behalf of the passengers on board the Italian-owned
Norman Atlantic vessel against the Italian owner of the boat,
Visemar Di Navigazione.

"The Norman Atlantic passengers have clearly been through a
terrifying and most traumatic experience and one which may have
long-lasting effects for them," he said.  "With over 500
passengers on board this huge vessel, the safety of passengers
should have been the first and only priority.  The ferry should
have not been allowed to travel due to the deficiencies found by
the Greek authorities"

Under Italian law, the injured passengers on board of the Norman
Atlantic are entitled to seek compensation for all personal
injuries sustained on board and after disembarkation, material
damages, compensation for ruined vacation, compensation for lost
property and items, a refund for the transportation costs and
compensation for any damages to their vehicles.

The Athens Convention, which applies to international carriage by
sea, states that compensation claims for personal injury and death
can usually be brought in the country most favorable to the
victims and this may contradict the legal provisions of the
purchase of the transport ticket which specify that Italian law
should apply to any disputes with the ship owners.  For personal
injuries, Italian law may actually provide for a more accurate
remedy that the Greece General Maritime Law and statutory law,
governed by a federal statute called the Death On The High Seas
Act ("DOHSA").

Passengers are entitled to be compensated not only on the grounds
of the shipowner's contractual liability but also in relation to
failures or violations of international maritime safety rules
which would increase the potential liability of the maritime
company, and raise the level of compensation through the claim for
"punitive damages".

Piero Mastrosimone -- p.mastrosimone@giambronelaw.com -- head of
Giambrone's Maritime Accidents team, said they were continuing to
receive enquiries from a growing number of passengers from Italy
and abroad: the majority of passengers and crew were Italians and
Greeks but it is reported that other passengers were from various
other European countries including France, Germany and England.

The Italian car ferry Norman Atlantic was travelling from Patras,
in Greece, to Ancona, in Italy with 422 passengers and 56 crew
members on board when a fire broke out on its car deck, north-west
of Corfu near Greece on Jan. 11.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Jetta Model Due to Defective Software
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           9843
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014562
TC ID number:             2014562
Manufacturer recall
number:                   57F6

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and
Retroreflective Devices.  The software within the control module
of the halogen headlights can allow the low beam headlights to
turn off when the high beam headlights are activated, which is
contrary to the requirements of the standard.  Reduced lighting at
the front of the vehicle can affect the driver's vision, which
could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will update the software of the control module.

Affected products: 2015 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA


VOXX International: Receives $5.2MM in Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
VOXX International Corporation on Jan. 11 announced financial
results for its Fiscal 2015 third quarter and nine-months ended
November 30, 2014.

Pat Lavelle, President and CEO stated, "We saw significant gross
margin improvements across all of our business segments, and
lowered planned spending further, resulting in operating income
that matched last year's third quarter, despite lower sales.
There were some short-term factors that impacted sales, such as
OEM programs and new product launches that were delayed.  Holiday
retail sales also came in better than anticipated but we had taken
a cautious approach in our buying programs, and is one of the
elements that will curtail top-line results in the Fiscal fourth
quarter.  We anticipate FY15 sales to be approximately $760-$770
million, but with gross margins tracking closer to 30% and
operating expenses lower than anticipated.  We are receiving
positive responses to the products we debuted at CES and the ones
that will be coming to market shortly, and remain optimistic,
especially with new OEM programs on the horizon and the
anticipated contributions from new products such as 360fly, myris,
our Reference Series and Jamo Concert Series, new 808 Audio
products, and more.  Our balance sheet remains strong and we are
getting ready for some exciting programs in 2015 that should drive
organic growth and improved profitability over the coming year."

Third Quarter Results (three months ended November 30, 2014 and
November 30, 2013) Net sales for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter
were $223.4 million compared to $245.8 million reported in the
comparable year-ago period, a decline of 9.1%. Within this:

Automotive sales were $110.2 million as compared to $117.6
million.  The Automotive segment was impacted by the temporary
suspension of an OEM program for one customer as it works through
revised safety requirements, lower comparable OEM sales as a
result of programs that launched in the FY14 third quarter,
suspended sales in Venezuela, and the impact of the Euro
conversion, offset by higher sales of remote starts.

Premium Audio sales were $54.4 million as compared to $65.6
million.  This segment was impacted by lower sales of soundbars
and music centers, primarily driven by lower average selling
prices, and the impact of the Euro conversion, offset by higher
sales of high-end separates and commercial and custom
installations.

Consumer Accessories sales were $58.2 million as compared to $62.2
million.  This segment was impacted by lower sales of digital
voice recorders, clock radios and hook-up and power products,
lower sales in Mexico resulting from the transition in the
Company's distribution model, and the impact of the Euro
conversion, offset by higher sales of wireless and Bluetooth
speakers, and sales increases in Europe.

The gross margin for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter was 30.9%, an
increase of 290 basis points as compared to 28.0% for the same
period last year.  All three business segments posted increases in
gross margin due to product mix shifts and better margins
associated with new product launches and programs (Automotive -
31.3% vs. 28.6%; Premium Audio - 33.7% vs. 30.8%; Consumer
Accessories - 26.7% vs. 23.5%).

Operating expenses for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter were $52.3
million, roughly in line with $52.2 million reported in the
comparable year-ago period.  The Company experienced a decline of
$3.2 million in its selling, general and administrative expenses
for the comparable third quarter periods, offset by a $3.4 million
increase in engineering and technical support as the Company
continues to bring on engineers and increase its R&D spend in
support of new and potential OEM programs.

The Company reported operating income of $16.6 million for both
the Fiscal 2015 and Fiscal 2014 third quarters.  For the
comparable three-month periods, there was a variance in other
income (expense) of $5.7 million, as the FY14 third quarter
included $4.3 million related to an unanticipated OEM customer
settlement.  There were other offsetting factors for the
comparable periods.  This resulted in net income of $15.6 million
or income per diluted share of $0.64 for the Fiscal 2015 third
quarter as compared to net income of $15.4 million or net income
per diluted share of $0.63 for the comparable year ago period.

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
("EBITDA") for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter was $22.2 million as
compared to EBITDA of $27.7 million reported in the Fiscal 2014
third quarter.  Adjusted EBITDA was $22.4 million as compared to
$23.5 million for the comparable Fiscal 2015 and 2014 periods.

Mr. Lavelle continued, "The safety recall at an OEM customer, lack
of business in Venezuela, normal run rates for OEM programs and
the Euro conversion impacted year-to-date sales by over $18
million.  Within Premium Audio, the delayed launch of our new
Reference Series impacted our top-line as well, but we expect to
see improvements in gross margins and profitability. We continue
to expand distribution and our Consumer Accessories business
should be aided by new sales of action cameras, Singtrix and
biometrics products next Fiscal year.  We have a number of
exciting products coming to market and have been awarded contracts
or are participating in, several large-scale RFQs in our
Automotive segment as well.  While this may not have immediate
returns, we are growing our pipeline and positioning the Company
for growth."

Nine-Month Results (periods ended November 30, 2014 and November
30, 2013) Net sales for the nine months ended November 30, 2014
were $587.6 million compared to $622.6 million reported in the
comparable year-ago period, a decline 5.6%. Within this:

Automotive sales were $305.6 million as compared to $318.6
million. The Automotive segment experienced decreases in its OEM
manufacturing lines as a result of the temporary suspension of
programs from one OEM customer, and lower OEM sales given the
volume of new product and program launches in the Fiscal 2014 nine
month period as compared to Fiscal 2015.  Additionally, lower
satellite radio sales due to credit concerns, and lower sales in
Venezuela led to the decline, offset by higher sales of remote
starts and Car Connection devices domestically, and higher
European sales.

Premium Audio sales were $128.5 million as compared to $146.5
million.  The segment decline was primarily due to the transition
of inventory in anticipation of new product launches, which took
place in the Fiscal 2015 second and third quarters, a decline in
industry-wide pricing for soundbars, music centers and Bluetooth
wireless speakers, as well as lower international sales.
Offsetting this were higher sales of high-end separates, and gains
in the Commercial and Custom Installation business.

Consumer Accessories sales were $152.6 million as compared to
$156.2 million.  This segment was impacted by lower sales of
digital voice recorders, clock radios, and hook-up and power
products, and lower comparable sales in Mexico, offset by higher
sales of wireless and Bluetooth speakers, and higher sales
throughout Europe.

The gross margin for the nine-month period ended November 30, 2014
was 29.7%, an increase of 120 basis points as compared to 28.5%
for the same period last year.  This increase was driven by
improved margins in the Automotive and Consumer Accessories
segment, up 290 basis points and 60 basis points, respectively,
offset by a 60 basis point decline in the Premium Audio segment.

Operating expenses for the nine month period ended November 30,
2014 were $157.1 million, an increase of 1.2% compared to
operating expenses of $155.2 million reported in the comparable
year-ago period.  The modest increase is primarily related to a
$3.9 million increase in engineering and technical support and a
$0.5 million increase in selling expenses, both related to new
personnel brought on-board to support various customer and
prospective programs.  This was offset by a $1.3 million reduction
in restructuring expense and lower general and administrative
expenses of $1.1 million.

The Company reported operating income of $17.3 million for the
nine-month period ended November 30, 2014 as compared to operating
income of $22.2 million reported in the comparable period last
year.  Lower sales volumes and higher expenses contributed to the
variance for the year-over-year periods, and were partially offset
by gross margin improvements.

The Company reported total other expenses for the nine month
period ended November 30, 2014 of $5.2 million as compared to
total other income of $10.5 million in the comparable period last
year.  In Fiscal 2015, the Company recorded a $6.7 million charge
representing the devaluation loss related to its Venezuelan bonds
that were remeasured at August 31, 2014, resulting in a net
Venezuela currency devaluation and translation loss for the nine
months ended November 30, 2014 of $6.2 million.  Additionally,
Other, net, decreased by $9.9 million, primarily as a result of
$5.2 million received in a class action settlement, $4.3 million
from an unanticipated customer contract settlement, and $0.9
million related to Klipsch recoveries.  This was offset by an
accrual of $1.2 million for estimated patent settlements with
certain third parties, among other factors.  The net result was a
$15.7 million decline in total other income (expense) for the
comparable periods.

The Company reported net income of $13.4 million or income per
diluted share of $0.55 as compared to net income of $22.4 million
or net income per diluted share of $0.93 for the nine-months ended
November 30, 2014 and November 30, 2013, respectively.

EBITDA for the Fiscal 2015 nine-month period was $29.3 million as
compared to EBITDA of $50.3 million reported in the comparable
Fiscal 2014 period.  Adjusted EBITDA for the Fiscal 2015 nine-
month period was $36.3 million as compared to Adjusted EBITDA of
$42.7 million for the comparable year-ago period.


WALTER LEE: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Gregory, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Walter Lee & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00243
(E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2015) is brought for alleged 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


WARRIOR ENERGY: Cannot Choose Presiding Judge in "Cerini" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark R. Hornak entered a Memorandum Opinion in the
lawsuit CERINI v. WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14-CV-00637 (W.D. Pa.), telling parties in the case that they
don't get to pick their judge.  The court adopts a random case
assignment order.

The Defendants have filed a motion, wanting the case randomly
reassigned to a judge of the Pennsylvania district court.  They
say that the Plaintiff missed the mark when he designated this
case "related" to civil action 13-695, the "Dunkel" case, Dunkel
v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., which like this one, is a
hybrid FLSA collective action/state law purported class action
seeking the payment of allegedly unpaid overtime wages.

Judge Hornak opined, "To grant Defendants' Motion now, no matter
their actual motivation for making it, would in the Court's
judgment create an impermissible appearance of authorizing 'Judge
shopping.'.

A copy of Judge Hornak's Dec. 11, 2014 Memorandum and Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/EC8F6Cfrom Leagle.com.

MARK CERINI, Plaintiff, represented by:

     John R. Linkosky, Esq.
     Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
     THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
     100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: 412-227-0763
     Toll Free: 888-357-0380

WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by Andrew P.
Burnside -- drew.burnside@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, James F. Glunt --
james.glunt@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C., Philip K. Kontul --
philip.kontul@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Jennifer G. Betts --
jennifer.betts@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
& Stewart.

IPS, INC., Defendant, represented by Andrew P. Burnside, Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, James F. Glunt, Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Philip K. Kontul, Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Jennifer G. Betts, Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart.


* Australian Cos. Need to Counter Cyber-Attack to Avert Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gregory, writing for CSO, reports that the cyber-attack on
Sony Pictures Entertainment in late November is not the first time
that Sony Corporation has been a target for cyber-criminals and if
anything can be learned from the attacks, it is that corporations
are not taking cyber-security seriously.

Sony, which appears to be the current target of a major
cyber-attack by forces the FBI claims are operating on behalf of
the North Koreans, has had its corporate and game networks
attacked several times over the past decade.  The 2011 attack on
the Sony game network resulted in more than 77 million users'
personal information being stolen and released on the Internet and
in the most recent attack on December 8 the game network was taken
down for about three hours.

Between August 10 and September 16 the US retailer Staples Inc.
was subject to a broad cyber-attack that infected machines at 113
stores across the US resulting personal information from more than
1.16 million payment cards being stolen.  What is a concern here
is not just that so many customers were compromised, but that the
cyber-attack went on for so long before it was identified.

Other US retail chains that have been subjected to successful
cyber-attacks include Home Depot Inc. (56 million card accounts)
and Target Corporation (40 million card accounts) which were
attacked with variants of the same malware.

Consequences for data breaches locally have been almost non-
existent and governments have taken a step back from forcing
business to meet minimum privacy and security standards when
operating electronic systems connected to the Internet.

But there are signs that the times are changing because earlier
this year Target Corporation removed chairman and CEO Greg
Steinhafel in a move aimed to restore consumer confidence that had
fallen as a result of the Target data breach, and Sony has now
found itself subjected to a number of class action lawsuits barely
months after finalizing a $15 million settlement of a class action
brought against Sony over the 2011 Sony PlayStation network data
breach.

In a similar context, it appears that only through the courts will
Australians be able to force business to take privacy and security
seriously.  Successive Australian governments have put mandatory
data breach reporting -- by business that have been subjected to a
cyber-attack -- on the back burner and it is only a matter of time
before the courts are inundated with class actions if current
practice is not over-turned.

Telstra's Cyber Security Report 2014 found that a major security
incident has been experienced in the past three years by 41 per
cent of local organizations surveyed.  Forty five per cent of the
security incidents were the result of staff accidentally clicking
on links to malware or opening mail attachments that contained
links to malware.  Of the organizations surveyed 43 per cent
indicated they were prepared for cyber-incidents and less than 30
per cent plan to increase cyber-security spending in 2015.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has
published an updated guide for handling personal information
security breaches, and a guide to information security but without
any legislated powers to act against business the toothless
Australian Privacy Commissioner has been given a poison chalice of
responsibility by the government.

Business looking at the limited ability of the OAIC to take action
against companies that fail to secure personal information and
report data breaches, may be tempted to put information privacy
and security into the too hard basket and carry on as normal, but
this would be tempting fate just a little.

And it is not just US companies that are being attacked by cyber-
criminals.  As the world looks to connect everything to the
network it is timely to look back at how US security firm Cylance
attacked and gained entry to the Internet connected building
management system for Google Australia's office in Sydney.

In 2015 Australian business will need to take information privacy
and security seriously, the rate of cyber-crime is continuing to
increase and the sophistication of the attacks and malware used to
breach company defenses has increased faster than the defensive
systems.

Add to this the trend towards the Internet of Things and mobile
device growth and we have an environment that will provide cyber-
criminals with new targets offering easy pickings unless business
takes the threat seriously.  Kaspersky Lab Global Research and
Analysis Team recently published its predictions for advance
persistent threats (APT) in 2015 that include:

  -- The merger of cyber-crime and APT
   -- Fragmentation of bigger APT groups that will increase the
      attack base
   -- Evolving malware techniques
   -- New methods of data exfiltration
   -- New APTs from unusual places as more countries join the
      cyber arms race
   -- Use of false flags in attacks to mislead about the attackers
      origin
   -- Threat actors add mobile attacks to their arsenal
   -- APT+Botnet: precise attack+mass surveillance
   -- Targeting of hotel networks
   -- Commercialization of APT and the private sector - legal
      spyware

Consumers have been coming to terms with the fact that every
device they own irrespective of the brand is subject to cyber-
attack.  The malware used to attack the iPhone 6 when the phone is
connected to an Apple Mac demonstrates clearly that cyber-
criminals are evolving their methods of attacking consumer
devices.

Australian business needs to move beyond using a passive defense
to cyber-attack and start to look at systems that proactively
target possible sources of malware and data breaches.  It is only
by actively seeking anything unusual on corporate networks and
devices that business will be able to fight the increasing
sophistication of cyber-crime.

Intelligent systems that seek device malware and intrusions into
corporate networks have been in development for more than ten
years and it is time that Australian business develops a best
practice guide on how to implement cyber-security systems.

It is also a time when Australian business should consider
proactive defensive measures including the capability to defend
against cyber-attack by targeting and counter-attacking the source
of an attack against the company's devices, systems or network.

Cost has long been an issue when fighting against cyber-crime and
to minimize cost, Australian business should consider utilizing
common secure infrastructure and gateways when connecting to the
Internet.  While some companies offer security systems of this
kind, there is still scope for more development of common or
industry wide defenses.

Sony's travails and the long list of major corporations subjected
to major cyber-attacks over the past couple of years provide a
warning signal that must not be underestimated by Australian
boardrooms.


                             *********

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  * * *