CAR_Public/150128.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 20


                             Headlines

A1 DIABETES: Faces "Zimmerman" Suit in Florida District Court
AFNI INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Removes "Fagerstrom" Suit to S.D. California
AMERASSIST INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AMGEN INC: Removes "Carter" Suit to California District Court

APPLE REIT: Case Transfer Denied; "Wenzel" Suit Dismissed
ARKANSAS VALLEY: Court Narrows Inmate's Suit
AUDIENCE INC: Judge Tentatively Certifies Class in Investor Suit
BANK OF NEW YORK: Violates Disabilities Act, Ex-Worker Claims
BCS INSURANCE: Judgment in "Margulis" Case Upheld

BLUE MARSH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
BP EXPLORATION: May Get Lesser Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Fines
CITIBANK N.A.: "McGill" Claims Remanded for Arbitration
COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL: Wis. Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
CON-WAY FREIGHT: Obtains Final Approval of "Quezada" Suit Deal

COVERALL NORTH AMERICA: Settlement Reached; Appeal Dismissed
DES MOINES, IA: $7MM Atty Fee Award in Illegal Tax Suit Affirmed
EASTMAN KODAK: Court Denies Dismissal of Gedek Consolidated Suit
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: D. Ore. Judge Narrows "Kearney" Voucher Suit
ETHICON INC: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over Use of FlexHD(R)

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FISHER COMMUNICATIONS: Oregon Judge Refers Case for Arbitration
FLY LOW INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Wages, Retaliation
FORD MOTOR: Discovery Bid in "Burnett" Suit Granted in Part
FORD MOTOR: Court Rules on Motion to Compel in "Burd" Suit

FORD MOTOR: Discovery Bid in "Richardson" Granted in Part
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Offer of Settlement Will Not Moot Case
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Court Trims "Henning" Suit Over ADA Violation
GALARDI SOUTH: Judge Grants Reinstatement in Dancers' Wage Suit
GEORGIA ENERGY: S.D. Ga. Judge Decertifies Class Action Suit

GREENBERG TRAURIG: Ariz. App. Flips Ruling in "Baldino" Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Judge Grants Certification on "Brown" Suit
HOME DEPOT: "Earls/Holt" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
HOMEADVISOR INC: Accused of Violating Communications Act in Minn.
J.C. PENNEY: "Tschudy" Suit May Proceed as Class Action

JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL: La. App. Court Revives "Ladieux" Suit
KEG INC: South Carolina Judge Approves Consolidation of Two Cases
LENNAR HOMES: App. Ct. Upholds Indemnity Order in Stephens Suit
LINCOLN TECHNICAL: Court Grants Student's Discovery Bid
LUFTHANSA GERMAN: Faces Suit Over Montreal Convention Concerns

LUZERNE, PA: 3rd Cir. Flips Ruling in Ex-Public Atty Suit
MARTIN MARIETTA: Judge Tosses Non-Monetary Class Suit Settlement
MCKESSON CORP: Bid for Leave to Seek Reconsideration Denied
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Little" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MERSCORP HOLDINGS: 8th Cir. Upheld Dismissal of 87 Counties' Suit

MORTGAGE STRATEGIES: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Galloway Suit
MRI INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Compel in "Takiguchi" Case Denied
NBTY INC: 7th Cir. Flips Ruling in "Pearson" Suit
NEW JERSEY: Awaits Ruling on Public Sector Unions' Pension Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Teachers' Unions Want Teacher Tenure Suits Nixed

NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: "Mey" Class Action Dismissed
NORTHLAND GROUP: Wins Dismissal of "Kryluk" FDCPA Suit
ONE TOUCH: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Isaacs" Class Action
PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS: Final Fairness Hearing Held
PFIZER INC: Faces Allied Services Antitrust Suit in E.D. Virginia

PLATINUM LIMOUSINE: Moves "Pelayo" Suit to Hawaii District Court
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Petition for Arbitration Granted on Appeal
PRO SE PLANNING: Court Directs Arbitration, Stays Van Buren Suit
QUALITY RESOURCES: Provell Dismissed From Suit; Sempris Remains
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Settles Blind Group Lawsuit for $1.2MM

REGUS MANAGEMENT: Sued for Discriminating Against Older Employees
RICE TECHNOLOGY: M.D. Fla. Judge Dismisses Noah Tech Suit
RIEXINGER & ASSOCIATES: Violates FDCPA in New York, Suit Claims
ROMAN PAINT: Fails to Keep Accurate Time Records, Suit Claims
RPX CORP: Cascades Computer Looks to Reboot Antitrust Suit

RSI ENTERPRISES: Court Declares Offer of Judgment Ineffective
SENEX SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Decertification in "Hale" Suit Upheld
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Settles "Vanwagoner" Suit for $225,000
STARLINE TOURS: "Harp" Class Suit Stays in Calif. Dist. Court

TITLE AMERICA: February 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TRACY'S TREASURES: State Court Order in Idlas Matter Reversed
TRANSPORT WORKERS: Judge Dismisses "Peterson" Suit Over CBA
UNITED STATES: Retaliation Claim in Jarita Mesa Suit Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Boone Law Denied Add'l Pay in "Pigford" Suit

UNITED STATES: Transport Department Violates ADA, Class Claims
UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Sued for Violating Communications Act
WADDELL INC: Bunn-O-Matic Dropped From TCPA Class Suit
WAGNER WELLNESS: Class Certification Granted in Sandusky Case
WEGMANS FOOD: Moves "Mladenov" Suit to New Jersey District Court

WELLS FARGO: Court Rules on "Keller" Injunction Bid
WHOLE FOODS: Removes "Mladenov" Suit to New Jersey District Court
WISCONSIN SECURE: W.D. Wis. Judge Rejects Inmate's Recusal Bid
WON PAT INT'L: Faces "Crawford" Suit Over Civil Rights Claims
Y & D CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says


                            *********


A1 DIABETES: Faces "Zimmerman" Suit in Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Zimmerman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. A1 Diabetes & Medical Supply, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 6:15-cv-00077-GKS-DAB (M.D. Fla., January
20, 2015) is a class action lawsuit arising from restrictions on
use of telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
          201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-9827
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


AFNI INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Spira, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00269
(E.D.N.Y., January 18, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM INC: Removes "Fagerstrom" Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fagerstrom, et al. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00040303-CU-Bt-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-00096-L-DHB to the proceeding.

The consumer class action seeks to remedy the Company's alleged
false advertising of purported discounts on its Web site,
Amazon.com, that violated California Statutes and are likely to
deceive reasonable consumers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          William R. Restis, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  mlk@classactionlaw.com
                  wrr@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James D. Nguyen, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
          E-mail: jimmynguygen@dwt.com

               - and -

          James C. Grant, Esq.
          Rebecca Francis, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: jamesgrant@dwt.com
                  rebeccafrancis@dwt.com


AMERASSIST INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Gregory, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Amerassist, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00268
(E.D.N.Y., January 18, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMGEN INC: Removes "Carter" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Carter v. Amgen, Inc., Case No.
37-2014-00042665-CU-NP-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00095-
WQH-KSC to the proceeding.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff claims that Amgen promoted
Aranesp(R) for so-called off-label uses (either for dosing
regimens or for treatment of conditions other than specified in
the FDA approved labeling that accompanies all Aranesp(R) sold in
the United States).  The Plaintiff also alleges that Amgen
provided unlawful excess "overfill" in vials of Aranesp(R), and
that this conduct caused medical providers to prescribe Aranesp(R)
to patients throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
          Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
          WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
          650 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2615
          Telephone: (415) 981-7210
          Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
          E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
                  kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
          Christina M. Philipp, Esq.
          HAVILAND HUGHES
          201 South Maple Avenue, Suite 110
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 609-4661
          Facsimile: (215) 392-4400

               - and -

          James Bartimus, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON, GOZA
          11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Toll Free: (800) 452-2526
          Telephone: (913) 266-2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
          E-mail: jb@bflawfirm.com

               - and -

          Cale Conley, Esq.
          CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN
          1380 West Paces Ferry Rd. NW, Suite 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 809-2580
          Facsimile: (404) 467-1166
          E-mail: cale@conleygriggs.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
          MEYERS & FLOWERS
          225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1515
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 214-1017
          Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
          E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com

               - and -

          William Hawal, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER, LLP
          1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (877) 696-3303

               - and -

          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS & EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: julie@colson.com

               - and -

          Rich Newsome, Esq.
          NEWSOME MELTON
          201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 648-5977

               - and -

          Steve J. Stolze, Esq.
          7 Warridge Dr.
          St. Louis, MO 63124
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: sstolze@allfela.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S. Rosenbloom, Esq.
          McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 984-7759
          Facsimile: (312) 277-2341
          E-mail: drosenbloom@mwe.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Weir, Esq.
          Jessica A. Mariani, Esq.
          McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3218
          Telephone: (310) 277-4110
          Facsimile: (310) 277-4730
          E-mail: cweir@mwe.com
                  jmariani@mwe.com

               - and -

          Robert Brewer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT BREWER
          350 10th Avenue, Suite 1300
          San Diego, CA 92101-8700


APPLE REIT: Case Transfer Denied; "Wenzel" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
In DOROTHY WENZEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GLADE M. KNIGHT, et al., Defendants, CIVIL
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-432, (E.D. Va.), Dorothy Wenzel brings the
putative class action on behalf of herself and all shareholders of
two Richmond-based real estate investment trusts, Apple REIT
Seven, Inc. (A7), and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. (A8).  Ms. Wenzel, an
A7 shareholder, alleges that the defendants offered shares in A7
and A8's Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs) at the inflated price
of $11 each despite knowing that the shares were worth
significantly less.

In her complaint, Ms. Wenzel brings three counts. Count I alleges
a class claim against the Directors and Managers for breach of the
fiduciary duty of care and loyalty to the A7 and A8 shareholders.
Count I also includes a separate claim against A7 and A8's
advisors, who Wenzel alleges aided and abetted the fiduciary
breach. Count II alleges a class claim against the Directors and
Managers for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty and candor in
the issuance of false and misleading materials to A7 and A8
shareholders. Finally, Count III alleges a claim against the three
entities hired to advise A7 and A8 for negligence and gross
negligence.

The defendants asked the Court to transfer the action to the
Eastern District of New York.  They also filed a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

According to District Judge John A. Gibney's memorandum opinion
dated January 14, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/18qMZafrom Leagle.com, because the plaintiff's
choice of forum, party convenience, and the interest of justice
favors Virginia, the Court denies the motion to transfer. The
Court concluded that transfer to the Eastern District of New York
is unwarranted at this time.

In a separate ruling, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/bNyh0Ofrom Leagle.com, Judge Gibney held that
Ms. Wenzel lacks standing to sue on behalf of A7 shareholders. Her
injury, though similar to the alleged injury of an A7 shareholder,
arises from the operation of A8. Accordingly, her injury is not
fairly traceable to A7, and the Court's decision on A7's liability
would have no effect on Ms. Wenzel. Therefore, insofar as the
complaint alleges claims against A7, the Court grants the motion
to dismiss.

Second, Wenzel's complaint fails to state claim against A8,
concluded Judge Gibney.  With respect to Counts I and II, she
brings direct class claims for fiduciary breach, but under
Virginia law those claims must be brought derivatively. And,
without an underlying fiduciary breach, there can be no aiding and
abetting of a fiduciary breach, he said. With respect to Count
III, Wenzel fails to provide sufficient factual support regarding
the existence of a duty that the Advisor Entities owed her.
Because each count fails to state a claim, the Court granted the
motion to dismiss without prejudice.

"Although Wenzel's complaint fails to state a claim, the Court
will grant Wenzel leave to amend her complaint within 21 days, if
she so chooses," Judge Gibney added.

Dorothy Wenzel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger --
JGeiger@SandsAnderson.com -- Sands Anderson PC, Daniel Robert
Lapinski -- dlapinski@wilentz.com -- Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer PA
& Kevin Peter Roddy -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- Wilentz, Goldman &
Spitzer, P.A..

Glade M. Knight, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards -- eedwards@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey
Dean McMahan, Jr. -- jmcmahan@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.

Michael S. Waters, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Robert M. Wily, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

James C. Barden, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Justin Knight, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

David McKenney, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Kristian Gathright, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Bryan Peery, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Kent Colton, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Glenn W. Bunting, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Lisa B. Kern, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Flannagan
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Apple Seven Advisors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Flannagan Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Flannagan Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Apple Fund Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Flannagan Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP & Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP.


ARKANSAS VALLEY: Court Narrows Inmate's Suit
--------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer of the District of Colorado
granted in part and denied in part, defendants' motion in the case
NICKY SMITH, Plaintiff, v. MICHELL RUSSOM, SGT. NELSON, and JOSEPH
HALLIGAN (UNNAMED STAFF COMMANDER ON DUTY 10:00 PM 10/26/12),
Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-CV-02978-RBJ-CBS (D. Colo.)

Plaintiff Nicky Smith, a prisoner at the Arkansas Valley
Correctional Facility (AVCF), filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 claiming violations of his Eighth Amendment
right against cruel and unusual punishment, Fourteenth Amendment
right to privacy and due process, and First Amendment right to
access the courts and against retaliatory conduct. Plaintiff seeks
$7.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Mr. Smith claims that Defendant Michelle Russom violated his
Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and his Eighth Amendment
right against cruel and unusual punishment by disclosing
confidential information. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Aaron
Nelson and Joseph Halligan likewise violated his Eighth Amendment
right against cruel and unusual punishment, and restricted his
access to the courts and retaliated against him in violation of
the First Amendment.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Shaffer pursuant to
the Order of Reference dated January 23, 2014 and memorandum dated
May 6, 2014.

Judge Shaffer recommends that defendants' motion to dismiss be
granted in part and denied in part, thereby dismissing plaintiff's
second claim and defendant Russom, and plaintiff's third claim as
it pertains to his First Amendment right to access the courts.

A copy of Judge Shaffer's recommendation dated November 4, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/NtP3byfrom Leagle.com.

Nicky Smith, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by:

     Jacob D. Massee
     Colorado Attorney General's Office
     Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
     1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
     Denver, CO 80203
     Tel: 720-508-6000
     Fax: 720-508-6030
     E-mail: Attorney.General@state.co.us


AUDIENCE INC: Judge Tentatively Certifies Class in Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers scored a major victory in Santa Clara County court on Jan.
15, with a ruling that paves the way for shareholder claims
against a Silicon Valley audio tech company.

Judge Peter Kirwan tentatively certified a class of Audience Inc.
investors who say the company misled them about its relationship
with Apple Inc.  Audience had been providing noise-canceling
technology for Apple's iPhones since 2008, with more than 80
percent of its revenue coming from that partnership alone in 2010.
But Apple executives decided not to use Audience technology in the
iPhone 5, which debuted in September 2012.

Plaintiffs lawyers say Audience executives failed to disclose that
development to shareholders before the company's May 2012 initial
public offering.  When Audience executives did make the
announcement, company stock dropped more than 60 percent in one
day.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd partner John Grant --
johng@rgrdlaw.com -- represents investors, who potentially number
in the thousands.  John Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Jessica
Valenzuela and Tower Snow Jr. -- tsnow@cooley.com -- of Cooley
represent Audience.

Judge Kirwan tentatively stated that determining whether
Audience's pre-IPO statements were misleading "is an issue that
will be common to all members of the putative class."

Audience's counsel had challenged the adequacy of class
representatives Brent Robinson and Dorothy Kasian, arguing the
investors lacked knowledge of the case and had ceded control to
their lawyers.  But Judge Kirwan found no fault with the
representatives.

"Both Robinson and Kasian understand what the case is about, the
alleged basis for liability against defendants . . .  and that
they are representing a class of similarly situated shareholders,"
he wrote.  "They have communicated with counsel on numerous
occasions and shown their willingness to assist in the case."

A trial is scheduled for September.  The Audience suit is not the
only would-be class action to contend that doing business with
Apple changes investor perceptions.  Suits piled up against
San Jose-based InvenSense Inc. over the company's statements about
a deal to supply components for the iPhone 6.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Violates Disabilities Act, Ex-Worker Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Hinkle v. The Bank of New York Mellon and Pershing, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00238-MAK (E.D. Pa., January 20, 2015) is brought
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act.

Mr. Hinkle is resident of Coatesville, Pennsylvania.  He began
working as a Reconciliation Administrator for the Defendants on or
in October 2008 until his alleged unlawful termination on Dec. 7,
2012.  At all relevant times, the Plaintiff suffered from severe
and disabling conditions, including Hyperactive Bladder,
Ankylosing Spondylitis, Depression, Anxiety, and Severe Panic
Attacks.

The Bank of New York Mellon and Pershing LLC are Delaware
Corporations with a place of business located in King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brendan D. Hennessy, Esq.
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: (484) 875-3111
          E-mail: bhennessy@hennessylawfirm.com


BCS INSURANCE: Judgment in "Margulis" Case Upheld
-------------------------------------------------
Judge James R. Epstein of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, Fourth Division, affirmed the judgment of the circuit
court in the case captioned SCOTT MARGULIS, Individually and as
the Representative of a Certified Class of Similarly Situated
Persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BCS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellee, No. 1-14-0286 (Ill. App.).

Margulis filed a class action petition and sought for a reasonable
amount of damages against Bradford E. Dixon d/b/a Bradford &
Associates a/k/a Bradford and Associates, alleging that Bradford
engaged in a practice of transmitting unsolicited pre-recorded
telephone calls to residential telephone lines advertising its
insurance services in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the TCPA).

In addition, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action in the
circuit court of Cook County against BCS Insurance Company ("BCS")
seeking an order declaring that BCS had a duty to defend Bradford
and that BCS is required to indemnify and pay the judgment entered
therein against Bradford as settlement. Thereafter, Margulis moved
for summary judgment.

BCS also filed a summary judgment motion and denied any duty to
defend or indemnify Bradford contending that: (a) Bradford did not
obtain the written agreement of BCS prior to entering the
settlement agreement, in violation of the insurance policy, and
thus Margulis lacked standing; (b) Bradford did not notify BCS of
the claims prior to the end of the policy period; and (c) given
that Bradford's acts as alleged in the Missouri class action
petition were intentional and were not performed while Bradford
was rendering services for others, Bradford's claim for defense
and indemnity is not covered because it does not fall within the
Policy's insurance agreement.

BCS claimed that nothing about the TCPA violations alleged against
Bradford involved rendering professional services to others as an
insurance agent and asserted that because there was no possibility
of coverage under the professional liability policy, it properly
declined to defend or indemnify.

Finally, BCS asserted that no basis exists for extending BCS's
liability beyond the policy limit because the entire judgment
flows from Bradford's own conduct and neither Bradford nor
Margulis claims that Bradford suffered a default judgment or was
otherwise left without effective counsel in the underlying action.

The circuit court granted BCS's summary judgment motion and denied
Margulis's motion. The court concluded that, applying Illinois or
Missouri law, BCS had no duty to defend or indemnify because the
claims asserted in the underlying class action petition would not
be covered by the BCS policy. Hence, Margulis filed an appeal.

In his Opinion in affirming the judgment of the circuit court,
Justice Epstein agreed with the circuit court that the automated
telephone calls at issue did not, among others, constitute
negligent acts, errors or omissions by Bradford arising out of the
conduct of Bradford's Also, business because there was no
potential for coverage of Margulis's claims, BCS had no duty to
defend or indemnify. Justice Epstein concluded that BCS had no
duty to defend Bradford in the underlying action because the
policy at issue could not possibly cover the liability arising out
of the facts alleged by Margulis and that the terms of the policy
clearly preclude the possibility of coverage.

A copy of the Order dated November 26, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1wAZiMc from Leagle.com.


BLUE MARSH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Cutola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Blue Marsh Recovery, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:15-cv-00378-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., January 20, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BP EXPLORATION: May Get Lesser Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Fines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge on Jan. 15 concluded that the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill ended up leaving some 3.19 million gallons of
oil in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 -- far less than previously
estimated.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's finding, which followed a
second phase of trial over the spill, means that BP Exploration &
Production Inc. could be on the hook for less than $14 billion in
civil fines under the U.S. Clean Water Act, rather than the U.S.
Department of Justice's originally estimated $18 billion.

The trial's third phase, which will determine how much BP and
subcontractor Anadarko Petroleum Corp. end up paying in Clean
Water Act penalties, is scheduled to begin on Jan. 13 in New
Orleans.

Judge Barbier, of the Eastern District of Louisiana, concluded
that although BP lied about the amount of oil flowing into the
Gulf, the company's effort to control the flow was a "massive and
complex undertaking" that complied with government and industry
regulations.

"BP was not grossly negligent, reckless, willful or wanton in its
source-control planning and preparation," he wrote.  "It has not
been shown that BP's flow rate misrepresentations delayed the
capping of the well or otherwise adversely affected source
control."

Company spokesman Geoff Morell said BP was reviewing the decision.
"During the penalty proceedings, the court is required to consider
the application of eight statutory factors, including the
violator's efforts to minimize or mitigate the effects of the
spill; the seriousness of the violation or violations; the nature,
extent and degree of success of any efforts of the violator to
minimize or mitigate the effects of the discharge; the economic
impact of the penalty on the violator; the economic benefit to the
violator, if any, resulting from the violation; the degree of
culpability involved; any other penalty for the same incident; any
history of certain types of prior violations; and any other
matters as justice may require," he wrote in an emailed statement.
"BP believes that considering all the statutory penalty factors
together weighs in favor of a penalty at the lower end of the
statutory range."

On Sept. 4, Judge Barbier found that BP Exploration & Production
was 67 percent at fault for the disaster and was grossly
negligent, boosting its potential penalties under the Clean Water
Act to $4,300 per barrel.  That order, which BP has appealed,
followed the first phase of trial, held in early 2013, which
determined liability.

The second phase trial lasted 12 days and addressed what BP and
the other defendants did to stop the oil and the amount of oil
actually discharged into the Gulf; those proceedings wrapped up in
late 2013.  Justice Department lawyers had estimated that about
4.19 million gallons went into the Gulf even when accounting for
oil later collected -- while BP put the figure at 2.45 million.
Judge Barbier concluded that 4 million barrels of oil were
released but deducted the amount later collected.


CITIBANK N.A.: "McGill" Claims Remanded for Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit McGILL v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. G049838, the
Court of Appeals, Fourth District, reversed and remanded for the
trial court to order all of Sharon McGill's claims to arbitration.

Sharon McGill sued Citibank, N.A. for unfair competition and false
advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to
protect her Citibank credit card account. Alleging claims under
California's unfair competition law, false advertising law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, McGill seeks monetary damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent Citibank from
engaging in its allegedly unlawful and deceptive business
practices.

Citibank petitioned to compel McGill to arbitrate her claims based
on an arbitration provision in her account agreement. The trial
court granted the petition on McGill's claims for monetary damages
and restitution, but denied the petition on the injunctive relief
claims. Citibank appealed the trial court's order on the
injunctive relief claims.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Dec. 18, 2014 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/D77GXJfrom Leagle.com.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- and Marcos D. Sasso --
msasso@stroock.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Capstone Law, Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com ,
Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com , Glenn A.
Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com and Katherine W. Kehr --
Katherine.Kehr@Capstonelawyers.com -- for Plaintiff and
Respondent.


COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL: Wis. Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the Western District of
Wisconsin ruled on motions filed in the case RUFUS WEST, a/k/a
MANSA LUTALO IYAPO, Plaintiff, v. GREGORY GRAMS, MIKE MEISNER,
MARDEL PETRAS, RICK RAEMISCH, GARY HAMBLIN, CHAPLAIN CAMPBELL,
CHAPLAIN MARK TESLIK, JOHN DOE DAI ADMINISTRATORS, WILLIAM
GROSSHANS, MELISSA SCHUELER, DAVID LIPINSKI and GLEN BENNETT,
Defendants, No. 11-CV-687-SLC (W.D. Wis.)

Plaintiff Mansa Lutalo Iyapo (who was incarcerated under the name
Rufus West but asks to be referred to by his spiritual name) is a
Muslim inmate from the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility and was
transferred to Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI) in 2007.

As part of his Muslim beliefs, plaintiff believes that every
Friday he must participate in Salat-ul-Jumu'ah (Friday Prayers).
Salat-ul-Jumu'ah is a congregational prayer only and cannot be
offered alone. An imam is necessary to lead Jumu'ah prayers.
Plaintiff believes that the imam can be any Muslim in attendance.
Plaintiff also believes that although it is not obligatory that he
attend weekly Talim (Islamic Study Group), he believes that he is
"required" to do so in order to learn more about Islam and raise
questions about Islamic affairs.

Plaintiff learned quickly after arriving at CCI that defendants
Gregory Grams, Mardel Petras, Rick Raemisch, Leo Campbell and John
Doe were enforcing a policy that no longer allowed prisoners to be
imams and lead Jumu'ah and Talim.

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendants on claims that prison
officials are: (1) violating his rights under the First
Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by prohibiting Jumu'ah,
Talim and Eid al-Fitr services to be held without a volunteer
leader from outside the prison; and (2) violating his rights under
the First Amendment by retaliating against him for debating when
it is proper to serve meals to Muslim inmates during Ramadan.

In a March 25, 2013 order, Magistrate Judge Crocker denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, along with
plaintiff's motions regarding storage of his legal file and motion
for appointment of counsel.

Magistrate Judge Croker granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
denied plaintiff's motion regarding the storage of his legal file
and his motion for appointment of counsel as moot.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Crocker's Opinion and Order dated
December 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/TqJRobfrom
Leagle.com.

Rufus West, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented:

     Jody J. Schmelzer, Esq.
     Wisconsin Department of Justice
     P.O. Box 7857
     Madison, WI 53707-7857
     Telephone: (608) 266-1221
     Facsimile: (608) 267-2779


CON-WAY FREIGHT: Obtains Final Approval of "Quezada" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted final approval of a class
action settlement in JORGE R. QUEZADA, et al., Plaintiff, v. CON-
WAY FREIGHT, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 09-CV-03670 JSW(NJV),
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court granted final approval of the parties' Settlement
Agreement, as amended, according to the Court's October 3, 2014,
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, wherein the
Court made these revisions:

a. On page 13, line 2 and lines 5-6 of the Settlement Agreement,
the denominator is corrected to read, "Total Number of Waiting
Time Penalty Settlement Class Members Who Do Not Opt Out."

b. On page 19, lines 23-24 of the Settlement Agreement, the
procedure will be modified so that skip traces will be performed
on those notices that are returned as undeliverable or unclaimed,
and should the skip traces reveal a new address the notices will
be re-mailed to those new addresses.

c. On page 7, lines 18-20, the Waiting Time Penalty Class is
corrected to reflect that the class period is from February 17,
2006 (as opposed to 2005), through June 30, 2014.

The Court approved payment from the settlement proceeds to the
Claims Administrator in the amount of $30,500.00.

The PAGA claims will be settled for the amount of $25,000, with
the LWDA's payment of 75% of that amount being out of the total
agreed sum, and the remaining 25% to be included in the settlement
fund.

The court approved Class Counsel's unopposed motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and costs and for an enhancement award for the
representative plaintiff. Class Counsel will be awarded attorneys'
fees in the amount of $666,666.66 (equal to 33.3% of the common
fund established for the Class), reimbursement of costs and
expenses in the amount of $49,500.00; and Plaintiff Jorge Quezada
will receive an enhancement award in the amount of $20,000.00.

A copy of the Court's January 15, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/kNUG9Gfrom Leagle.com.

MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D Saltzman, Esq. --
ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. --
chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com -- Leslie H. Joyner, Esq. --
ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com -- Agoura Hills, California LABOR LAW
OFFICE, A.P.C. Michael L. Carver, Esq. -- mcarver@carverlaw.com --
Michelle M. Lunde, Esq. -- mlunde@carverlaw.com -- Chico,
California Attorneys for Plaintiff Jorge Quezada


COVERALL NORTH AMERICA: Settlement Reached; Appeal Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has been
advised that a settlement has been reached by the parties in the
case SABRINA LAGUNA, an individual; CARLOS ACEVEDO, an individual;
TERESA SALAS, an individual; ROES 3-50, on behalf of themselves
and in a representative capacity for all JM-BGS others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, AMRIT SINGH, Objector-Appellant,
v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; ALLIED
CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation; ARES CAPITAL
CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation; CNA HOLDING CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; TED ELLIOTT, an individual; DOES, 5-50,
inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, No. 12-55479 (9th Cir.).
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit said the appeal is dismissed as
moot, and the previously filed opinion reported is vacated.

A copy of the 9th Cir. Order dated November 20, 2014 is available
at http://is.gd/HO15qVfrom Leagle.com.

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould
and Jay S. Bybee and District Judge Edward M. Chen.

Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- at Licthen & Liss-
Riordan, P.C.; Monique Olivier -- monique@dplolaw.com -- at
Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier, LLP, for Objector-Appellant

Raul Cadena -- rcadena@cadenachurchill.com -- Nicole R. Roysdon
-- nroysdon@cadenachurchill.com -- at Cadena Churchill, LLP; L.
Tracee Lorens -- tracee@lorenslaw.com -- Wayne Alan Hughes --
waynecloud@aol.com -- at Lorens & Associates, APLC, for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Norman M. Leon -- norman.leon@dlapiper.com -- Jeffrey A. Rosenfeld
-- jeffrey.rosenfeld@dlapiper.com -- Nancy Nguyen Sims --
nancy.sims@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP; Mazda K. Antia --
mantia@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, for Defendants-Appellees.
Theodore H. Frank, Center for Class Action Fairness, Washington,
D.C.; Adam Ezra Schulman, Student Press Law Center, Arlington,
Virginia, for Amicus Curiae Center for Class Action Fairness.


DES MOINES, IA: $7MM Atty Fee Award in Illegal Tax Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Schroeder, Bruce H. Stoltze, and Steven P. Brick, as class
counsel for Lisa Kragnes, et al., appeal from a district court's
order awarding $7 million attorney fees, instead of the $15
million they requested, contending the court should not have
considered the public source of the funds in limiting the fee
award.  The class members cross-appeal, contending the $7 million
award was excessive.

In the underlying class action, it was ultimately found that the
City of Des Moines charged excessive franchise fees that amounted
to an illegal tax, and the city was required to refund those
amounts to the class action plaintiffs.  The city has established
a common fund of approximately $40 million.

The Court of Appeals of Iowa held that the district court
carefully considered all relevant factors, adequately explained
its analysis, and awarded reasonable attorney fees.  Accordingly,
the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion and therefore
affirmed.

The case is LISA KRAGNES, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-
Appellants, BRAD SCHROEDER, BRUCE H. STOLTZE, and STEVEN P. BRICK,
Class Counsel-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF DES MOINES,
IOWA, Defendant, NO. 13-2065 (Iowa).  A full-text copy of the
Opinion dated Jan. 14, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/WnSxXk
from Leagle.com.

David L. Brown of Hansen, McClintock & Riley, Des Moines, for
appellants.

Elisabeth S. Reynoldson and James W. Brown of Reynoldson & Van
Werden, L.L.P., Osceola, for appellees.


EASTMAN KODAK: Court Denies Dismissal of Gedek Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company failed to convince a New York district court
to dismiss claims in a consolidated lawsuit involving
administrators of the company's savings plan and stock ownership
plan.

The cases are MARK GEDEK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants; THOMAS W. GREENWOOD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants; BARRY BOLGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants; JULIUS COLETTA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants; ANDREW J. MAUER, on behalf of himself, the Eastman
Kodak Employees' Savings and Investment Plan and a class of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE EASTMAN KODAK
SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants;
Plaintiffs DALE TOAL and CLAUDE MATTE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANTONIO PEREZ, et
al., Defendants; ALLEN E. HARTTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTONIO PEREZ, et
al., Defendants, Case Nos. 12-CV-6051L, 12-CV-6056L, 12-CV-6067L,
12-CV-6071L, 12-CV-6078L, 12-CV-6080L, 12-CV-6146L.

The seven cases, which have been consolidated for all purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, have
been brought by participants and beneficiaries of the Savings and
Investment Plan (SIP) of Eastman Kodak Company and the Eastman
Kodak Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) (collectively, the Plans),
against the administrators and fiduciaries of the Plans.
Plaintiffs allege that the Plans are subject to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et
seq., and that defendants have violated ERISA by failing to
prudently manage the Plans' assets.  Plaintiffs allege that
defendants have done so principally by continuing to invest those
assets in Kodak stock even after it became obvious that Kodak was
headed for bankruptcy and that its stock was going to plummet in
value.

The actions have been brought as a Rule 23 class action, with a
proposed class consisting of all participants in the Plans for
whose individual accounts the Plans invested primarily in Kodak
stock at any time from January 1, 2010 through and including the
date of liquidation of the Plans (the class period).

Two sets of defendants have appeared in this action. The "Kodak
defendants" include the Kodak Savings and Investment Plan
Committee (SIPCO) and the Kodak Stock Ownership Plan Committee
(SOPCO), which are the plan administrators for the SIP and ESOP,
respectively, as well as various individuals who held positions on
those committees during the class period. The other defendant, BNY
Mellon Financial Corporation is the successor in interest to
Boston Safe Deposit and Trust, which was the trustee of the SIP
during the class period.

Both the Kodak defendants and Mellon moved to dismiss the claims
against them.

In a Dec. 17, 2014 Decision and Order available at
http://is.gd/OcPZ9wfrom Leagle.com, District Judge David G.
Larimer denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.

The judge says he concludes that the plaintiffs have stated a
plausible claim that defendants violated their duty to act
prudently.

Mark Gedek, Plaintiff, represented by Nadeem Faruqi, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, Gerald D. Wells, III, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Jacob A.
Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Michael Hynes, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP,
Robert J. Gray, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP & Jules L. Smith, Blitman &
King.

Thomas W. Greenwood, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jules L.
Smith, Blitman & King, Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C.,
Shanon J. Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Todd S. Collins,
Berger & Montague, P.C..

Barry Bolger, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Gregory M.
Egleston, Jules L. Smith, Blitman & King, Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Thomas J. McKenna, Gainey
McKenna & Egleston.

Julius Coletta, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph C.
Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Jules L. Smith,
Blitman & King, Todd M. Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Brayton Konecky, LLP & Joshua G, Konecky, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky, LLP.

Allen E. Hartter, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jules L. Smith,
Blitman & King.

Andrew J. Mauer, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jules L. Smith,
Blitman & King, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP & Robert A.
Izard, Izard Nobel LLP.

Claude Matt, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jules L. Smith,
Blitman & King, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP, Julie Siebert-
Johnson, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Mark K. Gyandoh,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Dale Toal, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jules L. Smith,
Blitman & King, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP, Julie Siebert-
Johnson, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Mark K. Gyandoh,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Antonio M. Perez, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Richard S. Braddock, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Herald Y. Chen, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law, Phillips
Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Paul
Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J. Kilberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Adam H. Clammer, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Timothy M. Donahue, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Michael J. Hawley, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

William H. Hernandez, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Douglas R. Lebda, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Kyle P. Legg, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law, Phillips
Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Paul
Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J. Kilberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Delano E. Lewis, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

William G. Parrett, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Joel Seligman, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law, Phillips
Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Paul
Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J. Kilberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Dennis F. Strigl, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Debra L. Lee, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law, Phillips
Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Paul
Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J. Kilberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Savings and Investment Plan Committee, Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Law, Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP & William J. Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Frank S. Sklarsky, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Antoinette P. McCorvey, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, Paul Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J.
Kilberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Paul Dils, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law, Phillips
Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Paul
Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J. Kilberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Does 1-10, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law, Phillips
Lytle LLP, Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Paul
Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J. Kilberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Robert L. Berman, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP.

William G. Love, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP.

Patricia A. Obstarczyk, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP.

Joyce P. Haag, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law, Phillips
Lytle LLP.

Laura G. Quatela, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Law,
Phillips Lytle LLP.

The Eastman Kodak Savings and Investment Plan Committee, Consol
Defendant, represented by Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Michael R. Law, Phillips Lytle LLP, Paul
Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J. Kilberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

The Kodak Employee Stock Option Ownership Plan Committee, Consol
Defendant, represented by Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Michael R. Law, Phillips Lytle LLP, Paul
Blankenstein, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & William J. Kilberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

BNY Mellon Financial Corporation, Consol Defendant, represented by
Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP, James O. Fleckner,
Goodwin Procter LLP & Lisa M. LoGerfo, Goodwin Procter LLP.


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: D. Ore. Judge Narrows "Kearney" Voucher Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the District Court of Oregon
granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion in the
case JOHN MARTIN KEARNEY, an Oregon resident; et al., Plaintiffs,
v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware corporation d/b/a SHELL
OIL PRODUCTS US, Defendants, No. 3:14-CV-00254-HZ (D. Ore.)

Defendant displayed an advertisement at its Shell-brand service
stations. Under this promotion, after individuals purchased ten
gallons of fuel and requested a voucher for a free lift ticket,
they received a voucher with their purchase receipt. This voucher
could not be exchanged directly for a free lift ticket, but rather
was a two for one coupon that allowed the individual to obtain a
free lift ticket only after purchasing a lift ticket at full price
at a participating ski resort. Moreover, the voucher contained
various other restrictions.

Plaintiffs bring the following claims: (1) a nationwide claim for
relief for breach of contract; (2) three Oregon subclass claims
for relief for unlawful trade practices; (3) a Colorado subclass
claim for relief for violating the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act; (4) a Michigan subclass claim for relief for violating the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act; (5) two California subclass
claims, one for violating the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the
other for violations of state unfair competition and false
advertising statutes; and (6) a Washington subclass claim for
unfair business practices.

Plaintiffs bring a proposed class action with a nationwide breach
of contract claim, and substantially similar state subclass claims
based on state unlawful trade practice statutes.

Defendant moves to dismiss the national breach of contract claim
for failure to state a claim. Defendant also moves to dismiss
plaintiffs' various state law statutory claims as insufficiently
pled pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Finally, defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' state
law statutory claims for failure to state a claim.

Judge Hernandez denied defendant's motion regarding plaintiffs'
nationwide breach of contract claim as well as defendant's motion
to dismiss plaintiff's state law claims for failing to plead
reliance. The Judge granted defendant's motion against plaintiffs'
state law claims for failing to plead with specificity as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).  The Plaintiffs were
directed to file a Second Amended Complaint.

A copy of Judge Hernandez's opinion and order dated December 1,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/JGzCVBfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Rick Klingbeil, Esq.
     RICK KLINGBEIL, PC
     520 SW 6th Ave. Ste. 950
     Portland, OR 97204
     Telephone: (503) 473-8565

          - and -

     Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
     FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
     15 W. Carrillo St.
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Telephone: (805) 962-9495
     Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
     E-mail: rcurtis@foleybezek.com

          - and -

     Brady H. Mertz, Esq.
     BRADY MERTZ, PC
     2285 Liberty Street NE
     Salem, OR 97301
     Telephone: (503) 385-0121
     Facsimile: (503) 375-2218
     E-mail: brady@bradymertz.com

          - and -

     Brooks F. Cooper, Esq.
     DRANEAS & HUGLIN, P.C.
     4949 Meadows Road, Suite 400
     Lake Oswego, OR 97035
     Telephone: 503-496-5500

Attorneys for Defendants:

     Abby L. Risner, Esq.
     Daniel R. Garner, Esq.
     David M. Harris, Esq.
     GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, PC
     10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: (314) 241-9090
     Facsimile: (314) 241-8624

          - and -

     Brad S. Daniels, Esq.
     STOEL RIVES, LLP
     900 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2600
     Portland, OR 97204
     Telephone: (503) 224-3380
     Facsimile: (503) 220-2480
     E-mail: brad.daniels@stoel.com


ETHICON INC: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over Use of FlexHD(R)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mona Gifford v. Ethicon, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00043 (W.D. Tex.,
January 20, 2015) is a negligence, strict liability, and breach of
warranty action arising out of the alleged serious personal
injuries of the Plaintiff as a result of her use of FlexHD(R)
acellular hydrated dermis mesh tested, manufactured, and marketed
by Ethicon.

Ethicon, Inc., is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in
the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Stroup, Esq.
          DAN STROUP, PC
          3400 W. Marshall Ave., Suite 403
          Longview, TX 75604
          Telephone: (903) 295-2200
          Facsimile: (903) 295-2171
          E-mail: dstroup@danstroup.com

               - and -

          Blake C. Erskine, Esq.
          ERSKINE & McMAHON, LLP
          P. O. Box 3485
          Longview, TX 75606
          Telephone: (903)757-9435
          Facsimile: (903)757-9429
          E-mail: blakee@erskine-mcmahon.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zissy Holczler, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00299 (E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FISHER COMMUNICATIONS: Oregon Judge Refers Case for Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta of the District of Oregon granted
defendants' motion in the case THOM JENSEN, Plaintiff, v. FISHER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., aka Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., FISHER
BROADCASTING COMPANY, aka Sinclair Television Media, Inc., and
FISHER BROADCASTING - PORTLAND TV, LLC, aka Sinclair Television of
Portland, LLC. Defendants, CIV. NO. 3:14-CV-00137-AC (D. Ore.)

Thom Jensen was hired and worked for Fisher as an investigative
reporter on a news program broadcast on KATU-TV for 7 years
starting from 2006. Included in each of Jensen's contracts is a
section entitled Resolution of Disputes, Fees and Costs. That
section provides that, for any controversy or claim arising out
of, or relating to Jensen's employment or termination of
employment with Fisher, the parties will first attempt to
negotiate the matter. If the parties cannot successfully negotiate
a mutually agreeable resolution, the contract calls for a
nonbinding mediation. If the dispute persists after mediation,
then the dispute shall be settled by final and binding arbitration
in Seattle, Washington, in accordance with the national rules for
the resolution of employment disputes of the American Arbitration
Association.

In March 2013, Jensen filed a claim for Declaratory Judgment in
Multnomah County Circuit Court. In his complaint, Jensen asked the
court to declare the non-compete provisions of the Employment
Agreement void and award him attorney fees and costs pursuant to
OR. REV. STAT. Section 28.100. Fisher filed an answer followed by
a motion for summary judgment. Neither of Fisher's documents
mentioned the arbitration clause or asserted that the matter was
improperly before the Multnomah County Court. The record does not
reflect if, when, or how Jensen's Multnomah County Court case
resolved.

In January 2014, Jensen filed the class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon. Fisher answered
Jensen's complaint and again did not assert or otherwise raise its
contractual right to arbitration. However, on June 5, 2014, Fisher
filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.  Fisher asked the court to
dismiss, or alternatively, stay the suit and order Jensen to
participate in a binding arbitration in Seattle, Washington,
pursuant to the parties' employment agreement.

Judge Acosta granted Fisher's motion to dismiss and compel
arbitration; and referred the suit to arbitration in King County,
Washington, pursuant to the employment contract.

A copy of Judge Acosta's opinion and order dated December 1, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/SlKOCkfrom Leagle.com.

Thom Jensen, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff and Counter Defendant, represented by:

     Aaron W. Baker, Esq.
     AARON W. BAKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     888 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 650
     Portland, OR 97204
     Telephone: 503-575-9617
     Facsimile: 503-525-0650

          - and -

     Tara Lawrence, Esq.
     LAWRENCE LAW OFFICE
     5285 Meadows Rd, Suite 199
     Lake Oswego, OR 97035
     Telephone: (503) 387-5571
     Facsimile: (888) 660-7336
     E-mail: tara@taralawrencelaw.com

Fisher Communications, Inc., Fisher Broadcasting Company, Fisher
Broadcasting - Portland TV, LLC, Defendants and Counter Claimants,
represented by:

     Sarah J. Crooks, Esq.
     Calvin L. Keith, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE, LLP
     1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
     Portland, OR 97209-4128
     Telephone: (503) 727-2000
     Facsimile: (503) 727-2222
     E-mail: SCrooks@perkinscoie.com
             CKeith@perkinscoie.com


FLY LOW INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Wages, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamika Walker v. Fly Low, Inc., d/b/a King of Diamonds, a Florida
Corporation; AK "N" Eli, LLC d/b/a King of Diamonds, a Florida
Limited Liability Company; Kodrenyc, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company; Elliot "Eli" Kunstlinger, an individual; Brian
Abraham, an individual; Akiva "AK" Feinsod, an individual; and,
Akinyele Adams, an individual, Case No. 1:15-cv-20224-DPG (S.D.
Fla., January 20, 2015)seeks to recover money damages for straight
wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's likeness and invasion of
privacy under Florida common law.

Fly Low is a Florida Corporation having its main place of business
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The Defendants owned and operated
"King of Diamonds," a gentleman's club located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Discovery Bid in "Burnett" Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert of the Southern District of West
Virginia, Huntington Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion in the case TONY BURNETT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-14207(S.D.
W.Va.)

Plaintiffs are purchasers of one or more vehicles manufactured by
Ford between 2002 and 2010 that were equipped with an electronic
throttle control system. Plaintiffs claim that although this
particular type of throttle control system is prone to episodes of
sudden unintended acceleration, Ford failed to equip the affected
vehicles with an adequate fail-safe mechanism to mitigate the
unwanted acceleration. Plaintiffs have sued individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated.

Ford served discovery requests on seven plaintiffs, including
Samuel Hairston and Mary Phippen. Responses were supplied by
Hairston and Phippen, which Ford found to be deficient.
Thereafter, the parties met and conferred, but were unable to
resolve all of their differences.

Ford filed a motion to compel, seeking an order compelling
Roofwerks and the Pattons to serve full and complete responses to
the discovery requests.

Magistrate Judge Eifert granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to compel more complete discovery responses
from plaintiffs Samuel Hairston and Mary Phippen.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Eifert's memorandum opinion and order
dated November 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/OYtED8from
Leagle.com.

Tony Burnett, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Timothy Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT
& EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Samuel Hairston, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Rhoda Jeffers, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Mary Phippen, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

George Shaffer, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Robert Agris, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Jonathan Poma, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

John E. Grimaldi, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT
& EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Shelley Riley, and, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L.
Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John
H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley J.
Schmalzer, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, John Tracy Walker, IV,
MCGUIRE WOODS, Michael Bonasso, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO,
Perry Watson Miles, IV, MCGUIRE WOODS, Peter J. Fazio, AARONSON
RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, Sarah Virginia Bondurant, MCGUIRE
WOODS, Susan W. Romaine, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, Tennille
Jo Checkovich, MCGUIRE WOODS & William J. Hanna, FLAHERTY
SENSABAUGH & BONASSO


FORD MOTOR: Court Rules on Motion to Compel in "Burd" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert of the Southern District of West
Virginia, Huntington Division granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion in the case CHARLES T. BURD, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-
20976 (S.D. W.Va.)

Plaintiffs in this action are purchasers of one or more vehicles
manufactured by Ford between 2002 and 2010 that were equipped with
an electronic throttle control system. Plaintiffs claim that
although this particular type of throttle control system is prone
to episodes of sudden unintended acceleration, Ford failed to
equip the affected vehicles with an adequate fail-safe mechanism
to mitigate the unwanted acceleration. Plaintiffs have sued
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

Ford served discovery requests on seven plaintiffs, including
Shane Mayfield and Charles Burd. Responses were supplied by
Mayfield and Burd, which Ford found to be deficient. Thereafter,
the parties met and conferred, but were unable to resolve all of
their differences.

Ford filed a motion to compel, seeking an order compelling
Mayfield and the Burd to serve full and complete responses to the
discovery requests.

Magistrate Judge Eifert granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to compel more or complete discovery responses
from plaintiffs Mayfield and Burd.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Eifert's Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated November 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/zlHOTJfrom
Leagle.com.

Charles T. Burd, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Mark A. DiCello, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Mark H.
Troutman, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Nathan B. Atkinson, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Niall A. Paul, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Richard L. Merpi,
II, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Robert F. DiCello, GRANT & EISENHOFER,
Stacey Kelly Breen, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Stephanie Poli, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, CCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder,
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

William S. Troutman, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L.
Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John
H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Mark A. DiCello, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Mark H.
Troutman, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Nathan B. Atkinson, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Niall A. Paul, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Robert F. DiCello,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Stacey Kelly Breen, GRANT & EISENHOFER,
Stephanie Poli, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, CCI BAILEY &
JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci,
II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Jolene Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, John H. Gomez,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY,John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, GRANT & EISENHOFER,
Mark A. DiCello, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Mark H. Troutman, GRANT &
EISENHOFER,Nathan B. Atkinson, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Niall A. Paul,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Richard L. Merpi, II, GRANT & EISENHOFER,
Robert F. DiCello, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Stacey Kelly Breen, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Stephanie Poli, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Stephen M. Gorny,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, CCI
BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V.
Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Shane Mayfield, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, CCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder,
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Andrea Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John H.
Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, CCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder,
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Thomas Porter, and, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L.
Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John
H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, CCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder,
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Hasen Design Build & Development, Inc., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam
J. Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE
BROWN & O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
C. Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L.
Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John
H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, CCI BAILEY & JAVINS,Timothy C. Gaarder,
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Trask,
MCGUIRE WOODS, Bradley J. Schmalzer, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH &
BONASSO, John Tracy Walker, IV, MCGUIRE WOODS,Michael Bonasso,
FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, Perry Watson Miles, IV, MCGUIRE
WOODS,Peter J. Fazio, AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH,
Sarah Virginia Bondurant, MCGUIRE WOODS, Susan W. Romaine,
FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, Tennille Jo Checkovich, MCGUIRE
WOODS, William J. Hanna, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO & Jeffrey
A. Holmstrand, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO


FORD MOTOR: Discovery Bid in "Richardson" Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert of the Southern District of West
Virginia, Huntington Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion in the case DEAN RICHARDSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-
06529 (S.D. W.Va.)

Plaintiffs are purchasers of one or more vehicles manufactured by
Ford between 2002 and 2010 that were equipped with an electronic
throttle control system. Plaintiffs claim that although this
particular type of throttle control system is prone to episodes of
sudden unintended acceleration, Ford failed to equip the affected
vehicles with an adequate fail-safe mechanism to mitigate the
unwanted acceleration. Plaintiffs have sued individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated.

Ford served discovery requests on seven plaintiffs, including
Roofwerks, Inc., David Patton, and Inez Patton. Responses were
supplied by Roofwerks and the Pattons, which Ford found to be
deficient. Thereafter, the parties met and conferred, but were
unable to resolve all of their differences.

Ford filed a motion to compel, seeking an order compelling
Roofwerks and the Pattons to serve full and complete responses to
the discovery requests.

Magistrate Judge Eifert granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to compel more or complete discovery responses
from plaintiffs Roofwerks, David Patton, and Inez Patton.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Eifert's Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated November 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/VPKIVifrom
Leagle.com.

Dean Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Christine Salamone, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A.
Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Charles Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Beverly Gorton, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Josh Legato, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Michael Antramgarza, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A.
Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Roofwerks, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Quintin Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT
& EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

ACA Legal Investigations, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A.
Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY,Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

John McGee, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Mills Allison, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

David H. Patton, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Inez A. Patton, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin
Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, Caitlin
Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A. Almeida,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark
H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Laura Elsinger, and, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A.
Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM,Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Gabriel Kletschka, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
Caitlin Duffy, SQUITIERI & FEARON, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM,Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Jeff A.
Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER,John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephen M. Gorny,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS & Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES

Pamela D. Smith, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Betty J. Trinque, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Tony Burnett, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Timothy Matthews, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Samuel Hairston, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Rhoda Jeffers, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Mary Phippen, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

George Shaffer, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE
BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A.
DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,
Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE
MILLER LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,
Stephanie Poli, GOMEZ & IAGMIN,Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY &
JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci,
II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Sharon Shaffer, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Robert Agris, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Jonathan Poma, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

John E. Grimaldi, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Shelley Riley, 3:13-cv-14207, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Robert Brandon, 3:13-cv-20976, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Charles T. Burd, 3:13-cv-20976, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

William S. Troutman, 3:13-cv-20976, Plaintiff, represented by Adam
J. Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER,Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN
& O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Jolene Harris, 3:13-cv-20976, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Shane Mayfield, 3:13-cv-20976, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Andrea Martin, 3:13-cv-20976, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Thomas Porter, 3:13-cv-20976, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J.
Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C.
Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E.
Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR
F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES,
Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R.
Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY,John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray,
MURRAY & MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut,
SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee
Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO
LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR,
Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul,
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW
FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Hasen Design Build & Development, Inc., 3:13-cv-20976, Plaintiff,
represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K.
Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, C. Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY DENNEY
SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM,
Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III, Grant Lavalle
Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC WILES
BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, James
Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, John H. Gomez,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY,John Scarola,
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E. Tangren, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G. Bremer, BREMER
WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi,
II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM,
Stephanie Poli, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY &
JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci,
II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Trask,
MCGUIRE WOODS, Bradley J. Schmalzer, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH &
BONASSO, Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO,
Jodi Munn Schebel, SEIPP FLICK & HOSLEY, John Tracy Walker, IV,
MCGUIRE WOODS,Michael Bonasso, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO,
Perry Watson Miles, IV, MCGUIRE WOODS,Peter J. Fazio, AARONSON
RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, Sarah Virginia Bondurant, MCGUIRE
WOODS, Susan W. Romaine, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, Tennille
Jo Checkovich, MCGUIRE WOODS & William J. Hanna, FLAHERTY
SENSABAUGH & BONASSO.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Offer of Settlement Will Not Moot Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael P. Shea of the District of Connecticut
denied defendant's motion in the case entitled DIANA MEY,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-01191-MPS (D. Conn.)

Plaintiff Diana Mey brought this proposed class action against
Frontier under consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sections 227 et seq. (TCPA).
Ms. Mey alleges that she received two calls that utilized an
automatic dialing system from or on behalf of Frontier on her
cellular telephone, which was registered in the National Do Not
Call Registry. Ms. Mey seeks for herself and for each member of
the class -- injunctive relief and statutory damages of $500 for
each negligent violation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each knowing
violation.

On the day Ms. Mey filed her complaint, she also filed a Motion
for Class Certification and to Stay Briefing Pending Completion of
Discovery. In a letter dated October 14, 2013, Frontier offered to
settle Ms. Mey's claims for payment of $6,400 plus taxable costs
and prospective injunctive relief that would bar it from making
telemarketing calls to Ms. Mey or from "placing any call using an
ATDS, artificial voice or prerecorded message," unless Ms. Mey
consented in writing to such calls. Ms. Mey did not accept this
offer. Frontier argues that this unaccepted offer mooted Ms. Mey's
individual claim and all potential class claims.

Two days later, on October 16, 2013, Frontier moved to dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that
its unaccepted offer of more than Ms. Mey could possibly recover
even if she were to prevail made the case moot and deprived the
Court of jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution.

Judge Shea denied defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that
neither Ms. Mey's individual claims nor her proposed class claims
are moot.  Recent Second Circuit precedent, the judge pointed out,
makes clear that a mere offer to settle -- as opposed to an offer
of judgment under Rule 68 does not moot a plaintiff's claim even
when it proposes to afford her everything she is asking for. And
by its own terms, the Supreme Court case on which Frontier relies
for its argument that the class claims are moot Genesis Healthcare
Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S.Ct. 1523 (2013), governs neither claims of
a proposed class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 nor claims in which a
plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, as Ms. Mey does.

A copy of Judge Shea's ruling dated November 18, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/DOzjwlfrom Leagle.com

Diana Mey, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Anthony Paronich, Esq.
     Edward Broderick, Esq.
     BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
     727 Atlantic Avenue
     Boston, MA 02111
     Telephone: (617) 738-7080

Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John W.
Barrett -- jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- at Bailey & Glasser, LLP;
Matthew Passi McCue - mmccue@massattorneys.com -- The Law Offices
of Matthew P. McCue; Nicholas John Cicale -- at Law Office of
Nicholas J. Cicle

Frontier Communications Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Henry T. Kelly -- hkelly@kelleydrye.com -- Lauri A. Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- James E. Nealon --
jnealon@kelleydrye.com - at Kelley Drye & Warren; Michael Y.
Scudder, Jr. -- michael.scudder@skadden.com -- Stephen C. Robinson
-- stephen.robinson@skadden.com - at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom LLP


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Court Trims "Henning" Suit Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granted, in part, Defendant's
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned RICHARD HENNING,
Plaintiff, v. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC.; FAIRNBARG I LP, and DOES 1-
20, Defendants, Case No. 5:12-cv-06146 HRL (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Richard Henning sued under Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) against Fry's Electronics, Inc.
("Fry") alleging that architectural barriers at the Fry's store in
Campbell, California, prevented him from enjoying full and equal
access at the facility. He also asserted that he suffers from
peripheral neuropathy in all four extremities and requires the use
of a walker or walking poles for mobility.

Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff's
complaint is a mere laundry list of alleged barriers, no evidence
of any discriminatory policy, and therefore insufficiently alleges
for Article III standing purposes, that he suffered an injury in
fact.

Defendants requested for the dismissal of the ADA claims and asked
the court to decline from exercising supplemental jurisdiction
over plaintiff's state law claims. Additionally, Defendants
contended that the purported barriers alleged in the complaint are
either not ADA barriers or have been corrected or are matters
which plaintiff has no Article III standing to pursue.

In his Order in partly granting Defendant's motion, Judge Lloyd
held that viewing the complaint as a whole, and taking a broad
view of constitutional standing, Henning has provided more than a
mere laundry list.  On the other hand, Judge Lloyd denied
Plaintiff's other claim because Henning had neither presented
evidence nor argument of Fry's claim nor established
discrimination. Thus, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
granted in part and denied in part.

A copy of the Order dated November 24, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/wWitu3from Leagle.com.

Richard C. Henning, Plaintiff, represented by Irene Lenislav
Karbelashvili -- irene@irenelawoffice.com -- Law office of Irene
Karbelashvili.

Fry's Electronics Inc.,, Defendant, represented by Samuel Lawrence
Phillips -- sphillips@bortonpetrini.com -- Borton Petrini, LLP,
Anthony Zand, Borton Petrini, Theresa Ilze McFarland, Fry's
Electronics, Inc. & William H. Curtis, Fry's Electronics, Inc.

Fainbarg I LP, Defendant, represented by Samuel Lawrence Phillips,
Borton Petrini, LLP & Anthony Zand, Borton Petrini.


GALARDI SOUTH: Judge Grants Reinstatement in Dancers' Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion in the case JASZMANN ESPINOZA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-21244-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D Fla.)

Plaintiffs are dancers of King of Diamonds (KOD), a strip club
owned by defendant Fly Low, Inc. Plaintiffs sued defendants for,
among other things minimum wage and overtime violations arising
from work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Florida
Law.

Around the time the action was filed, defendants began requiring
all dancers to sign an arbitration agreement. Plaintiffs alleged
that if a dancer refused to sign the arbitration agreement, she is
not allowed to perform at the King of Diamonds. Plaintiffs Seleta
Stanton, Shanice Bain and Tiffany Thompson were not allowed to
perform since they refused to sign the arbitration agreement.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' dissemination of these post-
lawsuit agreements is an impermissible attempt to interfere with
the proposed class.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and for other
relief. While the motion was pending, KOD was sold to a third-
party, who is not a party to the action.

Magistrate Judge Goodman granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion.  In particular, Judge Goodman grants
Plaintiffs' requests that Defendants reinstate Stanton and
Thompson. Defendants are prohibited from retaliating against
dancers who join the action. The Court, however, denies
Plaintiffs' remaining requests.

A copy of Judge Goodman's order dated November 18, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/z6lDDZfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated are represented by:

     Harlan S. Miller, Esq.
     PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
     7514th Street NE, 26th Floor
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Telephone: (404) 873-8000
     Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
     E-mail: firm@pcwlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Dana Mason Gallup, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF DANA M. GALLUP, P.A.
     4000 Hollywood Boulevard
     Presidential Circle, Suite 265 South
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Telephone: (954) 889-5125

Defendants are represented by:

     Dean R. Fuchs, Esq.
     Susan Kastan Murphey, Esq.
     Wm. Scott Schulten, Esq.
     SCHULTEN, WARD & TURNER, LLP
     60 Peachtree St NW
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Telephone: (404) 688-6800
     Email: drf@swtlaw.com
           skm@swtlaw.com
            wss@swtlaw.com

Material Witnesses, represented by:

     Daniel Wayne Matlow, Esq.
     DANIEL W. MATLOW, P.A.
     3109 Stirling Road, Suite 101
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
     Telephone: (954) 842-2365
     E-mail: dmatlow @danmatlow.com


GEORGIA ENERGY: S.D. Ga. Judge Decertifies Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Randall Hall of the Southern District of Georgia
granted defendants' motion in the case JONATHAN SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA ENERGY USA, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. CV
208-020 (S.D. Ga.)

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit in 2008 against 16
defendants, comprised of three district groups: the Cisco
Defendants (Fairley Cisco; Althea Cisco Shave; Tammy Cisco Walker;
Cisco Oil, Inc.; Cisco Travel Plaza, Inc.; and Cisco Travel Plaza,
Inc. II); the Abraham Defendants (Biju Abraham; Georgia Energy
USA, LLC; Georgia Petro USA, LLC; Georgia Petro II USA, LLC; Jack
Ghazi; Global Energy USA, LLC; Kingsland Management, LLC; and
Kingsland Management II, LLC), and the Sekhon Defendants (Kuldeep
S. Sekhon and United Fuels, Inc.).

Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud/negligent misrepresentation,
negligence, money had and received, unjust enrichment, and
violation of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
arising from the alleged fraudulent calibration of gasoline pumps
beginning in 2005 at three filling stations in Camden County,
Georgia.

Fairley Cisco negotiated the sale of the stations to the Sekhon
Defendants in December 2006. In early 2008, the Sekhon Defendants
sold the stations to the Abraham Defendants.

On April 2010, Mr. Cisco died leaving behind an estate with nearly
no assets. In June 2011, Class Counsel initiated a second lawsuit
against the Cisco Defendants in the State Court of Charlton
County, Georgia on behalf of two entities that either supplied
fuel to or competed against the Cisco fuel stations. Class
Counsel's involvement in the Charlton County suits ultimately
created an unresolvable conflict of interest that resulted in
Class Counsel's in disqualification in this action. Moreover, all
the Cisco Estate's liquid assets were depleted by the substantial
legal fees incurred in defending the Charlton County suits.

Defendants assert, and Plaintiffs agree, that the combined assets
of all remaining defendants are insufficient to pay the
administrative costs of publishing the required notices, much less
any compensatory damages to the class members should Plaintiffs
prevail in the end. Defendants urge the Court to order
decertification as the class device no longer affords superior
efficiency to this litigation or potential benefit to the
litigants in light of Defendants' gross financial shortcomings.

Judge Hall granted Defendants' motion to decertification.

A copy of Judge Hall's order dated December 1, 2014 is available
at http://is.gd/hYoV9Ufrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     C. Dorian Britt, Esq.
     Jeremy S. McKenzie, Esq.
     KARSMAN, MCKENZIE & HART
     21 W Park Avenue
     Savannah, GA 31401
     Telephone: (912) 335-4977

          - and -

     Nathan T. Williams, Esq.
     THE WILLIAMS LITIGATION GROUP
     1709 Reynolds Street
     Brunswick, GA 31520
     Telephone: 912-264-0848
     Facsimile: 912-264-6299

          - and -

     Ashleigh Ruth Madison, Esq.
     Southeast Law, LLC
     426 Barnard Street
     Savannah, GA 31401
     Telephone: (912) 662-6612
     Facsimile: (877) 417-2943

Sommers Oil Company, Intervenor, represented by Timothy D. Roberts
-- troberts@olivermaner.com -- Oliver Maner, LLP

Georgia Energy USA, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se

Georgia Petro USA, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se

Cisco Oil, Inc., Cisco Travel Plaza, Inc., Cisco Travel Plaza,
Inc. II, Tammy Cisco Walker, Aletha Cisco Shave, Defendants,
represented by Steven G. Blackerby -- sblackerby@brbcsw.com --
Emily Rose Hancock -- ehancock@brbcsw.com -- at Brown, Readdick &
Bumgartner; Laura P. Roberts at Roberts Tate, LLC

Jack Ghazi, Defendant, Pro Se

Kingsland Management, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se

Kingsland Management II, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se

Georgia Petro II USA, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se

Biju Abraham, Defendant, Pro Se

Global Energy USA, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se

Jackie Johnson, Interested Party, Pro Se

Gowen Oil Company, Inc., Intervenor Defendant, represented by:

     John W. Caven, Jr., Esq.
     FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
     One Independent Drive, Suite 1300
     Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017
     Telephone: (904) 359-2000
     Facsimile: (904) 359-8700


GREENBERG TRAURIG: Ariz. App. Flips Ruling in "Baldino" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Baldino, et al., appeal from a trial court's entry of
judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement, arguing that the
trial court incorrectly concluded that attorneys Rickman Brown and
Jeff Ross had apparent authority to settle on behalf of the
Baldino Plaintiffs.

Because the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, found a
genuine factual dispute regarding the attorneys' apparent
authority, it vacated the judgment and remanded for further
proceedings.  The Court of Appeals pointed out that neither the
fact that the Baldino Plaintiffs retained Brown and Ross as their
attorneys, nor the statements of Brown and Ross as to their
authority are sufficient, as a matter of law, to establish the
fact of apparent authority.  Rather, the Court of Appeals, said,
it must be examined whether the Baldino Plaintiffs engaged in any
conduct that would lead Greenberg Traurig to conclude that Brown
and Ross had apparent authority to settle the case.

The case is JOSEPH L. BALDINO, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
ROGER ASHKENAZI, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. GREENBERG
TRAURIG, LLP, a limited liability partnership, Defendant/Appellee,
NO. 1 CA-CV 13-0717 (Ariz. App.).  A full-text copy of the
memorandum decision dated Jan. 13, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/beCPwnfrom Leagle.com.

Wilenchik & Bartness PC, Phoenix, By Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq. --
DIW@wb-law.com -- and Brian Hembd, Esq. -- brianh@wb-law.com --
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Evans Scholz Williams & Warncke LLC, Atlanta, GA, By Rickman P.
Brown, Sherman & Howard LLC, Phoenix, By David A. Weatherwax and
Dewain D. Fox, Ross & Orenstein, LLC, Minneapolis, MN By Jeff I.
Ross, Esq. -- jross@rossbizlaw.com -- Co-Counsel for
Plaintiffs/Appellees.

Galbut & Galbut, Phoenix, By Martin R. Galbut, Esq. --
mgalbut@galbutlaw.com -- and Michaile J. Berg, Esq. --
mberg@galbutlaw.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, By
Kenneth C. Smurzynski, Esq. -- ksmurzynski@wc.com -- and Collette
T. Connor, Esq. -- cconnor@wc.com -- Co-Counsel for
Defendant/Appellee.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Judge Grants Certification on "Brown" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, certified the class and ruled
on parties' motion on the case ROSMINAH BROWN and ERIC LOHELA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, No. C 11-03082 LB (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela brought products from
defendant Hain Celestial, a Delaware corporation, that
manufactures and distributes cosmetic under the Jason and Avalon
Organics brands.

The plaintiffs allege Hain advertises, markets, and labels
products as organic, when they contain insufficient organic
content to lawfully make such claims. The plaintiffs allege that
federal law requires "any foods marketed, advertised, labeled,
sold and/or represented as organic or made with organic
ingredients must be composed of at least 70% organic ingredients.

They sued Hain for violations of the following state laws: (1) the
California Organic Products Act of 2003 (COPA), Cal. Health &
Safety Code Section 110810, et seq.; (2) the Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (3) the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750,
et seq.; and the California Commercial Code provision regarding
express warranties, Cal. Com. Code Section 2313. The plaintiffs
move for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) or, alternatively, 23(b)(2).

Magistrate Judge Beeler grants the plaintiffs' motion to certify
two Rule 23(b)(3) classes, one for each product line.

The "Jason Class," defined as:

All persons who purchased a personal-care product in California
sold under the Jason brand name between May 12, 2007 and January
31, 2011 other than those Jason brand personal-care products that
are USDA-certified as organic.

The "Avalon Organics Class," defined as:

All persons who purchased a personal-care product in California
sold under the Avalon Organics brand name between May 12, 2007 and
the present other than those Avalon Organics brand personal-care
products that are USDA-certified as organic.

As to the Avalon Organics class, if the buyers of the reformulated
products lose on the merits, they can be defined out of the class.
An alternative approach to the issue of buyers of pre- and post-
reformulated Avalon Organics Products is sub classing. The parties
must confer within one week of the date of this order about the
issue and submit a joint case-management statement one week later
with any proposed change to the definition.

Magistrate Judge Beeler denies plaintiffs' motion to strike the
Ugone declaration and the Mencarelli declaration as moot. The
court denies plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment without
prejudice as premature. The court denies Hain's motions to strike.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Beeler's amended order dated November
18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/OBeu72from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs represented by, Lisa Margaret Burger --
lburger@lexlawgroup.com -- Howard Judd Hirsch --
hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com -- Mark N. Todzo -- at Lexington Law
Group; Amir David Benakote -- Behram Viraf Parekh --
bvp@KirtlandPackard.com -- Heather Marie Baker --
hmp@kirtlandpackard.com  Michael Louis Kelly --
mlk@kirtlandpackard.com  -- at Kirtland & Packard LLP

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com --
Kathleen Brenna Roney -- kroney@mofo.com -- William J. Friedman,
IV -- William Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- at Morrison &
Foerster LLP

QAI, Inc. and NSF International, Interested Parties, represented
by Robert Laurence Rosenthal -- rrosenthal@howardandhoward.com


HOME DEPOT: "Earls/Holt" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------
The action SHONNA EARLS and JOHN HOLT, SR., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. THE
HOME DEPOT, INC. and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:14-CV-4315-RS, is one of more than 40 putative class actions
that have been filed in federal court in connection with a
criminal intrusion into Home Depot's payment data system.

John Solak and Dennis O'Rourke -- plaintiffs in Solak v. The Home
Depot, Inc., No. 14-cv-02856-WSD (N.D. Ga.) ("Solak"), an earlier-
filed putative class action -- sought and obtained an order from
the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the MDL Panel)
consolidating 11 putative class actions against Home Depot and
transferring them to the Northern District of Georgia before Chief
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

On Dec. 12, 2014, the MDL Panel entered a conditional transfer
order transferring the "Earls/Holt" case to the Northern District
of Georgia.

The Conditional Transfer Order was to become effective on Dec. 19,
2014.

Accordingly, District Judge Richard Seeborg approved a stipulation
which provides that all proceedings in the "Earls/Holt" case,
including the Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint,
shall be stayed pending the resolution of any opposition to the
Conditional Transfer Order, or in the event no opposition is
filed, pending further order of the transferee court.

A copy of the Stipulated Order is available at http://is.gd/itu0sN
from Leagle.com.

ERIC H. GIBBS -- ehg@GirardGibbs.com , MATTHEW B. GEORGE --
mbg@GirardGibbs.com , JENNIFER L. McINTOSH -- jlm@girardgibbs.com
-- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs, SHONNA EARLS and JOHN HOLT, SR.

CHERYL A SABNIS -- csabnis@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, San
Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.


HOMEADVISOR INC: Accused of Violating Communications Act in Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Zean, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HomeAdvisor, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-00111-DWF-SER (D.
Minn., January 16, 2015) alleges violations of the Communications
Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com


J.C. PENNEY: "Tschudy" Suit May Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the complaint TSCHUDY v. J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., CASE
NO. 11-CV-1011 JM (KSC) (S.D. Calif.), District Judge Jeffrey T.
Miller entered an order (i) denying Motion to Strike Class
Allegations, (ii) granting Motion for Class Certification, and
(iii) denying related evidentiary motions.

Plaintiffs allege that J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.'s vacation
policy, called My Time Off (MTO), causes management associates
(MA) and part-time non-management associates (PTNMA) to forfeit
vacation benefits "if such employees are not employed on the first
day of the calendar month following the month or months during
which such paid vacation benefits were earned."

On November 8, 2013, J.C. Penney filed a motion to strike the
class-action allegations from Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.  On June 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
the lawsuit as a class action.  The parties also filed several
motions to strike items of evidence related to class
certification.

In his Dec. 17, 2014 ruling available at http://is.gd/WI3AhMfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Miller finds that the proposed class definition
is sufficiently ascertainable and not too broad and that a class
action is the superior method of resolving Plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs propose the following class definition:

  Part-Time Non-Management Associates and Management Associates
  employed in California by JC Penney from April 5, 2007 through
  the date of trial who, according to JC Penney's records, were
  not permitted to accrue, or were not paid, all accrued and
  unused My Time Off.

Plaintiffs' counsel of record, Sheldon A. Ostroff, of the Law
Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff, and James C. Kostas, of Huffman &
Kostas, are appointed as class co-counsel, the Court further
rules.

Raymond Tschudy, Plaintiff, represented by Sheldon A Ostroff, Law
Offices of Sheldon A Ostroff of 1441 State Street, San Diego,
California 92101 with Tel No. (619)544-0881 & James C Kostas,
Huffman and Kostas of 1441 State Street, San Diego, California
92101 with Tel No. (619) 544-0880.

Sheila Walker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sheldon A Ostroff, Law Offices
of Sheldon A Ostroff & James C Kostas, Huffman and Kostas.

Kamryn Candelaria, Plaintiff, represented by James C Kostas,
Huffman and Kostas & Sheldon A Ostroff, Law Offices of Sheldon A
Ostroff.

J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Denise M. Visconti -- dvisconti@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson PC, Dominic J. Messiha -- dmessiha@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson PC, Emily Torralba Patajo --
epatajo@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Raoul Dion Kennedy --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom &
Tatiana Small, Littler Mendelson, PC.


JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL: La. App. Court Revives "Ladieux" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert M. Murphy of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth
Circuit, reversed in part the trial court's judgment in the case
captioned NELL LADIEUX AND RONALD LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF, A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. JEFFERSON PARISH
HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2 D/B/A EAST JEFFERSON GENERAL
HOSPITAL, No. 14-CA-449(La. App.).

Ladieu and Lee filed a class action petition for damages alleging
that they were both involved in separate car accidents and
received treatment for their injuries at East Jefferson General
Hospital ("EJGH"). Unfortunately, despite having their health
insurance, EJGH billed them for the covered services rendered at
an amount in excess of the reimbursement rates contracted between
EJGH and their medical insurers.

Plaintiffs further alleged that even after their counsel sent a
correspondence to EJGH requesting the latter to remit the claims
for the services rendered to their insurers, EJGH sent to their
attorney medical lien letters asserting its privilege for the full
amount of services rendered at undiscounted rates. Hence,
Plaintiffs brought an action alleging EJGH's violation of the
Health Care Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act
("Billing Act"), La. R.S. 22:1871, et seq., and filed a motion for
class action certification.

EJGH moved for an involuntary dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims on
the grounds that Plaintiffs had not shown that payment to EJGH
exceeded what would have been billed to her insurer or that Lee's
United Healthcare insurance was his primary insurance, as opposed
to his Medicare coverage. Further, EJGH filed two motions seeking
the denial of class certification of specific claims and for
partial summary judgment on the grounds that the Billing Act does
not afford a private right of action to individuals.

The trial court granted both of EJGH's motions for partial summary
judgment and signed a judgment dismissing with prejudice Ladieu
and Lee's claims based upon alleged violations of the Billing Act.
In addition, it granted EJGH's motion for involuntary dismissal of
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denied
certification of Plaintiffs' putative class. Hence, Plaintiff
appealed such judgment.

In his Order reversing in part the trial court's judgment, Judge
Murphy held that in light of the Louisiana Supreme Court's
decision in the case, Anderson v. Ochsner Health System and
Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 13-2970 (La. 7/1/14), ___ So.3d ___,
Ladieu and Lee must be allowed to proceed with their claims based
upon EJGH's alleged violations of the Billing Act. Further, Judge
Murphy ruled that the issue of class certification must be re-
tried, as the trial court's dismissal of those claims may have
impaired its analysis in denying class certification. Thus, the
trial court's judgment was reversed in part, vacated and remanded.

A copy of the Order dated November 25, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1vRTBGP from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:

     Sidney D. Torres, III, Esq.
     Roberta L. Burns, Esq.
     Beau F. Camel, Esq.
     ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     8301 West Judge Perez Drive, Suite 303
     Chalmette, LA 70043
     E-mail: storres@torres-law.com
             rburns@torres-law.com

          - and -

     TIMOTHY R. RICHARDSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250
     New Orleans, LA 70112
     E-mail: trichardson@uwmlaw.com

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:

     P. J. Stakelum, III, Esq.
     Glenn S. Newbauer, Esq.
     Attorneys At Law
     One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
     Metairie, LA 70001

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Robert M.
Murphy, and Hans J. Liljeberg.


KEG INC: South Carolina Judge Approves Consolidation of Two Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. of the District of South
Carolina, Columbia Division, granted defendants' motion in the
case Kaleigh R. Dittus, Courtney A. Snyder, all individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. KEG, Inc., d/b/a Heart Breakers Gentleman's Club; Shadow
Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus (Columbia); Splash,
Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus (Columbia); Elephant Inc., d/b/a
Platinum Plus (Greenville); KWE Group, LLC; KWON, LLC; Gregory
Kenwood Gaines, a/k/a Ken Wood; David A. Henson, a/k/a Kevin Ford,
Defendants. Nicolet Arcieri, Plaintiff, v. Shadow Management
Company, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus (Columbia); Splash, Inc., d/b/a
Platinum Plus (Columbia); Elephant, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus
(Greenville); KWE Group, LLC; and Gregory Kenwood Gaines, a/k/a
Ken Woods, Defendants, C/A Nos. 3:14-CV-00300-JFA, 0:14-CV-0.029-
JFA (D.S.C.)

Plaintiff Nicolet Arcieri worked for defendants as an exotic
dancer. She filed a suit alleging that defendants improperly
classified her as an independent contractor and, in so doing,
failed to compensate her at the legal minimum wage pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.

Defendants Shadow Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus
(Columbia); Splash, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus (Columbia);
Elephant, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Plus (Greenville); KWE Group, LLC;
and Gregory Kenwood Gaines, a/k/a Ken Woods filed a motion to
consolidate Arcieri v. Shadow Management Company, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-03029-JFA and Dittus v. K.E.G., Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00300-JFA.

Judge Anderson granted defendants' motion to consolidate the two
cases for purposes of all future motions, discovery, and trial.
The parties are further notified that the Class Action, Dittus v.
K.E.G., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00300-JFA is
designated as the lead docket number for purposes of court
deadlines

A copy of Judge Anderson's order dated December 1, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/Rzyd1kfrom Leagle.com.

Kaleigh R Dittus, Courtney A Snyder, Plaintiffs, represented by:

     David E Rothstein, Esq.
     Michael G Corley, Esq.
     ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM
     1312 Augusta Street
     Greenville, SC 29605
     Telephone: (864) 438-0969
     Facsimile: (864) 241-1386

          - and -

     Harold L Lichten, Esq.
     Matthew William Thomson, Esq.
     Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
     LICHTEN AND LISS RIORDAN
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Telephone: (617) 994-5800
     Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
     E-mail: HLichten@llrlaw.com
             mthomson@llrlaw.com
             sliss@llrlaw.com

Samantha Botten, Alicia Brown, Jasmine Lakis, Alaina Pitt, Atea B
Hopper, Chelsea Kuettel, Elaine N Alvarez, Krystal King,
Plaintiffs, represented by:

     David E Rothstein, Esq.
     ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM
     1312 Augusta Street
     Greenville, SC 29605
     Telephone: (864) 438-0969
     Facsimile: (864) 241-1386

          - and -

     Harold L Lichten, Esq.
     Matthew William Thomson, Esq.
     Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
     LICHTEN AND LISS RIORDAN
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Telephone: (617) 994-5800
     Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
     Email: HLichten@llrlaw.com
            mthomson@llrlaw.com
            sliss@llrlaw.com


KEG Inc, Shadow Management Company Inc., Splash Inc., Elephant
Inc., KWE Group LLC, Gregory Kenwood Gaines, David A Henson,
Defendants, represented by Donald Christopher Lauderdale --
LauderdC@jacksonlewis.com -- John Sulau --
John.Sulau@jacksonlewis.com -- Sandi R Wilson --
Sandi.Wilson@jacksonlewis.com -- Allan S Rubin --
RubinA@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis PC

          - and -

     Harry T Heizer, Jr, Esq.
     HARRY T HEIZER JR LAW FIRM
     6300 St Andrews Rd
     Columbia, SC 29212
     Telephone: (803) 750-6455

KWON, LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald Christopher Lauderdale
-- LauderdC@jacksonlewis.com -- John Sulau --
John.Sulau@jacksonlewis.com -- Sandi R Wilson --
Sandi.Wilson@jacksonlewis.com -- Allan S Rubin --
RubinA@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis PC


LENNAR HOMES: App. Ct. Upholds Indemnity Order in Stephens Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stella Stephens, Timothy Young, and Melissa Young purchased homes
from Lennar Homes of California, Inc., pursuant to separate
agreements which contain identical indemnity clauses.  Lennar
attempted to enforce those indemnity clauses, seeking to recover
attorney fees and costs incurred in defending a class action
lawsuit, brought initially by Stephens, and later joined by
Timothy Young -- but not Melissa Young -- in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Lennar appealed the trial court's order granting Stephens, et
al.'s special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic
lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP motion) pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.  Lennar challenged the
trial court's ruling that the indemnity clause at issue is
unenforceable under California law, precluding Lennar from
demonstrating a probability of success on the merits.  Lennar also
disagreed with the trial court's finding that its claim against
Melissa Young arises from activity protected under the anti-SLAPP
statute.

On review, the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
affirmed the trial court's ruling.

The Appeals Court agrees with the trial court that Lennar's cause
of action as to Melissa Young arises out of activity protected
under the anti-SLAPP statute.  The Appeals Court further concludes
that the federal litigation joined by Timothy Young also
constitutes an act in furtherance of Melissa Young's right of
petition, even though she was not named as a plaintiff.

The Appeals Court also agrees with the trial court's conclusion
that the indemnity clause at issue is unenforceable under
California law, precluding Lennar from establishing a probability
it would prevail on the merits.

Lennar's complaint is LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Plaintiff
and Appellant, v. STELLA STEPHENS et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. E057280.  A copy of the appellate court's
Dec. 18, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/CNiYFJfrom
Leagle.com.

Jones Day, Richard S. Ruben, Darren K. Cottriel --
dcottriel@jonesday.com -- and Nathaniel P. Garrett --
ngarrett@jonesday.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

McCuneWright -- info@mccunewright.com -- Richard D. McCune, David
C. Wright, and Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, for Defendants and Respondents.


LINCOLN TECHNICAL: Court Grants Student's Discovery Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach of the District of Nevada granted
plaintiff's discovery request in the case ANITA SANHUEZA, et al.,
Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:13-CV-2251-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.)

Anita Sanhueza, while studying at the Euphoria Institute of Beauty
Arts and Sciences, also performed services for Euphoria's paying
customers. Plaintiff filed a class action against Lincoln
Technical Institute for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 206. She contends that her
services at Euphoria Salon created an employment relationship
between her and the salon. She filed a motion to compel seeking
the names and contact numbers of every customer that she provided
services.

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Sanhueza's discovery
request seeks private information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants argue that Sanhueza's request is improper because it
(1) violates third parties privacy interests and (2) Sanhueza
failed to show that the information she is seeking, she is unable
to obtain the information from other sources.

Magistrate Judge Ferenbach granted Sanhueza's motion to compel.

A copy of Judge Ferenbach's Order dated November 18, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/4MrU3Jfrom Leagle.com

Wendy Guzman, Anita Sanhueza, Kayla Resendes, Danielle Johnson
Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
     Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
     LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     2965 S Jones Blvd. Ste E4
     Las Vegas, NV 89146
     Telephone: (702) 383-6085
     Facsimile: (702) 385-1827
     Email: dana23@gmail.com

Johnelle Bergeron, Sharnell Weston, Noorly Campene, Cierra
Giguerre, Fara Iacometta, Plaintiffs, are also represented by Leon
Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc., Euphoria Acquisition, LLC,
Shaun E McAlmont, Cesar Ribiero, Brian K Meyers, Defendants,
represented by Hallie Diethelm Caldarone --
caldaroh@jacksonlewis.com -- Michael C. Stepien --
Michael.Stepien@jacksonlewis.com -- Elayna J Youchah --
YouchahE@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis P.C.

New England Institute of Technology at Palm Beach, Inc. and
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation, Defendants, represented
by Elayna J Youchah -- YouchahE@jacksonlewis.com -- Hallie
Diethelm Caldarone -- caldaroh@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson
Lewis P.C.


LUFTHANSA GERMAN: Faces Suit Over Montreal Convention Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andras Erdei v. Lufthansa German Airlines, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00402-AJN (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2015) is brought by a frequent
over concerns relating to the Montreal Convention.

Dr. Andras Erdei is a frequent traveler, who is concerned about
the erosion of passengers' rights guaranteed under an
international treaty to which the United States is a signatory to,
specifically, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
for International Carriage by Air, also known as the Montreal
Convention, according to the complaint.

In particular, the Plaintiff is concerned that Lufthansa, as the
most dominant European airline, is refusing to abide by the
Convention and systematically misled and continues to mislead the
Plaintiff and millions of passengers around the world, including
in the United States, by citing irrelevant "internal policies" in
lieu of the treaty provisions when it comes to compensating
passengers for delayed or damaged checked bags.

Lufthansa German Airlines is a German corporation in the airline
industry, doing business around the world, including the United
States and the state of NewYork.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


LUZERNE, PA: 3rd Cir. Flips Ruling in Ex-Public Atty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Albert Flora, Jr., the former Chief Public Defender for Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania, challenges the order of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing
his First Amendment retaliation claims against the County and its
manager, Roger Lawton.

Because the District Court applied an incorrect standard in
determining whether the facts alleged in the complaint set forth a
claim for relief, and because, under the Supreme Court's recent
decision in Lane v. Franks, ___ U.S.___, 134 S.Ct. 2369 (2014),
Flora pled facts sufficient to allege that he spoke as a citizen,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the
District Court's order and remanded for further proceedings.

The appeals case is ALBERT FLORA, JR., Appellant, v. COUNTY OF
LUZERNE and ROBERT C. LAWTON, County Manager, in his official
capacity, NO. 14-1854 (3d Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion
dated Jan. 15, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/38NUO1from
Leagle.com.

Katherine U. Davis, Esq. -- katherine.ungerdavis@dechert.com --
and Vernon L. Francis, Esq. -- vernon.francis@dechert.com -- at
Dechert LLP, 2929 Arch Street - 18th Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Mary Catherine Roper, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of
Pennsylvania, P. O. Box 40008, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Michelle H. Yeary, Esq. -- michelle.yeary@dechert.com -- Dechert
LLP, 902 Carnegie Center - Ste. 500, Princeton, NJ 08540, Counsel
for Appellant.

John G. Dean, Esq. -- jgd@elliottgreenleaf.com -- at Elliott
Greenleaf & Dean, 201 Penn Avenue - Ste. 202, Scranton, PA 18503.

Deborah H. Simon, Esq. -- dhs@elliottgreenleaf.com -- at Elliott
Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, 925 Harvest Dr. - Ste. 300, Blue Bell,
PA 18422, Counsel for Appellees.


MARTIN MARIETTA: Judge Tosses Non-Monetary Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Commercial Litigation Insider,
reports that a Manhattan Commercial Division judge has rejected a
non-monetary settlement of a class action brought against a $2.7
billion acquisition in the building materials industry because the
objecting plaintiffs are in the business of "trying to make money
from litigation."

In an opinion, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich said that
plaintiff City Trade Fund is essentially an E*Trade brokerage
account, and its partners Lawrence Bass and Andres Carullo
purchased $1,200 in shares in Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) just
to engage the Brualdi Law Firm to file suit against MMM's purchase
of Texas Industries.

According to Judge Kornreich's opinion, Brualdi has filed 13
lawsuits in the Commercial Division on behalf of various
partnerships, including CTF in the case of City Trading Fund v.
Nye, 6516682014.

"CTF and its principals are not the right class representatives,"
Judge Kornreich said. "Contrary to their stated motivations, the
court does not believe they filed this class action because they
had a genuine concern for the company's corporate governance.
Rather, they are simply trying to make money from litigation.
"They and their counsel have accurately identified a massive
inefficiency in the way in which courts adjudicate merger
litigation, and have capitalized accordingly," the judge
continued.  "They are, in a word, shrewd investors.  Their
investment, unfortunately, is in litigation."

It is the second time in a month that a Commercial Division judge
has scuttled a non-monetary settlement brought by shareholders.
Melvin L. Schweitzer, a retired Commercial Division judge now
sitting as a special referee, rejected the non-monetary settlement
of a class action brought by shareholders objecting to Verizon
Communications' $130 billion acquisition of Vodafone's stake in
the American telecom's wireless business.  The decision also wiped
out $2 million in attorney fees and costs for plaintiffs' law firm
Faruqi & Faruqi.

The City Trading Fund case settled at 3:00 a.m. on the day that
Judge Kornreich was going to hold a hearing on the preliminary
injunction against the merger.  Even though the two merging
companies agreed to the settlement, Judge Kornreich asked the
defendants to submit a brief on its policy implications.

The defendants said they settled to avoid having the merger
scuttled and erasing nearly $2 billion in shareholder value. They
also said Brualdi's clients have different interests from the
typical shareholders.

"While real investors hope that the companies they own deliver
maximum value, and may choose to seek remedies in court for
corporate misfeasance that poses a threat to that value, the
Brualdi entities do not care about the financial success of the
companies they sue," wrote MMM's counsel, partners Sandra C.
Goldstein -- sgoldstein@cravath.com -- and Gary A. Bornstein --
gbornstein@cravath.com -- of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, and Texas
Industries' counsel, partner Rachelle Silverberg --
RSilverberg@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

In a statement, Roselyn Bar, MMM's general counsel, said the
company was "very pleased that the court recognizes just how
costly meritless merger litigation is to companies and their
shareholders.  We expect that going forward, plaintiffs' lawyers
who are primarily looking for a quick and easy payoff will think
twice before bringing frivolous lawsuits challenging transactions,
particularly where they purport to represent a class of
shareholders of the acquiror."

Ms. Silverberg did not respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiff Lawrence Bass has been involved in other shareholder
lawsuits brought by the Brualdi firm, the defendants added in
court papers.  Attorneys Richard B. Brualdi --
rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com -- and Jack F. Keating said in court
papers filed before Judge Kornreich rejected their settlement that
they obtained all of the relief sought in their complaint.

They further wrote that the defendants were expressing "sour
grapes that plaintiffs' counsel has been able to pioneer a new
variation of action that to date has been well received by the
justices of the Commercial Division (on behalf of shareholders of
acquiring companies) against defendants and their counsel; sour
grapes that they had to defend this action in the Commercial
Division instead of the Southern District of New York; and sour
grapes that plaintiff's counsel (whom Cravath and Wachtell might
not see as playing in their league) have been successful in
pursuing this case and other previous cases defended by those law
firms."

Brualdi told Am Law Litigation Daily that now, "plaintiffs believe
that the court's decision that the disclosures were not material
is flatly inconsistent with many other decisions by courts in both
New York and Delaware.  Plaintiffs are considering their options,
including an appeal." Read the Am Law Litigation Daily's coverage
of the case here.

Judge Kornreich rejected preliminary approval for the class
settlement because the alleged omissions of information about the
merger "are not only immaterial, they are grossly immaterial."

She raised concerns that the plaintiffs waited to sue until after
submitting the definitive proxy to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, even though the proxy was "virtually identical" to a
preliminary version filed two months earlier.

While the plaintiffs cited the Massachusetts district court
decision of Drulias v. Ade for the proposition that state court
litigation based upon a preliminary proxy is no longer viable,
Judge Kornreich said that case was wrongly decided.  The judge
further found that Brualdi was personally involved in competing
authority from the Southern District of Texas.  In Superior
Partners v. Change, that court encouraged parties to file lawsuits
based on preliminary proxies as soon as possible, according to
Judge Kornreich.

"An explanation for why one case was better reasoned or is more
likely to be followed by the Southern District [of New York] would
have been more persuasive than simply justifying plaintiff's
litigation strategy based solely on a citation to Drulias,"
Judge Kornreich said.

The judge also rejected $500,000 in attorney fees for Brualdi.
In the latest development in the Verizon case, objector
Gerald Walpin has moved for summary judgment against the
complaint.

Mr. Walpin, a New York attorney and Verizon shareholder
representing himself, said that Verizon is no longer in an
adversarial relationship with the class because the telecom agreed
to settle the case.

"Unless I am able to protect the shareholder class (including
myself) from further litigation expenses and attempts to
circumvent this court's ruling, the court's ruling could end up to
be a pyrrhic victory," Mr. Walpin wrote in support for the request
for summary judgment.


MCKESSON CORP: Bid for Leave to Seek Reconsideration Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-02219-JST (N.D.
Cal.), is a putative class action against McKesson alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
wherein the latter sent faxes without obtaining prior express
permission or invitation from the Plaintiff.

McKesson moved to stay the action pending a Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC") ruling, but the court eventually denied
McKesson's stay motion. Thereafter, McKesson filed a Motion for
Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration contending that the
FCC's ruling represents a change of law occurring after the Court
issued its Order and that the Court's failure to cite Ms. Taylor's
testimony amounted to a manifest failure by the Court to consider
material facts.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
denied Defendant's motion, holding that as the FCC's ruling is no
longer pending, McKesson's request for reconsideration of the
Motion to Stay is not well-founded. The FCC's ruling is not a
change of law that weighs in favor of a stay and Ms. Taylor's
testimony was not material to the Court's decision because the
class in this case is defined only to include those who received
unsolicited faxes. Further, Judge Tigar ruled that the Court's
failure to discuss Ms. Taylor's testimony was not a manifest
failure to consider material facts. Thus, the Defendant's motion
was denied.

A copy of the Order dated November 25, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/Mwye4Wfrom Leagle.com.

True Health Chiropractic Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C.
Schubert -- rschubert@schubert-reed.com -- Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP, Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
-- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Brian John Wanca, Anderson +
Wanca, Dustin Lamm Schubert -- dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com --
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, George Demetrios Jonson --
gjonson@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Glenn L. Hara --
ghara@shhllp.com -- Anderson + Wanca, Matthew Elton Stubbs,
Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Ross Michael Good, Anderson + Wanca &
Ryan Michael Kelly, Anderson + Wanca.

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

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

McKesson Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Amoroso, Reed Smith LLP & Tyree P. Jones, Jr., Reed Smith, LLP.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Warren
Metlitzky -- warren.metlitzky@usdoj.gov -- United States Attorney.


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Little" Suit to Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Little v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-000244-15, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-02045 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-
label use of the Defendants' Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar
Tapered Fusion Device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Gary C. Johnson, Esq.
          Rhonda Blackburn, Esq.
          GARY C. JOHNSON, PSC
          110 Carolina Ave.
          P.O. Box 231
          Pikeville, KY 41501-0231
          Telephone: (606) 437-4002
          Facsimile: (606) 437-0021
          E-mail: gary@garycjohnson.com
                  rblackburn@garycjohnson.com

               - and -

          Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr., Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0717
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP - Washington, DC
          1999 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteen and Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4296
          E-mail: FaheyS@PepperLaw.com


MERSCORP HOLDINGS: 8th Cir. Upheld Dismissal of 87 Counties' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eighty-seven Minnesota counties filed a class action complaint
against MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., et al., various loan originators
and servicers (Lenders), alleging that the Lenders' use of the
Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) deprived the
Counties of recording fees on mortgage assignments by allowing
parties to bypass recordation with the Counties themselves.  The
Lenders removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which the
district court granted.

The Counties appealed, asserting that the district court erred in
determining that Minnesota's Recording Act was not mandatory and
that the Counties' unjust enrichment and public nuisance claims
failed in the absence of a recording requirement. The Counties
also sought a certification of a question to the Minnesota Supreme
Court regarding the interpretation of Minnesota's Recording Act.

In a Dec. 19, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/SXaH3mfrom
Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the Lenders'
motion to dismiss and declined to certify the question regarding
the interpretation of the Minnesota Recording Act to the Minnesota
Supreme Court.

The case is The County of Ramsey; The County of Hennepin, on
behalf of themselves and all other Minnesota counties, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc.; Bank of America Corporation; Bank of
America, N.A; Citigroup, Inc.; CitiBank, N.A.; CitiMortgage, Inc.;
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; EverBank; Goldman Sachs
Mortgage Company; GS Mortgage Securities Corp.; HSBC Bank USA,
N.A.; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I,
Inc.; SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.; TCF National Bank; The Bank of New
York Mellon; United Guaranty Corporation; US Bank N.A.; Wells
Fargo Bank N.A.; Does Corporation I-MMM, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 13-3026.


MORTGAGE STRATEGIES: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Galloway Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen of the District of New
Mexico recommended that the defendant's motion to dismiss be
granted in the case ANN GALLOWAY, Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE
STRATEGIES GROUP, LLC, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED TRUST FANNIE MAE REMIC TRUST 2007-82,
FANNIE MAE, TIMOTHY MAYOPOULOS, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, JAMIE
DIMON, BRIAN McWHORTER, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM
AKA "MERS", BILL BECKMANN, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, No. CIV 14-0022 KG/KBM (D. N.M.)

Plaintiff Ann Galloway executed a note payable to Defendant
Mortgage Strategies Group, LLC (MSG) on 149 Candelario Street A-C,
Santa Fe, NM. Both mortgage and note were recorded on May 30,
2007.

On May 17, 2010, Plaintiff entered into a loan refinance agreement
with Defendant Chase Home Finance. The modification agreement
increased the note's principal amount and pushed back the date of
maturity. On March 5, 2011, Defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC sent
Plaintiff an acceleration warning notifying her that she had
defaulted on monthly payments. On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed
a lawsuit in New Mexico State Court seeking a declaration that
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank did not own the servicing rights to
her mortgage but was dismissed without prejudice on Plaintiff's
motion on October 15, 2012. On February 27, 2013, Defendant
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), acting as nominee
for Defendant MSG, assigned the mortgage on Plaintiff's property
to Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank.

On April 1, 2013, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank initiated a
foreclosure action against Plaintiff in New Mexico State Court in
Santa Fe.  On January 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against
Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to relief on
the basis that Defendant MSG unlawfully assigned servicing rights
to the May 2007 note and mortgage on her property to Defendant
JPMorgan Chase Bank. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants forged
documents in order to obtain legal standing to foreclose on the
property. Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement
and to strike. Presiding Judge Gonzales granted the motion for a
more definite statement and denied the motion to strike as moot.
On April 12, 2014, Judge Gonzales ordered Plaintiff to amend her
complaint to cure all of the deficiencies and concerns identified
in Defendants' motion. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May
22, 2014. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint for failure to comply with the Court's April 12
Order or for failure to state upon which relief may be granted
under Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen opined that plaintiff has failed to
state a viable claim for relief and Defendant's motion to dismiss
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is well-taken and should be
granted. She therefore recommend that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice She
recommended that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted and that
the amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.

A copy of Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen's proposed findings and
recommended disposition dated November 18, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/oxSt1Jfrom Leagle.com

Ann Galloway, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by
Jason C Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Matthew W. Park,
Lewis and Roca LLP & David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Fannie Mae, Defendant, represented by Matthew W. Park, Lewis and
Roca LLP, David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C. & Jason C
Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

Timothy Mayopoulos, Defendant, represented by Jason C Bousliman,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP,Matthew W. Park, Lewis and Roca LLP &
David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Jason C
Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP,Matthew W. Park, Lewis and
Roca LLP & David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Jamie Dimon, Defendant, represented by Jason C Bousliman, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber LLP, Matthew W. Park, Lewis and Roca LLP & David A
Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Brian McWhorter, Defendant, represented by Jason C Bousliman,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Matthew W. Park, Lewis and Roca LLP &
David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Defendant, represented by
Jason C Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Matthew W. Park,
Lewis and Roca LLP & David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Bill Beckmann, Defendant, represented by Bill Beckmann

Jamie Dimon, Counter Defendant, represented by Jason C Bousliman,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP,Matthew W. Park, Lewis and Roca LLP &
David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Fannie Mae, Counter Defendant, represented by Matthew W. Park,
Lewis and Roca LLP, David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C. & Jason C
Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

Federal National Mortgage Association, Counter Defendant,
represented by Jason C Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP,
Matthew W. Park, Lewis and Roca LLP & David A Ferrance, Ferrance
Law, P.C.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Counter Defendant, represented by Jason
C Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Matthew W. Park, Lewis and
Roca LLP & David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Timothy Mayopoulos, Counter Defendant, represented by Jason C
Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Matthew W. Park, Lewis and
Roca LLP & David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Brian McWhorter, Counter Defendant, represented by Jason C
Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP,Matthew W. Park, Lewis and
Roca LLP & David A Ferrance, Ferrance Law, P.C.

Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Counter Defendant,
represented by Jason C Bousliman, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP,
Matthew W. Park, Lewis and Roca LLP & David A Ferrance, Ferrance
Law, P.C.


MRI INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Compel in "Takiguchi" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-1183-JAD-VCF, (D. Nev.)
involves a class action securities fraud lawsuit governed by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C.
Section 77a, et seq.  Before the court is Plaintiffs Emergency
Motion to Compel, which contends that (1) The Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995's automatic discovery stay did not
take effect because the forum-non-conveniens issue does not
implicate the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' security fraud claims,
which the stay was designed to test, or (2) an exception to the
Act's automatic discovery stay applies here.

"Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is denied," ruled Magistrate Judge
Cam Ferenbach in an order entered January 14, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/PPgqgLfrom Leagle.com.
"This matter involves a massive Ponzi scheme, which allegedly
defrauded billions of dollars from Japanese investors, many of
whom lost their life's savings. Japanese Counsel had already
attended previous depositions in this matter. Similarly, these
were not "run of the mill" depositions. One of the primary
Defendants (i.e., MRI International, among others) was scheduled
to be deposed. Therefore, the court sanctions Defendants jointly
and severally in the amount of $1,500.00, to be paid at the end of
this matter. This amount represents the reasonable discounted cost
of airfare incurred by Japanese Counsel, as stated during the
court's hearing," he added.


NBTY INC: 7th Cir. Flips Ruling in "Pearson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case of NICK PEARSON, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. NBTY, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, THEODORE H. FRANK, et al., Objectors-
Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Nos. 14-1198, 14-1227, 14-1245, 14-
1389 (7th Cir.)

NBTY and its subsidiary Rexall Sundown manufacture vitamins and
nutritional supplements, including glucosamine pills, which are
dietary supplements designed to help people with joint disorders,
such as osteoarthritis. Several class action suits have been filed
in federal district courts across the country against NBTY,
Rexall, and Target. The suits charge the defendants with violating
several states' consumer protection laws by making false claims
for glucosamine's efficacy. The district court has jurisdiction of
the case under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2).

Eight months after the plaintiffs filed suit in federal district
court in Illinois, class counsel in all six cases negotiated a
nationwide settlement with NBTY and Rexall and submitted it to
that court for approval.

The district judge approved the settlement, though with
significant modifications. As approved, the settlement requires
Rexall to cough up approximately $5.63 million. $1.93 million in
fees to class counsel, plus an additional $179,676 in attorney
expenses, $1.5 million in notice and administration costs, $1.13
million to the Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation,
$865,284 to the 30,245 class members who submitted claims, and
$30,000 to the six named plaintiffs ($5,000 apiece) as
compensation for their role as the class representatives.

The parties further agreed that any part of the $4.5 million that
the district judge thought excessive compensation for class
counsel would revert to Rexall.

There are six appeals which the appellate court consolidated for
decision. Several of the appellants are class members, led by
Theodore H. Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness, who, as
class members are authorized to do by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5),
objected to the approval of the settlement.

Class counsel are several law firms, which have cross-appealed,
arguing that the district court should not have modified the
settlement that the parties had agreed to.

The appellate court through Judge Posner reversed the judgment of
the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Posner's opinion dated November 19, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/oudrrwfrom Leagle.com.

The Seventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Richard
Posner, Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner and David F. Hamilton


NEW JERSEY: Awaits Ruling on Public Sector Unions' Pension Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
lawyers representing hundreds of thousands of current and retired
public workers and counsel for the administration of Republican
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie argued for nearly six hours Jan. 15
over whether Gov. Christie acted illegally in the 2014 fiscal year
by diverting $1.57 billion slated for those pension funds to
balance the state's budget.

Mercer County Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson is set to rule on a
motion by the state to dismiss the lawsuit filed by public sector
unions that are seeking to compel Gov. Christie to comply with a
2011 statute, known commonly as Chapter 78, that called for the
state to fully fund pension obligations in return for public
employees agreeing to increased contributions and lower cost of
living raises.

Last June, Judge Jacobson refused the unions' request to
immediately order the funds to be paid, saying the state was in a
crisis situation.

The state's retirement systems currently face about $83 billion in
unfunded mandates.

Judge Jacobson has not said when she will issue a ruling.

Assistant Attorney General Jean Reilly said at arguments that
Judge Jacobson should dismiss the unions' lawsuit because
Gov. Christie acted within his authority when he made the decision
to line-item veto the funds out of the fiscal 2014 budget.

"The decision was reasonable in light of the unprecedented revenue
shortfall," Ms. Reilly said.  The state's constitution requires a
balanced budget and does not allow for deficit spending.
"That line-item veto is essential to a modern system of
government," Ms. Reilly said.

Ms. Reilly said the judiciary cannot compel the two other branches
of government to make an appropriation.
Funding decisions, Ms. Reilly said, are governed by the debt
limitations clause and the appropriations clause of the state
constitution.

But Judge Jacobson said Chapter 78 created a contract between the
government and the pension funds, which means that the contracts
clause of the U.S. Constitution also must be considered.

The state, Judge Jacobson said, seemed to "trivialize" that.

Ms. Reilly said that regardless of the language of the statute,
any law created by one legislature that requires a future
legislature to appropriate money is unconstitutional, and that the
line-item veto power the governor enjoys is delineated in the
state constitution.

"The legislature is presumed to know all organic law," Ms. Reilly
said.  "Guaranteeing future funding equates to creating debt.  You
can't create a contract that takes away the governor's veto
power."

Judge Jacobson noted that options, such as tax increases, were
available that could have shored up the state's finances.

Gov. Christie, who is considering a run for his party's nomination
for president next year, has repeatedly vowed to veto any tax
increases passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature.

Ms. Reilly said the administration believes that any tax increases
would not have brought in enough revenue to make up for the
shortfall.

Judge Jacobson asked whether other revenue-raising proposals were
being considered.

"I don't know what's going on," Ms. Reilly said, adding that there
was no attempt to override the line-item veto.

"There wasn't much left to do" but not make the payment to the
pension funds, Ms. Reilly said.  "It was not a desirable option,
but it was the last resort."

Steven Weissman, an attorney representing the Communications
Workers of America, the largest of the state's public sector
unions, said the situation with the pension funds is getting
worse.

The state is duty-bound to pay retiree benefits, said Mr.
Weissman, of Weissman & Mintz in Somerset, N.J.

"The day will come when little or nothing will remain" of the
pension funds without the state meeting its funding obligations,
Mr. Weissman said.

Both the governor and the legislature knew what they were doing
when they enacted Chapter 78, Mr. Weissman said, adding that it
created a binding contract whose provisions must be enforced.
Judge Jacobson suggested that the state was merely arguing that
payments are being temporarily suspended because of a fiscal
crisis.

Mr. Weissman disagreed.

"Now the defendants are saying this statute is void," he said.
Mr. Weissman said that if the state is allowed to back away from
its obligations, the future for retired public workers will be
bleak.  The three largest pension funds, he said, are likely to be
depleted within the next 15 years unless the obligations are fully
funded.

If the funds become depleted, the legislature would be forced to
pay pension obligations out of the general budget, which
Mr. Weissman estimated would cost about $8.4 billion a year.

"They're not going to pay the benefits. That's what's going to
happen," Mr. Weissman said.

Kenneth Nowak, representing the New Jersey Education Association,
the primary teachers' union, said Gov. Christie and the
legislature knew that there were "strong and drastic" consequences
to entering into a contract.

"Once there is a contract, that limits sovereign powers to a
certain extent," said Mr. Nowak, of Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak,
Kleinbaum & Friedman in Newark.

Gov. Christie is facing a second lawsuit, filed in December by the
boards of trustees for three of the public sector pension funds,
over his decision to strip $2.4 billion out of the current budget
to once again solve a revenue shortfall.

The case heard Jan. 15 is captioned Burgos v. New Jersey.
Plaintiff Christopher Burgos is the president of the New Jersey
State Troopers Fraternal Organization.


NEW YORK, NY: Teachers' Unions Want Teacher Tenure Suits Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Matthews, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
lawyers for teachers' unions, New York City and New York state
asked a judge on Jan. 14 to dismiss two lawsuits challenging
statutes governing teacher tenure, saying the lawsuits raise
issues that should be decided by the Legislature.

"The issues that are raised in this lawsuit are political," city
lawyer Janice Birnbaum told Justice Philip Minardo (See Profile),
of Staten Island Supreme Court.  "The court cannot step into the
role of essentially revising the statutes that the plaintiffs are
challenging."

The plaintiffs argue that teacher tenure and layoffs by seniority
deprive students of the sound, basic education they are guaranteed
under the state Constitution.  They also contend the hearing
process for dismissing a teacher is so cumbersome it's almost
impossible to fire an ineffective teacher.

"We're fighting for the lives of our children, for our children's
education, for the future educations of all New York City and New
York state's children," plaintiff Sam Pirozzolo, vice president of
the New York City Parents Union, said before the hearing.

The lawsuits were inspired by a California judge's ruling in June
striking down that state's teacher tenure laws (NYLJ, July 28,
2014).  Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, has appealed the ruling.
The lawsuit, Davids v. New York, 101105/14, was filed in Staten
Island, while a second one, Wright v. New York, A00642/2014, was
filed in Albany by a group headed by former TV personality
Campbell Brown. The cases were consolidated in September.

Lawyers for teachers' unions, which are intervening as defendants,
told the judge the plaintiffs have not shown in their court
filings that their children had ineffective teachers, nor have
they said what makes a teacher ineffective.

"Have you heard or read one line-one line-in plaintiffs' papers
that define an ineffective teacher?" asked Charles Moerdler --
cmoerdler@stroock.com -- a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
representing the United Federation of Teachers.

Jay Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- a lawyer at Kirkland &
Ellis representing the plaintiffs in Wright, said the fact that
nearly 70 percent of the students who took last year's statewide
standardized tests failed to perform at grade level means the
system is "in crisis."

Mr. Lefkowitz said the plaintiffs have standing even if their
children have not had ineffective teachers.

"There isn't an obligation to allege specific injuries to
individuals," he said.  "The plaintiffs are at imminent risk of
being taught by an ineffective teacher."

Mr. Lefkowitz said that if his clients prevail they will ask the
court to direct the Legislature to come up with a new teacher
tenure system.

"Teachers are not going to lose due process protections," he said.
"What the teachers are getting is something well beyond due
process."

The judge reserved decision.


NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: "Mey" Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise Page Hood granted Defendant's motion in the
case captioned DIANA MEY, Plaintiff, v. NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-11331 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint and Motions to Certify
Class and Stay Briefing Pending Completion of Discovery against
Defendant which was subsequently denied by the Court. In addition,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification simultaneously
with her Complaint but still the Court denied such motion.
Thereafter, no motion for reconsideration was filed after the
issuance of the order.

Defendant filed in lieu of an Answer a Motion to Dismiss asserting
that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Also,
Defendant submitted an offer of judgment under Rule 12(b)(1) of
the Rules of Civil Procedure, which, Plaintiff admitted that
satisfies the requested relief. However, Plaintiff rejected the
offer and contended that dismissal of the class action is not
appropriate.

In his Order granting the Defendant's motion, District Judge Hood
held that a Rule 68 offer of judgment that satisfies a named
plaintiff's requested relief prior to the certification of a
motion moots the plaintiff's claims for lack of a live case or
controversy. Moreover, Judge Hood ruled that where the named-
plaintiff's claim becomes moot before certification, dismissal of
the action is required. Thus, Defendant's request to dismiss the
class action case without prejudice and for entry of judgment in
favor of Plaintiff based on the Rule 68 Offer of Judgment were
granted. The remaining motions were rendered moot.

A copy of the Order dated November 26, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/wV8UsVfrom Leagle.com.

Diana Mey, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I Paronich, Broderick
Law P.C., Bradley S. Defoe -- bsdefoe@varnumlaw.com -- Varnum,
Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick Law
P.C., John W Barrett, Bailey & Glasser, Ryan M. Donovan, Bailey &
Glasser, LLP & Perrin Rynders -- prynders@varnumlaw.com -- Varnum,
Riddering.

North American Bancard, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carrie
Pirrotta Price, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Joseph Arturo Escarez --
jescarez@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Roger P. Meyers,
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn, LLP & Scott Michael Pearson
-- spearson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Wins Dismissal of "Kryluk" FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter granted Defendant's motion in
the case captioned ANDREY KRYLUK, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. NORTHLAND GROUP,
INC., and DOES Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-3198 (E.D. Pa.).

Kryluk is a college student who has maintained an account with
Citibank, N.A., while Northland Group, Inc., is the collection
agent of Citibank.

Plaintiff initiated a putative class action alleging two counts
for relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), claiming that Defendant (a) used false, deceptive, and
misleading representations or means in connection with the
collection of a debt, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e, and (b) used unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that its letters did
not violate the FDCPA as a matter of law and asserted that two of
the three claims in Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint
are taken verbatim from the First Amended Complaint. Further,
Defendant alleged that these claims are futile so that the Court
should deny Plaintiff's Motion.

In his Memorandum granting Defendant's motion, District Judge
Buckwalter held that the Amended Complaint fails to state a
plausible claim for relief under the FDCPA. Plaintiff's claims
under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f -- both of
which are repeated in the proposed Second Amended Complaint -- are
indeed legally deficient and, in turn, futile. Judge Buckwalter
ruled that Plaintiff did not allege any conduct by Defendant that
is false, deceptive, or misleading as a matter of law under 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692e. With respect to her claim under 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692f, she failed to identify any conduct by Defendant that is not
otherwise covered by Section 1692e claim.

A copy of the Memorandum dated November 25, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/qoQNYAfrom Leagle.com.

ANDREY KRYLYUK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ARKADY ERIC RAYZ,
KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC & GERALD D. WELLS, III -- gwells@cwg-law.com
-- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP.

NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID J WALTON --
davew@csgrr.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, VICTORIA L. ZELLERS --
vzellers@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR & JESSICA A. HURST, COZEN
O'CONNOR.


ONE TOUCH: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Isaacs" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA ISAACS, on her own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. ONE TOUCH DIRECT, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, CASE NO. 8:14-CV-1716-T-
30EAJ, (M.D. Fla.) is before the Court upon defendant's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint.

Angela Isaacs filed this collective action on July 15, 2014, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging that One Touch failed
to compensate Ms. Isaacs and others similarly situated for
overtime compensation.

One Touch argues that this action is moot based on an unaccepted
offer of judgment that it served on Ms. Isaacs under Rule 68 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Specifically, One Touch
contends that this collective action no longer presents a live
controversy because Ms. Isaacs was offered full relief and the
offer was made prior to conditional certification of the
collection action.

District Judge James S. Moody, Jr., in an order entered January
15, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/PPxpmEfrom
Leagle.com, concluded that the motion to dismiss should be denied.
"[E]ven assuming for the sake of argument that One Touch's offer
of judgment provided Isaacs with full relief, her failure to
accept the offer did not moot this collective action," Judge Moody
ruled.

Angela Isaacs, Plaintiff, represented by Angeli Murthy --
amurthy@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA.

One Touch Direct, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christine E.
Howard -- choward@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP &
Michelle I. Anderson -- manderson@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher &
Phillips, LLP.


PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS: Final Fairness Hearing Held
-------------------------------------------------
A final fairness hearing was scheduled to be conducted on January
13, 2014, to approve the settlement reached in the case, ANTHONY
KISER, Plaintiff(s), v. PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and CRAIG LUSK,
Defendant, Case No. 2:11-CV-165 JCM (D. Nev.).

District Judge James C. Mahan of the District of Nevada oversees
the case.

Plaintiff Anthony Kiser filed a case against Pride Communications
for unpaid overtime, minimum wages, other wages, and related
claims for penalties arising from such alleged payment failures.

The court's August 14, 2014 order preliminarily approved the
proposed class settlement and preliminarily granted class
certification for settlement purposes only. The order also
appointed Rust Consulting as the settlement administrator and
directed Rust Consulting to mail the notice of proposed class
action settlement and a claim form to the settlement class
members. The parties filed a joint motion for an order for final
approval of a class action settlement.

Anthony Kiser, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Christian James Gabroy, Esq.
     GABROY LAW OFFICES
     170 S Green Valley Pkwy # 280
     Henderson, NV 89012
     Telephone: (702) 259-7777

          - and -

     Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
     Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
     LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     633 S 4th Street
     Las Vegas, NV 89101
     Telephone: (702) 383-6085

Fabion Garro, Ivaylo Dininski, Wesley Wagner, Dercy Reyes, Andrei
Ioan Oprea, Jose Maldonado-Montoya, Brian K Izumi, Raul Cortes,
Marco Diaz, Julio Fernandez, Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
     Leon Greenberg, Esq.
     Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
     LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     633 S 4th Street
     Las Vegas, NV 89101
     Telephone: (702) 383-6085

Pride Communications and Craig Lusk Defendants, represented by:

     Caryn S. Tijsseling, Esq.
     LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG
     6005 Plumas Street, Suite 300
     Reno, NV 89519
     Telephone: (775) 786-6868
     Facsimile: (775) 786-9716
     E-mail: cst@lge.net

          - and -

     Howard E. Cole, Esq.
     Jennifer Hostetler, Esq.
     LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP
     50 West Liberty, Suite 410
     Reno, NV 89501
     Telephone: (775) 823-2900
     Facsimile: (775) 823-2929

Cox Communications Las Vegas, Interested Party, represented by:

     Annette A. Idalski, Esq.
     CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE, WILLIAMS
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
     Thirty-Fourth Floor
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Telephone: (404) 658-5386
     Facsimile: (404) 658-5387
     E-mail: annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com

          - and -

     Martin  Kathleen Marie Paustian, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KATHLEEN M.PAUSTIAN
     3205 Skipworth Drive
     Las Vegas, NV 89107
     Telephone: (702) 321-2222
     Facsimile: (702) 369-5717


PFIZER INC: Faces Allied Services Antitrust Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC
and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Case No. 2:15-cv-00029-RBS-DEM
(E.D. Va., January 20, 2015) alleges violations of antitrust laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brielle Marie Hunt, Esq.
          MILLER LEGAL LLC
          175 S Pantops Drive, Third Floor
          Charlottesville, VA 22911
          Telephone: (434) 529-6909
          Facsimile: (800) 768-9542
          E-mail: bhunt@millerlegalllc.com


PLATINUM LIMOUSINE: Moves "Pelayo" Suit to Hawaii District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pelayo v. Platinum Limousine
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0007-01 KTN, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (Hawaii).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00023-DKW-BMK to
the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant: (1) failed to pay
overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act; (2) required employees to work split shifts; (3)
failed to timely pay wages when due; (4) converted pay owed the
Plaintiff; (5) was unjustly enriched; and (6) owes punitive
damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. Holcomb, Esq.
          HOLCOMB LAW, LLLC
          1136 Union Mall, Suite 808
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 545-4040
          Facsimile: (808) 356-1954
          E-mail: rholcomblaw@live.com

               - and -

          Timothy I. MacMaster, Esq.
          1088 Bishop St., #209
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 591-8080
          E-mail: alohaleg@pixi.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Harris, Esq.
          John S. Mackey, Esq.
          TORKILDSON, KATZ, MOORE, HETHERINGTON & HARRIS,
          ATTORNEYS AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION
          700 Bishop Street, 15th Floor
          Honolulu, HI 96813-4187
          Telephone: (808) 523-6000
          Facsimile: (808) 523-6001
          E-mail: jsh@torkildson.com
                  jsm@torkildson.com


PRIME HEALTHCARE: Petition for Arbitration Granted on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Paul Turner of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Five, reversed the order of
the lower court on the case MAUCABRINA WILLIS, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. B253712 (Cal. App.)

Maucabrina Willis was hired by Centinela Freeman Health System
(CFHS) and signed an employment application and employment
acknowledgement form. Both forms contain provisions whereby
plaintiff agreed to submit any dispute regarding her employment
with CFHS to binding arbitration. Also, a collective bargaining
agreement between the hospital and Service Employees International
Union United Healthcare Workers West governed hospital employees
in specified represented bargaining units. Plaintiff worked at the
hospital in a position within a bargaining unit represented by the
union. She became a union member and was covered by the collective
bargaining agreement.

Further, the parties stipulated effective November 1, 2007, Prime
Healthcare Centinela, LLC acquired the hospital from CFHS
Holdings, Inc., pursuant to an asset purchase agreement. Under the
asset purchase agreement, Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC
recognized the union as the hospital representative of the
bargaining units. Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC assumed all the
legal obligations of Centinela Freeman Health System with respect
sto the collective bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining
agreement continued to govern hospital employees including
plaintiff after the hospital was acquired by Prime Healthcare
Centinela, LLC.

The collective bargaining agreement expired on December 31, 2009,
but remained in effect after its expiration. Plaintiff's
employment at the hospital was terminated on December 12, 2011. On
that date, the provisions set forth in Article 9 of the collective
bargaining agreement regarding the grievance procedure remained in
effect.

On November 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against defendant alleging Labor Code violations for: failure to
pay minimum wages; failure to pay all wages owed upon termination;
and civil penalties for inaccurate wage statements. In addition,
the complaint alleges an unfair competition cause of action in
violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Defendant filed a petition to compel arbitration and dismiss the
class claims. Defendant argued plaintiff was required to arbitrate
her employment-related claims pursuant to her arbitration
agreement with Centinela Freeman Health System Defendant contended
it was entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement because
Centinela Freeman Health System assigned its interest in all
agreements related to the hospital to Prime Healthcare Centinela,
LLC.

The trial court denied the petition to compel arbitration. The
trial court found the individual arbitration agreement was
inconsistent with the collective bargaining agreement and thus
unenforceable. The trial court denied both parties' sanctions
motions.

Defendant appeals from the order denying its petition to compel
arbitration and strike class claims, while plaintiff, Willis
cross-appeals from the order denying her Code of Civil Procedure
section 128.7 sanctions motion.

The appellate court through Presiding Justice Turner agrees with
defendant and reversed the order denying defendant's petition to
compel arbitration. The trial court's decision in denying
plaintiff's sanctions motion is affirmed and upon remittitur
issuance, the trial court is to compel arbitration and stay the
action until completion of arbitration.

A copy of Presiding Justice Paul Turner opinion dated November 19,
2014 is available at http://is.gd/Cjobaofrom Leagle.com

Gregory N. Karasik -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- at Karasik Law
Firm, for Plaintiff and Appellant

Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Daniel J.
McQueen -- dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Robert Mussig --
rmussig@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, for Defendant and Appellant.


PRO SE PLANNING: Court Directs Arbitration, Stays Van Buren Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle of the Eastern District of
Louisiana ordered the parties in LATOISHA VAN BUREN, v. PRO SE
PLANNING, INC., Section "B" (2), Civil Action No. 14-2099 (E.D.
La) to submit the matter for arbitration.

Defendant is a Washington corporation that produces a website
through which various services are offered to assist individuals
in completing the documentation necessary to achieve their own
divorces.

Plaintiff Latoisha Van Buren sought to obtain a petition for
divorce and visited Defendant's website, located at
"www.DivorceWriter.com."  On Defendant's website, Plaintiff filled
out an online questionnaire relating to her marital status and
contracted for the preparation of various legal documents,
ostensibly based on her responses to these questions, for which
she paid the sum of approximately $149.00.

Plaintiff filed a suit in state court in Louisiana seeking
recovery of the fees paid by her and all those similarly situated
to Defendant. Plaintiff alleges in her putative class action that
Defendant is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
Louisiana, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. ann. 37:212(A), thereby
rendering the contract contrary to public policy and absolutely
null. Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction and subsequently filed a motion seeking
enforcement of an arbitration provision contained in the Terms of
Use to which Plaintiff allegedly agreed to be bound in executing
her contract with Defendant.

Judge Lemelle ordered the parties to submit the matter for
arbitration pursuant to the procedures called for under the Terms
of Use. It is further ordered that the case be stayed, pursuant to
9 U.S.C. Section 3, pending final resolution of all arbitrable
issues, the extent of which is to be determined by the arbitrator.

A copy of Judge Lemelle's order and reasons dated November 14,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/YIH2wrfrom Leagle.com.

Latoisha Van Buren, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
     COSTALES LAW OFFICE
     3801 Canal St.
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Telephone: (504) 534-5005

Pro Se Planning, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Ashley L. Belleau, Esq.
     James J. Bolner, Jr., Esq.
     Jeremy David Rush, Esq.
     MONTGOMERY BARNETT
     One American Place
     301 Main Street, Suite 1170
     Baton Rouge, LA 70825
     Telephone: (225) 329-2800
     Facsimile: (225) 329-2850
     Email: monbar@monbar.com


QUALITY RESOURCES: Provell Dismissed From Suit; Sempris Remains
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, ruled on defendants' motions in the
case SARAH TONEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY RESOURCES, INC., SEMPRIS, LLC
d/b/a Budget Savers, and PROVELL, INC. f/k/a Budget Savers,
Defendants, No. 13 CV 42 (N.D. Il.)

Sarah Toney filed a suit against Quality Resources, Inc.
(Quality); Sempris, LLC, doing business as Budget Savers
(Sempris); and Provell, Inc., formerly known as Budget Savers
(Provell). Quality is a telemarketing company. Sempris is a
company that operates the Budget Savers website,
www.budgetsaversonline.com, which offers a subscription membership
club that provides retail and restaurant discounts. Provell is a
defunct corporation that Sempris purchased in February 2011.

Toney alleges that she placed an order for three pairs of
children's slippers from a website called Stompeez.com. She
provided all the necessary information on the field of the order
form hat required it, including her cellular phone number. Three
days after her purchased online, plaintiff received a call, in
which the caller verified Toney's information and then tried to
sell Toney a membership in the Budget Savers program, which was
offered by Sempris and Provell.

Toney filed a class action complaint asserting claims against the
three defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b) and (c). Since
then, plaintiff has amended the complaint three times.

Defendant Quality filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or
in the alternative for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(c); and Sempris, LLC and Provell, Inc. filed
a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge St. Eve denies the motion of Quality Resources to dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) or for summary judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) . The court grants in part and
denies in part the motion of Sempris LLC and Provell Inc. to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court dismisses Provell, Inc. from
this lawsuit with prejudice but denies the motion to dismiss with
respect to Sempris, LLC.

Judge St. Eve says the Third Amended Complaint contains sufficient
factual allegations to plead a plausible basis for holding
Sempris, LLC vicariously liable for the alleged misconduct of
Quality Resources under a formal agency theory, but not under
theories of apparent authority or ratification.

The Court scheduled a status hearing for December 9, 2014, to set
a date for the close of discovery.

A copy of Judge St. Eve's memorandum opinion dated December 1,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/kbx272from Leagle.com.

Sarah Toney, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq.
     BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
     155 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 9020
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 729-5288
     Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
     Email: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

          - and -

     Anthony Paronich, Esq.
     BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
     125 Summer St Ste 1030
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: 508-221-1510

          - and -

     Matthew McCue, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW McCUE
     1 South Avenue, Third Floor
     Natick, MA 01760
     Telephone: (508) 655-1415
     Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
     E-mail: mmcue@massattorneys.net

Quality Resources, Inc. and Stompeez, Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- Richard W. Epstein
-- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- at Greenspoon Marder, P.A.;
Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- at Tabet DiVito
Rothstein

Infomercials, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard W. Epstein
-- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- at Greenspoon Marder, P.A.

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


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Settles Blind Group Lawsuit for $1.2MM
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted final approval of a
class settlement in the lawsuit LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND AND
VISUALLY IMPAIRED, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, ANGELA GRIFFITH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, LISA MARIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, JOSH SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, SHANA RAY, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, and JENNIFER WESTBROOK, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC, AND SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS,
Defendants, Case No. C12-00195 PJH (N.D. Calif.).

The Settlement Class is defined as: All Legally Blind individuals
who, due to the visual interface utilized at the Redbox Kiosks
located in California, have attempted but were unable to access
the products or services available at Redbox Kiosks located in
California, or were deterred from accessing those products or
services at the Redbox Kiosks in California, between January 12,
2010 and November 12, 2014.

The Settlement provides for these terms:

  -- The Defendants will pay $1,200,000 to the Settlement Class.

  -- Service award payments of $10,000 to each class
     representative.

  -- Payment of $85,000 to the Lighthouse for the Blind and
     Visually Impaired for monitoring Defendants' compliance with
     the Agreement.

  -- Dismissal of the lawsuit and all claims asserted in the
     lawsuit, with prejudice, as to the Named Plaintiffs and
     Settlement Class Members.

A copy of Settlement Order dated Dec. 17, 2014 is available at
http://is.gd/2hPZHSfrom Leagle.com.

LAURENCE W. PARADIS, STUART SEABORN, MICHAEL S. NUNEZ, Disability
Rights Advocates, Berkeley, California.

JAY KOSLOFSKY, LAW OFFICES OF JAY KOSLOFSKY, Berkeley, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Sued for Discriminating Against Older Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christpopher Spearing v. Regus Management Group, LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-00078 (D. Conn., January 16, 2015) is an action for age
discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967, asserting that the Defendant
discriminated against the Plaintiff because of his age.

Mr. Spearing is a Fairfield, Connecticut.

Regus Management Group, LLC is a limited liability company,
incorporated in Delaware, having its principal business in
Addison, Texas, and conducts business within the District of
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Carey, Esq.
          MARK P. CAREY, P.C.
          71 Old Post Road, Suite One
          Southport, CT 06490
          Telephone: (203) 255-4150
          Facsimile: (203) 255-0380
          E-mail: Mcarey@capclaw.com


RICE TECHNOLOGY: M.D. Fla. Judge Dismisses Noah Tech Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John E. Steele of the Middle District of Florida,
Fort Myers Division, granted defendants' motions to dismiss the
case NOAH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DANIEL FISH, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID
RICE, CAROL STRACKBEIN, and RICE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:14-CV-325-FTM-29DNF (M.D. Fla.)

Plaintiff Daniel Fish obtained a patent for an electronic system
to detect water leaks and prevent water damage to buildings.  Fish
and defendant David Rice began development of a design to improve
upon Fish's system by creating a smaller and more accurate water
detection sensor. Fish and Rice created Noah as a partnership and
named their product the Intelli-Sensor. Rice filed a provisional
patent application for the Intelli-Sensor on behalf of Noah on May
27, 2010. Fish worked to find customers and install their products
while Rice worked to perfect the product. Noah filed a non-
provisional patent application for the Intelli-Sensor, pursuant to
which United States Patent #8,508,373 was issued. The Patent was
issued in the sole name of Rice.

Fish and Rice incorporated Noah pursuant to the laws of Florida.
Rice became President of Noah, Fish became Vice President, Mary
Ratliff became Treasurer, and Carol Strackbein became Secretary.

In 2013, Noah applied for and was awarded a $50,000 grant offered
by the Milwaukee Water Council.  In early 2014, Rice
misrepresented to the Water Council that Noah had changed its name
to Rice Technology and requested that the final $15,000 grant
payment be issued to Rice Technology instead of Noah. Fish learned
that Rice had converted Noah's office at the Water Council to an
office for Rice Technology, that Rice had assigned the Patent to
Rice Technology, that Rice Technology had begun marketing a
product known as the Leak Shark that used the same technology as
the Intelli-Sensor, that Rice had diverted an estimated $7,000,000
in contracts from Noah to Rice Technology, and that Strackbein had
withdrawn all the funds.

Fish, directly and derivatively on behalf of Noah, brings causes
of action for a judgment that Fish is the inventor of the Patent
(Count I); breach of fiduciary duty against Rice (Counts II and
IV-VIII); breach of contract against Rice (Count III); civil theft
against Rice (Count IX); breach of fiduciary duty against
Strackbein (Counts X-XI); and civil theft against Strackbein
(Count XII). Plaintiffs made amendments to its complaint.

Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Rice and
Strackbein argue (1) that Fish's derivative claims are improperly
pled because derivative actions against a corporation's directors
must include the corporation as a defendant, not a plaintiff; (2)
that Fish improperly combines derivative claims and personal
claims in the same lawsuit; and (3) that Fish failed to verify
that demand was made upon Noah's board prior to filing the
derivative claims. Additionally, Rice Technology argues (1) that
the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it; and (2) that none
of the counts in the Amended Complaint are asserted against Rice
Technology. Fish responds that all counts are properly pled and
that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Rich Technology as
an alter-ego of Rice.

Judge Steele granted defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, without prejudice to filing a Second Amended Complaint.

A copy of Judge Steele's opinion and order dated November 18,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/gadpskfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     David Saul Vogel, Esq.
     AUL & VOGEL PLLC
     301 Clematis St Ste 3000
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Telephone: 561-232-4353

David Rice and Carol Strackbein, Defendants, represented by Thomas
Cargill -- tcargill@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner, LLP

Rice Technology, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas Cargill --
tcargill@foley.com -- Michael Gay -- mgay@foley.com -- at Foley &
Lardner, LLP.


RIEXINGER & ASSOCIATES: Violates FDCPA in New York, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sima Issacson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00304 (E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2015) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROMAN PAINT: Fails to Keep Accurate Time Records, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Onody v. Roman Paint & Wallpaper Corp. and Joseph
Giambrone, Case No. 1:15-cv-00297-BMC (E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2015)
alleges, among other things, that the Defendants failed to keep
accurate and sufficient time records as required by federal and
State laws.

Roman Paint & Wallpaper Corp. is a New York State domestic
business corporation with its principal office and place of
business located in Ridgewood, New York.  Joseph Giambrone is a
resident of Melville, Suffolk County, New York.  He owns Roman
Paint, a paint and hardware store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin R. Graff, Esq.
          THE SCHER LAW FIRM, LLP
          One Old Country Road, Suite 385
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 746-5040
          Facsimile: (516) 747-9100
          E-mail: agraff@scherlawfirm.com


RPX CORP: Cascades Computer Looks to Reboot Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
after making headway in a patent infringement lawsuit targeting
Samsung Electronics Co. and HTC Corp., Cascades Computer
Innovation LLC, a descendent of the "original patent troll," is
looking to reboot its related antitrust case against the
technology companies and codefendant RPX Corp.

Cascades and its lawyers at Niro, Haller & Niro, including senior
partner Raymond Niro -- rniro@nshn.com --, urged U.S. District
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, Calif., to lift a stay in
their antitrust lawsuit challenging RPX's business model.  RPX,
which bills itself as a "defensive patent aggregator" that shields
members from nonpracticing entities, or "trolls," offers companies
access to its portfolio of patents for a fee.

Cascades was founded by onetime Jenner & Block partner Anthony
Brown, whose prior business venture, TechSearch, famously inspired
Intel's former general counsel to coin the phrase "patent troll."
The company's antitrust suit, filed in 2012, alleges that RPX and
several Android smartphone makers illegally boycotted licensing
offers on a portfolio of more than 35 Cascades patents.

The case hasn't advanced much since December 2013, when Judge
Gonzalez Rogers refused to dismiss allegations that RPX and some
of its members conspired to rebuff Cascades' patent licensing
offers.  RPX and its codefendants convinced Gonzalez Rogers to
stay the case in March, pointing to a pending patent infringement
case in Chicago federal court pitting Cascades against HTC and
Samsung.  The infringement suit involves one of the patents --
related to a system for translating computer code -- at the heart
of Cascades' antitrust claims.

Since last year, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly in
Chicago has issued a string of rulings in the infringement suit,
the most recent on Jan. 6, largely keeping Cascades' claims
intact.  Though Kennelly trimmed parts of the suit, he refused to
grant Samsung and HTC's bid for summary judgment of
noninfringement prior to Jan. 29, 2014.

With those rulings in hand, Cascades has gone back to Oakland to
argue that it's time to put its antitrust suit back on track.

"The Illinois court now intends to set the infringement case for
trial," Cascades' lawyers wrote in a Jan. 7 motion to lift the
stay in the Oakland antitrust case.  "There is simply no reason to
delay this case any further."

Over Cascades and Niro's objections, Gonzalez Rogers has extended
the stay several times, most recently on Dec. 23, when she decided
to keep the antitrust case on hold until at least June 22.

"I frankly don't fully understand why these cases have been
delayed so consistently and for so long," Niro said in an
interview.  "Our client is anxious to move the case forward and
believes that discovery will show the full nature and extent of
the conspiracy."

Latham & Watkins represents RPX in the antitrust case.  The firm's
Alfred Pfeiffer -- alfred.pfeiffer@lw.com -- didn't immediately
respond to a request for comment, and an RPX spokesperson said the
company wouldn't comment on ongoing litigation.  Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton's Michael Scarborough represents Samsung in the
antitrust case, while Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's Jonathan
Jacobson -- jjacobson@wsgr.com -- represents HTC.

Cascades has continued to pursue patent litigation as it bides its
time in the antitrust suit.  Most recently, a Cascades subsidiary
called Cascades Projection LLC sued Sony Corp., Seiko Epson Corp.,
and other defendants in a fresh batch of complaints filed on
Jan. 13 in the Central District of California.  Susman Godfrey
represents Cascades in those suits.


RSI ENTERPRISES: Court Declares Offer of Judgment Ineffective
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Neil V. Wake of the District of Arizona granted
plaintiff's motion in the case Joanna F. Mavris, Plaintiff, v. RSI
Enterprises Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. Cv-14-01058-PHX-NVW
(D. Ariz.)

Plaintiff Joanna F. Mavris filed a class action complaint under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging
Defendant's communications to her overshadowed and were
inconsistent with the disclosures it was required to make when
attempting to collect a debt.

On September 30, 2014, six weeks after the Court granted the
parties' request to stay discovery on the question of class
certification, Defendant submitted to Plaintiff an individual
offer of judgment, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
68. The offer would have given Plaintiff $2,000.01, more than
twice the maximum statutory damages recoverable under the FDCPA.

Instead of accepting the offer, Plaintiff filed a motion to
declare ineffective defendant's offer of judgment dated September
30, 2014.

Judge Wake granted plaintiff's motion in an order dated November
26, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/byiG4Hfrom
Leagle.com.

Joanna F Mavris, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L Greenwald --
mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com -- at Greenwald Davidson PLLC

RSI Enterprises Incorporated, Defendant, represented by David J
Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Charles R Messer --
messerc@cmtlaw.com -- Keith Alexander Yeomans --
yeomansk@cmtlaw.com -- at Carlson & Messer LLP


SENEX SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Heaney, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Senex Services Corp. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-00420-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., January 20, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHARP HEALTHCARE: Decertification in "Hale" Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Judith McConnell of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division One, affirmed a lower court
order decertifying the class in the case DAGMAR HALE, Plaintiff
and Appellant, v. SHARP HEALTHCARE et al., Defendants and
Respondents No. D064023 (Cal. App.)

Plaintiff Dagmar Hale was admitted to Sharp Grossmont Hospital and
received medical treatment. She was uninsured at the time and
signed an admission agreement, which stated, "you hereby
individually obligate yourself to pay the account of the hospital
in accordance with the regular rates and terms of the hospital."
Sharp billed Hale $14,447.65 for the services provided. Sharp
offered Hale financial assistance for her emergency room visit and
substantially discounted her bill.

Hale filed an action challenging the unreasonable, unconscionable
and unlawful charges billed to uninsured persons for medical
treatment at Sharp hospitals and healthcare facilities. She
alleges Sharp does not charge uninsured patients regular rates but
charges uninsured patients significantly more for the same
services than they charge other patients.

The trial court dismissed Hale's case but on appeal, the appellate
court reversed in part a judgment of dismissal because it
concluded that Hale sufficiently stated causes of action under the
unfair competition law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA).

After remand, the trial court granted Hale's motion for class
certification and certified the class with the following
definition: "All individuals who from August 11, 2003 to December
16, 2011 (a) received emergent-care medical treatment at a Sharp
Hospital and signed the defendant Sharp Healthcare standard form
Admission Agreement; and (b) were not covered by insurance or
government healthcare programs at the time of treatment.

Sharp developed a protocol to search its electronic records and
identified over 120,000 potential class members who may have had
unfunded emergency department visits between August 1, 2003 and
December 16, 2011. However, Sharp advised the court it could not
conclusively determine whether a potential uninsured emergency
department patient signed an Admission Agreement without reviewing
individual records and the potential class members included
patients who had all or part of their expenses paid by a third
party.

Sharp filed a motion to decertify the class in March 2013, based
in part on evidence obtained from putative class members in
discovery. Sharp argued the class is not ascertainable because
Sharp does not keep records in such a way to reasonably and
readily identify those included in the class definition without
individualized inquiries. Sharp also argued the class action
device is not a superior method to litigate this matter because
there is no manageable way to prove entitlement to damages on a
class wide basis without individual inquiries.

Hale opposed the motion. After a hearing, the trial court granted
the motion to decertify the class. The court determined (1) the
class is not reasonably ascertainable and (2) there is not a well-
defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact
involving the affected parties. As to lack of predominance, the
court identified a significant problem in determining the right to
recover damages on a class-wide basis. The court also noted Hale
herself obtained a discount on her bill, which not only
illustrated why individual inquiries are necessary but also raised
concerns about whether her claim is typical.

Hale applied ex parte for an order allowing her to move to amend
the class definition before her time to appeal the decertification
order expired. The court denied the application, finding no new
facts or law were cited to reconsider the court's decertification
ruling. However, on the merits, the court found the proposed class
definition by plaintiff does not cure the essential problems
identified by the Court in ruling on the decertification. Hale
appealed.

The appellate court through Presiding Justice McConnell finds no
abuse of discretion on the trial court's decision in decertifying
the class, hence the order is affirmed.

A copy of Presiding Justice McConnell's unpublished opinion dated
November 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/rBztBofrom
Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff and Appellant:

     Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BARRY L. KRAMER
     9550 S Eastern Ave Ste 253
     Las Vegas, NV 89123
     Telephone: (702) 778-6090
     Facsimile: (702) 778-6090

          - and -

     Brian R. Strange, Esq.
     Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
     STRANGE & CARPENTER
     12100 Wilshire Blvd #1900
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Telephone: (310) 207-5055
     Facsimile: (310) 826-3210
     Email: lacounsel@earthlink.net
            gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com

For Defendants and Respondents:

     John Morris, Esq.
     Alexis S. Gutierrez, Esq.
     HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK
     401 West A Street, Suite 2600
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 236-1551
     Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
     Email: jmmorris@higgslaw.com
            agutierrez@higgslaw.com


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Settles "Vanwagoner" Suit for $225,000
--------------------------------------------------------
A California district court grants final approval of a class
settlement in the lawsuit JERRY D. VANWAGONER, Plaintiff, v.
SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:13-CV-01303-KJM-EFB
(E.D. Calif.).

The class action complaint arose out of the defendant's alleged
failure to pay wages, overtime, and commissions as well as provide
lawful meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Jeffrey Vanwagoner worked
in 2010-2013 as a security technician for Siemens Building
Technologies Division, a division of Siemens Industry Inc.

Under the settlement, the defendant has agreed to pay up to
$225,000, of which the net settlement amount available to be paid
to the participating class members is $131,984.

District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller approves the award of:

   -- $56,250 for the class counsel attorney's fees;

   -- $6,668.05 for the class counsel' reimbursement of expenses;

   -- a $5,000 incentive payment to the class representative,
      Jerry D. Vanwagoner.

Moreover, in accordance with the parties' stipulation at hearing,
the case is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Mueller's Dec. 16, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/p6Vn23from Leagle.com.

Jerry D. Vanwagoner, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Lee Carver,
Labor Law Office & Michelle MacEachern Lunde, Labor Law Office,
Apc..

Siemens Industry, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory G.
Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


STARLINE TOURS: "Harp" Class Suit Stays in Calif. Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of
California ruled on the parties' motion in the case of JOAN HARP
ET AL. v. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. ET AL., No. 2:14-cv-
07704-CAS(EX) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are former hourly employees of EHM Productions, Inc.,
and the Starline defendants, businesses that operate sightseeing
tours throughout California.  Joan Harp initially filed a putative
class action against defendants Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.,
Starline Sightseeing Tours, Inc., Starline Tours USA, Inc., Vahid
Sapir, Farid Sapir, and Does 1 through 150 in Los Angeles County
Superior Court on December 28, 2012. Plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint in state court.  Soon thereafter, the state
court struck plaintiff Harp's class allegations, and dismissed
Harp as class representative. Plaintiffs subsequently added EHM to
the First Amended Complaint.

On September 29, 2014, the state court granted plaintiffs leave to
file the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The SAC asserts
the following claims against the Starline defendants and the
Sapirs: (1) failure to compensate for all hours worked, in
violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 1182, 1194, 1197, 1197.1,
1198; (2) failure to pay reporting time pay, in violation of Cal.
Code Regs. Title 8, Sections 11040, 11090, Subd. 5; (3) failure to
pay overtime compensation, in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Sections 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1198; (4) failure to pay overtime, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq.; (5) failure to provide meal and rest
periods, in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512; (6)
failure to provide itemized wage statements, in violation of Cal.
Labor Code Section 226; (7) failure to maintain accurate records,
in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 1174, 1174.5; (8) failure
to pay wages upon discharge, in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Section 203; (9) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq.; (10) conversion,
in violation of Cal. Civil Code Section 3336; (11) failure to
reimburse expenses, in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2802;
(12) unfair competition, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq.

The Starline defendants and the Sapirs, joined by EHM, removed the
action to the District Court.  The Defendant Sapirs also filed a
motion to dismiss claims 1-3 and claims 5-12 pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12 (b)(6), or in the alternative, a motion
for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12 (e). Plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case.

Judge Snyder denied plaintiffs' motion to remand but declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law
claims. The judge also denied as moot the individual defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Snyder's order dated November 25, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/OKTPCFfrom Leagle.com.

Joan Harp, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Patrick Wilson --
WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- at Law Offices of Dennis P Wilson

William Brockman, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Patrick Wilson
-- WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- at Law Offices of Dennis P Wilson,
Anthony Ngula Luti -- tony@lutilaw.com -- at The Luti Law Firm;
Julia Alicia Aparicio-Mercado, Aparicio-Mercado Law LC

Maynard Jackson, III, Andres Reyes Plaintiffs, represented by
Dennis Patrick Wilson -- WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- at Law
Offices of Dennis P Wilson; and Julia Alicia Aparicio-Mercado --
at Aparicio-Mercado Law LC

Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., Starline Sightseeing Tours,
Inc., Starline Tours USA, Inc., Fred Sapir, and Vahid Sapir,
Defendants, represented by Mohammed K Ghods -- mghods@ghodslaw.com
-- Sandra J Vivonia -- Jeremy A Rhyne -- jrhyne@ghodslaw.com -- at
Ghods Law Firm

EHM Productions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robyn Michele
Coltin -- rmc@msk.com -- Seth E Pierce -- sep@msk.com -- Mitchell
Silberberg & Knupp LLP


TITLE AMERICA: February 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LA W DIVISION, CAMDEN COUNTY
Docket No.: CAM-L-1 316-14

CAROLE J. CIRUCCI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff
v.
TITLE AMERICA AGENCY CORP., Defendant,

LEGAL NOTICE
YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A REFUND IF YOU WERE CHARGED A RECORDING
FEE BY TITLE AMERICA AGENCY CORP. DURING A NEW JERSEY REAL ESTATE
SALE BETWEEN APRIL 2, 2008 AND DECEMBER 31, 2009

WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? A lawsuit encaptioned Cirucci v. Title
America Agency Corp., Docket No. CAM-L-1 316-14 was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County on behalf of all
persons who were charged a mortgage recording fee and/or deed
recording fee by Title America Agency Corp., in New Jersey between
April 2, 2008 and December 31, 2009.  The complaint alleges that
Title America Agency Corp. had a uniform policy of improperly
charging buyers to whom it provided real estate settlement
services in New Jersey fees for recording mortgages ("mortgage
recording fees") and recording deeds ("deed recording fees") in
excess of the amounts allowed by New Jersey law.  Title America
Agency Corp. denies any wrong doing and denies the claims and
allegations asserted by Plaintiff, and maintains that any
overcharges that may have occurred were unintentional errors and
non-systematic occurrences. The parties nevertheless have agreed
to settle the lawsuit.

WHY SHOULD I READ THIS NOTICE? You may be a member of the Class.
This is a class action lawsuit that the parties have proposed to
settle.  If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court, your
legal rights may be affected.  This notice describes what the
lawsuit is about, explains the terms of the proposed settlement,
tells you who would be covered and what legal claims would be
resolved by the settlement if the Court approves it, and explains
how individuals can obtain benefits under the settlement.

AM I COVERED BY THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT? You can determine if you are a Class member by
reviewing your closing documents and specifically your HUD-I Form
(commonly referred to as a settlement sheet) at Lines 1200 and
1201 to see if you were charged a mortgage recording fee and/or
deed recording fee and the amounts of those fees.  If you were
charged a mortgage recording fee and/or deed recording fee by
Title America Agency Corp. in New Jersey between April 2, 2008 and
December 31, 2009 you are a Class member.  If you have any
questions regarding whether you are a Class member, you can
contact class counsel at 973-228-4860 or send an e-mail to class
counsel at ross@paslawfirm.com

You can also obtain more information about the settlement by
visiting class counsel's website "www.paslawfirm.com" or send an
email to class counsel at ross@paslawfirm.com

WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT? Title America Agency Corp.
has agreed to create a procedure whereby for each class member who
submits a claim Title America Agency Corp. (with appropriate
monitoring from Plaintiffs' counsel) will review and re-calculate
the charge that should have been made for recording the claimant's
mortgage and deed.  If this process reveals you were charged more
per page than is allowed under N.J.S.A. 22A:4-4.1, the amount of
such an overcharge will be refunded to you.  Title America Agency
Corp. has also agreed to pay up to $65,000 to class counsel in
attorney's fees and litigation expenses, subject to court approval
any attorney's fees and litigation costs awarded will be paid
separately by Title Agency America Corp. and such fees and
expenses will not come out of your refund or the refunds paid to
the other class members.  The proposed settlement is intended to
settle all claims against Title America Agency Corp. that arise in
any way from the Defendants' conduct in the transactions which are
the subject of this lawsuit.  By participating in this Settlement,
each class member is releasing all such claims. The foregoing is a
summary of the basic settlement terms.  The full settlement is set
forth in a Settlement Agreement that can be viewed at
"www.paslawfirm.com" , or by contacting class counsel as set forth
under the heading below "HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION."

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS? If you are a member of the Class and wish to
participate in the settlement, you need to complete and submit a
claim form on or before April 16, 2015.  If you are a member of
the Class and you do NOT want to remain part of the Class, you
must exclude yourself ("opt-out").  To opt-out, you must mail a
written request, postage pre-paid, to class counsel at:

     Paris Ackerman & Schmierer LLP
     103 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ 07068

and Defendant's Counsel:

     Michael E. Sullivan, Esq.
     PARKER MCCAY P.A.
     1009 Lenox Drive
     Building Four East, Suite 102A
     Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

The request must be post-marked on or before January 30, 2015, and
contain: the name of the lawsuit; your full name, current address
and phone number; your signature; and a specific statement of your
intention to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class and any
judgment entered pursuant to the proposed Settlement.  If you do
not opt-out as instructed above, you will be automatically
included and bound by any determination of the Court, whether
favorable or not, and any claim of yours will be ended by
judgment.

You may also file a motion with the Court for permission to
Intervene in this lawsuit if you wish. You do not have to
intervene.  If you do not intervene in this case or exclude
yourself from the class, your interests will be represented by
class counsel.

You may object to the proposed settlement if you wish.  Any
objection to the settlement must be sent to the addresses listed
above and postmarked no later than January 30, 2015.  Any
objection should contain the name of this lawsuit; your full name,
current address and telephone number; you r signature; proof of
your membership in the Class; and the specific reason(s) for your
objection.

On February 13, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, the Honorable Anthony M.
Pugliese, J.S.C., Fourth Floor, Courtroom 43, Camden County
Courthouse, 101 South 5th Street, Camden, New Jersey 08103, will
hold a public hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement
is fair, adequate, and reasonable and should be approved. Class
members who support the proposed settlement do not need to appear
at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their
approval.  Class members who object to the proposed settlement are
not required to attend the settlement hearing.  If you want to be
heard orally in opposition to the settlement, either personally or
through counsel, you must indicate your intention to appear at the
hearing in you r written objection.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION? Claim forms and further information
about the settlement can be obtained by visiting the following
website address: "www.paslawfirm.com" , contacting class counsel
at 973-228-4860, or emailing class counsel at ross@paslawfirm.com

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE OR TELEPHONE THE COURT, DEFENDANT OR ANY OF
THEIR AGENTS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THIS
LAWSUIT.

Dated: December 30, 2014
The Honorable Anthony M. Pugliese, J.S.C.

PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Phone: (973)
228-6667
Fax: (973) 629-1246
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class


TRACY'S TREASURES: State Court Order in Idlas Matter Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Mary Anne Mason of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, Third Division, reversed a lower court order in the case
captioned CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee and
Cross-Appellant, v. TRACY'S TREASURES, INC., and PAUL IDLAS,
Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, No. 1-12-3339 (Ill.
App.).

Mutual Insurance Company ("Central") insured Tracy's under a
series of business owner primary liability insurance policies and
a series of commercial excess liability insurance policies.
Tracy's engaged in the business of selling dating and social
relationship services, which it publicized, at least in part, by
facsimile advertisements. Idlas filed a three-count class action
complaint against Tracy's for unsolicited fax advertisements that
allegedly violated the TCPA. Idlas alleged that Tracy's sent
unsolicited facsimile messages advertising Tracy's dating services
without prior express permission from the recipients.

Tracy's tendered Idlas's claims to Central pursuant to the
insurance contracts but the latter denied arguing that Tracy's
conduct in sending faxes does not constitute an occurrence within
the meaning of its policies because an occurrence is defined as an
accident. Central also pointed to a policy provision excluding
coverage for property damage expected or intended from the
standpoint of the insured.

Central filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court
of Cook County seeking an adjudication that it owed no duty to
defend or indemnify Tracy's in connection with Idlas. Also,
Central sought for summary judgment on the basis that the
insurance contracts no longer contained any provision for coverage
for either advertising injury or personal and advertising injury.

The trial court granted Central's motion for summary judgment.
Hence, Tracy's and Paul Idlas filed an appeal from the judgment.

In his Opinion reversing the lower court's order, Justice Mason
held that damages awarded for TCPA claims are liquidated rather
than punitive and, thus, are not uninsurable as a matter of public
policy. Thus, according to Justice Mason, the basis for the trial
court's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Central is no
longer viable, and therefore must be reversed.

A copy of the Opinion dated November 5, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1pZAfA6 from Leagle.com.

Anderson & Wanca, of Rolling Meadows (Brian J. Wanca, David M.
Oppenheim, and Jeffrey A. Berman -- jeffreyberman@gmail.com -- of
counsel), and Bock & Hatch, LLC, of Chicago (Phillip A. Bock --
phil@diabbock.com -- and Robert M. Hatch -- rhatch@bhhawaii.net --
of counsel), for appellants.

Purcell & Wardrope, of Chicago (Michael D. Sanders, of counsel),
and Rivkin, Radler, LLP, of Uniondale, New York (William M. Savino
-- william.savino@rivkin.com -- Stephen J. Smirti, Jr., and M.
Paul Gorfinkel, of counsel), for appellee.

Presiding Justice Aurelia Pucinski and Justice Judge P. Scott
Neville, Jr. concurred in the judgment and opinion.


TRANSPORT WORKERS: Judge Dismisses "Peterson" Suit Over CBA
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the District of Columbia
granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case entitled GARY
PETERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:13-CV-00170 (CRC) (D.C.)

Plaintiffs and their proposed class members are part of a craft or
class of mechanics and related employees at American Airlines.
They and workers in six other employee classifications are
represented by the Transport Workers Union (TWU).

Soon after filing for bankruptcy protection in November 2011,
American Airlines took steps to reject its collective bargaining
agreement with the TWU and renegotiate a modified agreement.
American's first last best offer during the negotiations proposed
to eliminate almost 4,000 line and maintenance base jobs. This
offer failed a ratification vote.  After further negotiations,
American's second last best offer proposed to save 1,439 jobs at
the Tulsa maintenance base from the 2,358 that would have been
eliminated under the prior offer.  Largely on the support of
employees at the Tulsa maintenance base, a CBA reflecting
American's second offer was ratified by the narrowest of margins.
The CBA went into effect in the fall of 2012 following bankruptcy
court approval.

Plaintiffs filed suit in February 2013. After an interim
amendment, they filed a second amended complaint in August 2013
alleging the TWU's actions breached the union's duty of fair
representation to them and other putative class members.
Plaintiffs also allege that the TWU's conduct during the CBA
ratification process violated their right under the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) to have a
meaningful vote in union elections

Soon after Plaintiffs filed suit, American announced a proposed
merger with US Airways. In the wake of the merger, the TWU entered
into an association with the International Association of
Machinists (IAM), which represents mechanics and other workers at
US Airways. The two unions petitioned the National Mediation Board
on August 2014 for a finding that the merged airline is operating
as a single carrier. This finding is a first step to certifying a
TWU-IAM joint council as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the combined airline's mechanics.

The TWU has moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). At the
threshold, the union contends that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the case because Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing in light of the
numerous contingencies and uncertainties surrounding the timing of
any future bargaining with the merged airline and the role of the
TWU in that bargaining. The union points out that there are
currently no planned system-wide contract negotiations between the
TWU and American and, due to the uncertainty over who will be
representing the combined carrier going forward, there may never
be. It also asserts that the TWU has installed new leadership
since the last round of collective bargaining that could take a
different negotiating position from prior leadership. The TWU thus
argues the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a substantial
likelihood of future harm as required to establish standing. It
asserts, in a similar vein, that the action is unripe. As for the
merits, TWU contends that Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts
that would support a finding that the union breached its duty of
fair representation or violated their voting rights under the
LMRDA.

Judge Cooper concluded that plaintiffs lack standing to bring the
suit and the suit is unripe.  He therefore granted defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Defendant's motion to supplement the record will
also be granted and plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is
denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Cooper's memorandum opinion dated December 1,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/RHRfxJfrom Leagle.com.

GARY PETERSON, GARY SCHAIBLE, LARRY PIKE, BRUCE ROHR, TROY RHOADS,
Plaintiffs, represented by Lucas K. Middlebrook --
LMiddlebrook@ssmplaw.com -- Nicholas P. Granath --
NGranath@ssmplaw.com -- Stanley J. Silverstone --
SSilverstone@ssmplaw.com -- SEHAM SEHAM MELTZ & PETERSEN LLP

          - and -

     James R. Klimaski, Esq.
     KLIMASKI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: (202) 296-5600
     Facsimile: (202) 296-5601

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant,
represented by Evan Hudson-Plush -- ehudson-plush@cwsny.com
-- Joseph Vitale -- jvitale@cwsny.com -- Michael L. Winston --
mwinston@cwsny.com -- at COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON, LLP; Richard S.
Edelman -- redelman@odsalaw.com -- at O'DONNELL, SCHWARTZ, AND
ANDERSON


UNITED STATES: Retaliation Claim in Jarita Mesa Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Browning of the District of New Mexico
granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case JARITA MESA
LIVESTOCK GRAZING ASSOCIATION; ALAMOSA LIVESTOCK GRAZING
ASSOCIATION; SEBEDEO CHACON; THOMAS GRIEGO; DONALD GRIEGO; MICHAEL
PENA; JUAN GIRON; JOE GURULE, JR.; FERNANDO GURULE; DIEGO
JARAMILLO; LORENZO JARAMILLO; GABRIEL ALDAZ; ARTURO RODARTE;
JEFFREY CHACON; GLORIA VALDEZ; JERRY VASQUEZ; CARLOS ORTEGA; LEON
ORTEGA; HORACIO MARTINEZ; RONALD MARTINEZ; STEVE CHAVEZ; VANGIE
CHAVEZ; ALFONSO CHACON; DANIEL RAEL; JOHN VALDEZ and BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF RIO ARRIBA, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE and DIANA TRUJILLO, in her official
and individual capacities, Defendants, No. CIV 12-0069 JB/KBM
(D. N.M.)

Individual Plaintiffs are Hispanic stockmen whose families have
been grazing livestock in the northern New Mexico for many
generations. Most of the natural-person Plaintiffs' families were
grazing livestock in the area of the Vallecitos Federal Sustained
Yield Unit before the Forest Service existed. The Jarita Mesa
Allotment and the Alamosa Allotment are areas within the Unit on
which cattle grazing are allowed.  Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing
Association and the Alamosa Grazing Association are local
livestock associations made up exclusively of grazing permitees.
Jeffrey Chacon was the President of Jarita Mesa Association and T.
Griego for Alamosa Association. Plaintiff Board of County
Commissioners of the County of Rio Arriba is a political
subdivision in northern New Mexico, in which a large portion of
the Carson National Forest, including the Allotments and the El
Rito Ranger District, is located.

Defendant Forest Service is an agency of the United States
Department of Agriculture and is charged with the administration
of lands within the United States that have been designated as
National Forest Lands. The Forest Service is charged with the
Unit's management. The Forest Service employed Diana Trujillo as
the El Rito District Ranger. Both Allotments are located in the El
Rito District of the Carson National Forest. Trujillo is charged
with "managing the natural resources in her district, including
the range resource.

All of the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are related to Trujillo's
2010 decision to reduce grazing on the Jarita Mesa and Alamosa
Grazing Allotments, both of which lie within the El Rito Ranger
District of the Carson National Forest. The Plaintiffs allege that
the 18% reduction in their permits violated their First Amendment
right to free speech and to petition for redress of their
grievances. The Plaintiffs bring this action under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Sections 4331-4370
(NEPA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No.
94-588, 90 Stat. 2949 (codified in scattered section of 16
U.S.C.)(NFMA), the Federal Sustained Yield Forest Management Act
of 1944, 16 U.S.C. Sections 583, 583a-583i (FSYMA), and the
Administrative Procedure Act, Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237
(APA). The Plaintiffs request various forms of relief.

Forest Service moved to dismiss the First Amendment Retaliation
claim for failure to state a plausible claim. The Court ruled that
the Plaintiffs stated a proper and plausible First Amendment
retaliation claim. It also ruled, at that time, that the Complaint
contained not one, but two First Amendment retaliation claims:
Count One under the APA and Count Two a "standalone" claim.

Defendants filed a motion to reconsider, which was granted by the
court concluding that there is only one First Amendment
Retaliation Claim. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Count 1
for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. It argues that the
Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies
pursuant to 7 U.S.C. Section 6912(e), is a jurisdictional defect,
and that, when reviewing a factual attack on subject-matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a district court may not presume
the truthfulness of the complaint's factual allegations and may
consider affidavits and other materials from outside the complaint
without converting the motion to a Rule 56 motion for summary
judgment.

Judge Browning expresses that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy
Section 6912(e)'s exhaustion requirement with regard to their
First Amendment retaliation claim. Because the Plaintiffs never
argued their First Amendment retaliation claim before Defendant
United States Forest Service in the administrative proceedings,
because a claim is not exempt from the administrative-exhaustion
requirement merely because it is constitutional in nature, and
because the administrative-exhaustion requirement is mandatory and
thus not subject to judicial waiver, the Court will dismiss the
First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies pursuant to 7 U.S.C. Section 6912(e).

Judge Browning granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Browning's memorandum opinion dated November 17,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/qMIvrTfrom Leagle.com

Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Association, Plaintiff, represented
by Richard Rosenstock, Iris A Thornton, Advocates for Community
and Environment & Simeon Herskovits, Advocates for Community and
Environment

Alamosa Livestock Grazing Association, Plaintiff, represented by
Richard Rosenstock, Iris A Thornton, Advocates for Community and
Environment & Simeon Herskovits, Advocates for Community and
Environment

Sebedeo Chacon, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Thomas Griego, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Donald Griego, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Michael Pena, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris A
Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Juan Giron, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris A
Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Joe Gurule, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris A
Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Fernando Gurule, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock,
Iris A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Diego Jaramillo, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock,
Iris A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Lorenzo Jaramillo, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock,
Iris A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Gabriel Aldaz, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Arturo Rodarte, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Jeffrey Chacon, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Gloria Valdez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment
Jerry Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Carlos Ortega, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Leon Ortega, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris A
Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Horacio Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock,
Iris A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Ronald Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock,
Iris A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Steve Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris A
Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Vangie Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Alfonso Chacon, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris
A Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Daniel Rael, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris A
Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

John Valdez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock, Iris A
Thornton, Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon
Herskovits, Advocates for Community and Environment

Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rio Arriba,
Plaintiff, represented by Richard Rosenstock,Iris A Thornton,
Advocates for Community and Environment & Simeon Herskovits,
Advocates for Community and Environment

United States Forest Service, Defendant, represented by Andrew A
Smith, U.S. Department of Justice &Ruth Fuess Keegan, U.S.
Attorney's Office

Diana Trujillo, Defendant, represented by Andrew A Smith, U.S.
Department of Justice & Ruth Fuess Keegan, U.S. Attorney's Office


UNITED STATES: Boone Law Denied Add'l Pay in "Pigford" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul L. Friedman granted, with prejudice, the
defendant's motion to dismiss a petition for an award of attorney
fees and costs filed by Boone Law Firm, P.A. in the lawsuit
TIMOTHY PIGFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture Defendant. CECIL
BREWINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary, United
States Department of Agriculture Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 97-
1978 (PLF), 98-1693 (PLF) (Columbia).

Boone Law Firm sought an award of attorney fees and costs for
legal services provided to Mr. Edward L. Scott, Jr., a member of
the Pigford class. The Pigford case arose from decades of racial
discrimination by the Department of Agriculture and local county
commissioners in administering farm loans and benefits to African
American farmers.

The defendant stated that after Boone Law Firm filed its fee
petition, the defendant learned of, and obtained a copy of, a
March 2003 Settlement Agreement between the defendant and Boone
Law Firm, in which the firm agreed to settle its claims for
attorney fees related to the Pigford case.  Thus, the defendant
argued that the Settlement Agreement bars the firm's fee petition.
Boone acknowledges that it entered into the March 2003 Settlement
Agreement, but argued that Mr. Scott's claim was excluded from the
settlement.

On review, the District Court finds that the unambiguous language
of the Agreement provides for the "full and final settlement" of
"any and all claims" for attorney fees, costs, and expenses
related to the Pigford class action, specifically including any
claim for fees, costs, and expenses related to Track B
arbitrations.

A copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/4wEvpyfrom Leagle.com.

CECIL BREWINGTON et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Charles Jerome
Ware -- charlesjeromeware@msn.com -- CHARLES JEROME WARE, P.A. &
Phillip L. Fraas -- phil.fraas@stinsonleonard.com -- STINSON
LEONARD STREET, LLP.

THOMAS J. VILSACK, Defendant, represented by Tamra Tyree Moore,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Andrea Iris Newmark, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Megan Anne Crowley, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
Stephen McCoy Elliott, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
LEON MATHEWS, Claimant, represented by Joshua A Doan, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ESTATE OF CHARLIE KNOTT, Claimant, represented by David N. Fagan
-- dfagan@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING.

MAURICE MCGINNIS, Claimant, represented by:

     John M. Shoreman, Esq.
     MCFADDEN & SHOREMAN, LLC
     1420 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 700
     Washington D.C. 20005
     Tel: (202) 638-2100


UNITED STATES: Transport Department Violates ADA, Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Freeman, Deborah Benaderet, Danielle Phelps and Floyd
Hartley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. James T. Smith, Secretary, DOT; Robert L. Smith, Administrator,
MTA; and Daniel O. Reilly, Director, MTA Mobility, in their
official capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-00149-CCB (D. Md., Jan. 16,
2015) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katheryn Elizabeth Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren Young, Esq.
          MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW CENTER
          1500 Union Avenue. Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 727-6352
          Facsimile: (410) 727-6389
          E-mail: katea@mdlclaw.org
                  laureny@mdlclaw.org


UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Sued for Violating Communications Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Ung, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Universal Acceptance Corporation, Case No.
0:15-cv-00127 (D. Minn., January 20, 2015) is brought pursuant to
the Communications Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Helwig, Esq.
          Peter F. Barry, Esq.
          BARRY & HELWIG, LLC
          2701 University Avenue SE, Suite 209
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 379-8800
          Facsimile: (612) 379-8810
          E-mail: phelwig@lawpoint.com
                  pbarry@lawpoint.com


WADDELL INC: Bunn-O-Matic Dropped From TCPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, ruled on the motions in the case
MITCHELL D. JACOBS, d/b/a JACOBS LAW FIRM, Plaintiff, v. WADDELL,
INC., d/b/a PURITAN SPRINGS WATER, INC. and BUNN-O-MATIC CORP.,
and JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendants, No. 4:14 cv 432 RWS (E.D. Mo.)

Plaintiff Mitchell D. Jacobs d/b/a Jacobs Law Firm filed a
proposed class action against Defendants Waddell, Inc. d/b/a
Puritan Springs Water, Inc. and Bunn-O-Matic Corp. for alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 ("TCPA"). Jacobs alleges that he received two
unsolicited faxes from Defendants advertising a coffee and water
delivery service. Jacobs asserts that he never gave permission to
receive these fax advertisements and that neither of the faxes
contained an opt-out notice as required under the TCPA. In
addition to his claims under TCPA, Jacobs' complaint contains a
common law conversion claim and a Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act, Section 407.020(1) R.S.Mo. (MMPA) claim. Plaintiff also filed
a motion for class certification.

Bunn-O-Matic has moved to dismiss the claims against it because
there is no allegation in the complaint that Bunn sent the faxes.

Waddell also filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the faxes
were not unsolicited because the faxes were addressed to an
"Anthony" at the Jacobs Law Firm. Jacobs denies that he solicited
or gave permission to send the faxes.

In his memorandum and order dated November 19, 2014, which is
available at http://is.gd/tverBXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Sippel
granted Bunn-O-Matic's motion to dismiss and denied Waddell's
motion to dismiss plaintiff's TCPA claim.  The Court, however,
granted Waddell's motion to dismiss plaintiff's conversion and
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claims with prejudice.

Plaintiff' motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice and Waddell's motion to strike or stay plaintiff's
motion for class certification is denied as moot.

Mitchell D. Jacobs, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
     ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
     8816 Manchester Rd., #109
     St. Louis, MO 63144
     Telephone: 866-443-2889

          - and -

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
     James M. Smith, Esq.
     BOCK AND HATCH, LLC
     134 N LaSalle St # 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 658-5500

Waddell, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     James C. Ochs, Esq.
     OCHS AND KLEIN
     149 N. Meramec Ave., 2nd Floor
     Clayton, MO 63102
     Telephone: (314) 727-2111
     Facsimile: (314) 727-2110


WAGNER WELLNESS: Class Certification Granted in Sandusky Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David A. Katz of the Northern District of Ohio,
Western Division, granted plaintiff's motion in the case SANDUSKY
WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, Plaintiff, v. WAGNER WELLNESS, INC., et al.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:12 CV 2257 (N.D. Ohio)

Sandusky Wellness is an Ohio limited liability company located in
Sandusky, Ohio.

Wagner Wellness engages in the business of selling vitamins and
nutritional supplements with its principal place of business in
Longwood, Florida. Wagner Wellness is owned by Robert and April
Wagner and the business has no other employees.

Sandusky Wellness alleged that the defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by
sending an unsolicited advertisement, via facsimile, to promote
their business and invite physicians to seminars discussing their
products. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

Judge Katz granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and
certifies the following class:

"All persons who (1) on or after September 5, 2008, (2) were sent
telephone facsimile messages inviting attendance at a Physicians
Wellness and Weight Loss Program, and (3) which did not display a
proper opt-out notice."

Judge Katz appointed F Scott D. Simpkins of Climaco, Wilcox, Peca,
Tarantino & Garofoli Co. LPA; Brian J. Wanca and Ryan M Kelly of
Anderson + Wanca as class counsel, with Mr. Simpkins being deemed
lead counsel. Moreover, Sandusky Wellness's counsel are ordered to
file a proposed notification form which complies with
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(c), together with a statement describing
the method by which the notice will be provided to class members
and a list of persons to whom the notice will be sent on or before
April 3, 2015. Finally, class counsels are put on notice that any
claim for attorney's fees will be closely scrutinized for
duplication and value of the time spent.

A copy of Judge Katz's memorandum opinion and order dated December
1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/60OFE3from Leagle.com

Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- Bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan M. Kelly -
Rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca;  Scott D.
Simpkins -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- at Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca,
Wilcox & Garofoli

Wagner Wellness Inc. and Robert Wagner Defendants, represented by
Dale E. Markworth -- dmarkworth@mggmlpa.com -- Jaclyn C. Staple --
jstaple@mggmlpa.com -- Timothy T. Reid -- treid@mggmlpa.com -- at
Mansour Gavin; R. Brian Borla -- bborla@hcplaw.net -- at Hanna,
Campbell & Powell


WEGMANS FOOD: Moves "Mladenov" Suit to New Jersey District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mladenov, et al. v. Wegmans Food
Markets, Inc., Case No. CAM L 4789 14, was removed from the Camden
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Camden).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-00373-NLH-AMD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts fraud claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aneliya M. Angelova, Esq.
          ANGELOVA LAW FIRM, LLC
          10000 Lincoln Dr. East, Suite 201
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (609) 271-3573
          Facsimile: (609) 257-4115
          E-mail: aneliya.angelova@yahoo.com
                  angelovalawfirm@gmail.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Rules on "Keller" Injunction Bid
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard A. Jones granted the motion and entered a
limited preliminary injunction, in the case captioned SCOTT KELLER
and MARNIE KELLER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS FARGO
INSURANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. C14-422 RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

Scott Keller and Marnie Keller filed a class action on behalf of
the Kellers and others similarly situated against Wells Fargo Bank
alleging that they are the owners of the house subject for the
foreclosure sale.

Plaintiffs alleged the existence of hazard insurance contract
through Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company, consistent
performance of paying their original mortgage payment and a breach
by defendant for failure to correct errors which caused them
damage. In addition, Plaintiff claimed unjust enrichment and
violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

Accordingly, the Kellers moved for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction enjoining the foreclosure of their
home.

Judge Jones held that Plaintiffs must establish that (1) they are
likely to succeed on the merits, (2) they are likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the
balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) an injunction is
in the public interest.  Here, the loss of Plaintiffs' home would
result in irreparable harm and the equities tip in Plaintiffs'
favor and public interest is served in temporarily enjoining
defendant from proceeding with the foreclosure sale.

A copy of the Order dated November 25, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/E7xyh6from Leagle.com.

Scott Keller, Plaintiff, represented by Adria Vondra --
avondra@vondralawfirm.com -- NORTHWEST CONSUMER LAW CENTER, Beth E
Terrell -- bterell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE
PLLC, David Arthur Leen, LEEN & O'SULLIVAN & Jennifer Rust Murray
-- jmurray@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC.

Marnie Keller, Plaintiff, represented by Adria Vondra, NORTHWEST
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, Beth E Terrell, TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT &
WILLIE PLLC, David Arthur Leen, LEEN & O'SULLIVAN & Jennifer Rust
Murray, TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Robert Joseph
Bocko -- robert.bocko@kyl.com -- KEESAL YOUNG & LOGAN & Molly J.
Henry -- molly.henry@kyl.com -- KEESAL YOUNG & LOGAN.

Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert
Joseph Bocko, KEESAL YOUNG & LOGAN & Molly J. Henry, KEESAL YOUNG
& LOGAN.


WHOLE FOODS: Removes "Mladenov" Suit to New Jersey District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Mladenov, et al. v. Whole Foods,
Inc., Case No. CAM L 4790 14, was removed from the Camden County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Camden).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-00382-JBS-AMD to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs were induced to purchase
unspecified "bread and bakery products" from Whole Foods based on
allegedly misleading in-store signage describing the products as
"made in house."  The Plaintiffs allege that the products are not
freshly baked but are pre-baked elsewhere, and are only reheated
or half-baked prior to sale.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aneliya M. Angelova, Esq.
          10000 Lincoln Drive East, Suite 201
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (609) 271-3573
          E-mail: aneliya.angelova@yahoo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David E. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Telephone: (973) 360-7900
          E-mail: sellingerd@gtlaw.com


WISCONSIN SECURE: W.D. Wis. Judge Rejects Inmate's Recusal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Conley of the Western District of
Wisconsin denied plaintiff's motions in the case entitled ROBERT
TATUM, and all similarly situated DOC/CCI Inmates, Plaintiff, v.
MIKE MEISNER, and CATHY JESS, Defendants, No. 13-CV-44-WMC (W.D.
Wis.)

Robert L. Tatum, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility and previously incarcerated at Columbia
Correctional Institution, filed an action on January 18, 2013,
with motions following in early February for class certification
and preliminary injunction or TRO. At the end of September 2013,
the court denied those motions as well as a separate motion for
recruitment of counsel, and directed him to advise which of as
many as five possible causes of action he wished to pursue in his
lawsuit.

After denying repeated motions for reconsideration and entering
judgment dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice for failure to
narrow his claims in December 2013, the court reopened the case in
September 2014 in response to a third, post-judgment motion to
reconsider.

At the same time, the court granted Tatum leave to proceed with
claims under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Sections
2000cc-2(b), against the warden of the Columbia Correctional
Institution, Michael Meisner and the DOC Administrator for the
Division of Adult Institutions Cathy Jess concerning the
nutritional adequacy of Ramadan meals.

Tatum now seeks; (1) the recusal of Judge Conley on the current
case; (2) review of the court's order granting his third motion
for reconsideration, which allows him to proceed only against
defendants Michael Meisner and Cathy Jess on claims under the
First Amendment Free Exercise clause and the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Section
2000cc-2(b); and (3) certification of a class action and
appointment of class counsel.

Judge Conley denied all Tatum's motions but provided him
additional guidelines on the process for certifying the case as a
class action and appointment of class counsel.

A copy of Judge Conley's opinion and order dated November 18,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/t4wAPIfrom Leagle.com.

Robert L. Tatum, and All Similarly Situated DOC/CCI Inmates,
Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by:

     Jody J. Schmelzer
     Wisconsin Department of Justice
     P.O. Box 7857
     Madison, WI 53707-7857
     Telephone: (608) 266-1221
     Facsimile: (608) 267-2779


WON PAT INT'L: Faces "Crawford" Suit Over Civil Rights Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vicente Palacios Crawford, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Antonio B. Won Pat International
Airport Authority, Guam, Edward G. Untalan, Eddie Baza Calvo,
Anita F. Orlino, all in their official capacities only, and Does 1
- 5, Case No. 1:15-cv-00001 (D. Guam, January 16, 2015) asserts
Civil Rights claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio Cruz Aguigui, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF IGNACIO CRUZ AGUIGUI APC
          RK Plaza, Suite 310
          341 S. Marine Corps Drive
          Tamuning, GU 96913
          Telephone: (671) 989-9253
          Facsimile: (671) 989-9255
          E-mail: ica@aguigui.com


Y & D CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Najar and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Y & D Construction Services, Inc., Yoel Vega, Case No.
1:15-cv-20190-DPG (S.D. Fla., January 19, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants have employed several similarly situated employees like
the Plaintiff, who have not been paid overtime and minimum wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Y & D Construction Services, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  Yoel Vega is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


                             *********

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  * * *