CAR_Public/150129.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 21


                             Headlines

120 PHO REAL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
811 ELMONT RD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 7th Cir. Affirms District Court Ruling
ADOBE SYSTEMS: March 2015 Hearing for Initial Settlement Approval
AMERICAN HOME: Arbitrator Report in "Smith" Case Reversed in Part

ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Accord in "Monson" Shareholder Suit Okayed
BATHING BRANDS: Faces "Kraemer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BEER STORE: Responds to Beer Price-Fixing Class Action in Ontario
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Wants Battery Suit to Remain in Fed. Court
BNSF RAILWAY: D. Neb. Judge Denied Plaintiff's Discovery Demands

C.R. BARD: S.D.W. Va. Judge Disqualified Expert Witness
CARPENTER CO: April 2 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
CHEVRON CORP: Judge Narrows Claims in "Ogala" Suit
CHUMLEYS OF COLUMBUS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overitme Wages
CITIFINANCIAL INC: Appellate Court Remands Case to Trial Court

COMM 2012-LC4: Court Okays Dismissal of State Court Suit
COMVERGE INC: Del. Court Narrows Claims in Shareholder Suit
CONNECTICUT: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Health Department
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Magistrate Judge Recommends Revision of Suit
DEOLEO USA: Faces Class Action Over Olive Oil Deceptive Marketing

DICK'S SPORTING: Recalls Fitness Gear Inversion Table
DISH NETWORK: Judge Converts Order of Denial to "With Prejudice"
DOLE PACKAGED: N.D. Cal. Judge Denies Motion for Reconsideration
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Class Action
DRIVERS SOLUTIONS: D. Ariz. Judge Certifies Narrow Class

DUPONT: Judge Grants Motions to Enforce Class Action Settlement
EIGHT STAR: Faces "Hua" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EILLIEN'S CANDIES: Recalls Walnut Products Over Salmonella Scare
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 25,000 Mesh Cases Pending as of Nov. 3
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Entered Into Master Settlement Agreements

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in Pending MCP Cases
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 40 Propoxyphene Cases Pending v. Qualitest
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Testosterone Class Suit Pending in Canada
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Testosterone Class Action Filed in Illinois
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: No Decision Yet on Bids to Dismiss Complaints

ESH LABORATORY: Faces "Portillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EXXON MOBIL: Judge Narrows Plaintiffs' Requests for Discovery
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Judge Denies Co-Defendant's Bid to Dismiss Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: Judge Won't Allow Reimbursement to Non-Party
GABRIEL HOMES: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

GENERAL MOTORS: Menora Group Loses Appeal on Lead Plaintiff Bid
GGNSC SCOTTSBLUFF: D. Neb. Judge Directed Parties to Arbitrate
GLAXOSMITHLINE LLC: E.D. Pa. Judge Won't Certify Class
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Faces Suit Over Local Homestead Exemption
H-E-B: Recalls Tortilla Soup & Corn Chowder Due to Peanuts

HAPPY APPLES: Expands Recall of Caramel Apple Due to Listeria
HOME RETENTION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Gregory" FDCPA Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Plaintiffs' Claims to be Litigated in "Goebel"
INTEGRITY STAFFING: Supreme Court Reversed 9th Cir. Judgment
INTELLIGENDER LLC: Court Approves Class Action Settlement

INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
INVENSENSE INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
JC SOFTWARE: "Milo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
KEYSTONE MERCY: Pa. Superior Court Narrows "Baum" Class Cert. Bid
LA FLOR: Recalls Ground Cumin Due to Undeclared Peanuts

LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL: Judge Strikes Third Amended Complaint
LES SCHWAB: Judge Denies Class Cert. Bid in "O'Hearn" Suit
LIFELOCK INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Marketing Practices
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: Sued Over Illegal Use of Names & Likeness
M3P DIRECTIONAL: Faces "Graham" 1st Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

M3P DIRECTIONAL: Faces "Graham" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MGIC INVESTMENT: To Vigorously Defend Against Class Actions
MICHIGAN: Appellate Court Remands "Fulicea" Case to Claims Court
MOLYCORP INC: Colorado Judge Stays Consolidated Suit
MORNINGSTAR FARMS: Recalls Spicy & Chipotle Black Bean Burgers

NATIONAL CREDITORS: "Campo" and "Diaz" Suits Consolidated
NEW YORK LIFE: Claims on Policy Barred by Statute of Limitations
NORM KRAMER: Judge Denies Detainee's Motion for Reconsideration
RAMIN DESIGN: Faces "Sheldon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
RANCHO CORDOVA: Class Certification Motion Due July 1

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Entered Into MOU to Settle North Carolina Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Entered Into MOU to Resolve Delaware Case
RIDDELL INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consumers' Concussion Suit
SAKUMA BROTHERS: Responds to Berry Pickers' Suit Over Rest Breaks
SANTA BARBARA SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Assorted Smoked Salmon Brands

SHARDA PAPER: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Rosas" Suit Claims
SOUTH CAROLINA: DSS Faces Class Action Over Foster Care System
SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Snyder" Suit in Pa. Over ADA Violations
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Minnesota Judge Won't Decertify Class
STATE FARM: S.D. Ill. Judge Denies Discovery Bid in "Hale" Suit

TAJ ETHNIC: Recalls Indian Sauces Due to Undeclared Peanuts
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Injunction Bid in Stockholders' Suit Denied
UNIVERSAL AUTO: W.D. Wash. Judge Denies Class Certification
V3 BUILDERS: Faces "Baeza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VERIZON WIRELESS: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Doc Production Request

VERMONT COUNTY STORE: "Forauer" Class Deal Gets Final Court OK
VIBRAM USA: "Bezdek" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
VISA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Gamestop Rewards Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Ill. Appeals Court Upholds Judgment
WALLCUR: Recalls Practi-0.9% Sodium Chloride IV Bags

WAXING GROUP: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Salted Caramel Crispies Due to Tree Nut
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Assorted Cookie Platters Due to Peanuts
WINN-DIXIE: Recalls Sour Cream Lemon Pies Due to Coconut Allergen
WORLD WRESTLING: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Wrestler Mistreatment

YOUR MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
ZALICUS INC: Court Declines to Close Shareholder Litigation
ZENOBIA COMPANY: Recalls MY Spice Sage Cumin Ground Due to Peanut


                            *********


120 PHO REAL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Isidoro Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 120 Pho Real Corp. (d/b/a Pho Sure), Benjamin Binh
Thai Luong, and Michael Huu Huynh, Case No. 1:15-cv-00432
(S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 120
Christopher Street, New York, New York 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


811 ELMONT RD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------s------------------
Maria Henriquez a/k/a Maria Henriquez Garcia, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. 811 Elmont Rd General
Merchandise, Inc. and Abdul Hameed, Case No. 2:15-cv-00333
(E.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a home variety stores in Elmont,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vivian Victoria Walton, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Boulevard
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: vw@employmentlawyernewyork.com


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 7th Cir. Affirms District Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel Anthony Manion of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the approval of the district
court in the appellate case LINDA WONG, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ACCRETIVE
HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL OF: JAMES J.
HAYES, No. 14-2191 (7th Cir).

Accretive is a nationwide company that provides cost control,
revenue cycle management, and compliance services primarily to
not-for-profit healthcare providers.

The Indiana State Police Benefit System (ISPBS) alleged that
Accretive provided its services through overly aggressive
collection practices and with inadequate regulatory compliance,
conduct that was both illegal and in violation of its contracts
with Fairview. ISPBS further alleged that Accretive concealed this
fact and instead represented that it complied with the law and its
contractual obligations in an effort to artificially inflate the
price of Accretive common stock.

Accretive moved to dismiss all claims on the grounds that the
alleged misrepresentations were mere puffery or immaterial
omissions not actionable as securities fraud and that ISPBS did
not adequately allege scienter.

The parties entered in to mediation and agreed to the mediator's
proposal of $14 million to settle all claims against Accretive.
The district court granted ISPBS's motion for preliminary approval
of the class settlement and plan of distribution and denied
Accretive's motion to dismiss as moot. The proposed settlement of
$14 million amounted to $0.20 per share, or $0.14 per share once
attorneys' fees and expenses were deducted. Only one individual
opted out of the class settlement, and only Hayes filed an
objection.

At the fairness hearing, the district court granted final approval
to the class settlement and plan of distribution and overruled
Hayes's objection. The district court awarded attorneys' fees of
30% of the settlement proceeds, or $4.2 million, and expenses in
the amount of $63,911.14. Hayes did not attend the proceedings.

Hayes raises five arguments on appeal: 1) the settlement recovers
too low a percentage of class members' potential damages; 2) the
plan of distribution provides settlement funds to those who were
not damaged by the alleged fraud; 3) a district court lacks
sufficient information to judge the fairness of a class action
settlement prior to ruling on a motion to dismiss; 4) the
appellate court should adopt a rule that attorneys' fees in class
action settlements are deducted from each claim paid by the
settlement fund at a set rate per share, what he calls "per share
terms"; and, 5) the appellate court should direct the district
court on remand to replace the lead plaintiff with the named
plaintiff and himself.

The appellate court affirmed the district court's approval of the
settlement and plan distribution seeing that the latter did not
abuse its discretion.

A copy of Circuit Judge Manion's decision dated December 9, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/XQ7Kidfrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Joel Martin Flaum, David F. Hamilton and Daniel
Anthony Mason.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: March 2015 Hearing for Initial Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Systems Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended November 28, 2014, that the hearing for
preliminary approval of the settlement in the In Re High-Tech
Employee Antitrust Litigation is set for March 2015.

Between May 4, 2011 and July 14, 2011, five putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Santa Clara Superior Court and Alameda
Superior Court in California. On September 12, 2011, the cases
were consolidated into In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation ("HTEAL") pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In the
consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Adobe, along with
Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, agreed not to
recruit each other's employees in violation of Federal and state
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs claim the alleged agreements suppressed
employee compensation and deprived employees of career
opportunities.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary
damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys fees. All defendants
deny the allegations and that they engaged in any wrongdoing of
any kind.

On October 24, 2013, the court certified a class of all persons
who worked in the technical, creative, and/or research and
development fields on a salaried basis in the United States for
one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through
December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c)
Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March
2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through
December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December
2009; or (g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009,
excluding retail employees, corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors, and senior executives of all defendants.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2014, the parties reached a
settlement to resolve this lawsuit, subject to the Court's
approval. On August 8, 2014, the Court rejected the settlement
agreement jointly submitted by the parties. During the first
quarter of fiscal 2015, the parties reached another agreement to
settle the litigation.

On January 15, 2015, the agreement was submitted to the Court
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. The hearing for
preliminary approval is set for March 2015.

"We accrued a loss contingency of $10.0 million associated with
this matter during the first quarter of fiscal 2014," the Company
said.


AMERICAN HOME: Arbitrator Report in "Smith" Case Reversed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, DOCKET NO. 2:15 MD 1203, NO. 99-
20593, (E.D. Penn.), Linda O. Smith seeks benefits from the AHP
Settlement Trust (Trust) under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) with Wyeth,
Inc.  Before the court is the appeal of Ms. Smith from a September
23, 2014 determination by an arbitrator that although her claim
was ripe for appeal she was not entitled to Matrix Compensation
Benefits (Matrix Benefits) because her claim documentation was
incomplete.

"Our current task is not to determine whether Ms. Smith is
entitled to Matrix Benefits. We must simply assess whether it was
clear error for the Arbitrator to conclude that the Trust did not
clearly err in denying Ms. Smith's claim as incomplete," wrote
District Judge Harvey Bartle, III, in a memorandum dated January
13, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/N4Rv0Tfrom
Leagle.com.  "Based on the undisputed evidence presented by Ms.
Smith, the Arbitrator committed clear error in affirming the
Trust's denial of Ms. Smith's claim as incomplete. There is no
basis for the Arbitrator's pronouncement that the opinions of Ors.
Muttreja and Dlabal "are but bald assertions of comparative
conclusions." To the contrary, without a shred of contradictory
evidence provided by the Trust or any basis to deny the
credibility of Ors. Muttreja and Dlabal, the materials tendered by
Ms. Smith are more than adequate to support her claim that the
December 2001 echocardiogram is her own. Her claim is therefore
complete and must be permitted to proceed to audit."

Accordingly, the Report and Award of the Arbitrator is affirmed in
part and reversed in part, ruled Judge Bartle. The Arbitrator's
finding and conclusion that the Trust's November 7, 2001 e-mail
constituted a denial of Ms. Smith's claim for Matrix Benefits is
affirmed. The findings and conclusions of the Arbitrator are
otherwise reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Trust to
conduct the appropriate audit based upon the December 2001
echocardiogram and other documentation submitted by Ms. Smith.

This ruling relates to: SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION and Claimant Linda O. Smith with Claim No.
183/00 8240345.

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A.
CHIRLS -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- at FINEMAN KREKSTEIN &
HARRIS PC, ARNOLD LEVIN -- ALevin@LFSBLaw.com -- at LEVIN FISHBEIN
SEDRAN & BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL -- gerald.kell@usdoj.gov -- at
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN FITZPATRICK, at HARNES DICKET
PIERCE PLC, JULES S. HENSHELL -- jhenshell@sogtlaw.com -- at
SEMANOFF ORMSKY GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK --
patryk@hugheshubbard.com -- at HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT A.
LIMBACHER -- rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com -- at Goodell, DeVries, Leech
& Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI -- rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY
JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER --
mayer@hugheshubbard.com -- at HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED & RAND NOLEN
-- rand_nolen@fleming-law.com -- at FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP.

GREGORY P. MILLER, Special Master, is represented by GREGORY P.
MILLER -- Gregory.Miller@dbr.com -- at DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Accord in "Monson" Shareholder Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the Northern District of
Ohio made a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice
in the case of TERRY MONSON, derivatively on behalf of ASSOCIATED
ESTATES REALTY CORPORATION and individually on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated shareholders of ASSOCIATED
ESTATES REALTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY I. FRIEDMAN,
ALBERT T. ADAMS, MICHAEL E. GIBBONS, MARK L. MILSTEIN, JAMES J.
SANFILIPPO, JAMES A. SCHOFF, RICHARD T. SCHWARZ, AND JAMES M.
DELANEY, Defendants, and ASSOCIATED ESTATES REALTY CORPORATION, an
Ohio Corporation, Nominal Defendant, CASE No. 1:14-CV-01477 (N.D.
Ohio)

Judge Gaughan finds that, for purposes of settlement only, the
Action is a proper class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(1) and (2). Specifically, the Court finds
that: (a) the members of the Class are so numerous that separate
joinder of each member is impracticable; (b) there are questions
of law or fact common to the Class, including whether the
disclosures made by Associated Estates in the 2014 Proxy regarding
the Amended/Restated 2011 Plan in connection with solicitation of
shareholder votes the 2014 Annual Meeting were adequate and
whether the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to members of the Class as to those disclosures; (c) the claims or
defenses of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims or defenses of
the Class in that they all arise from the same alleged course of
conduct and are based on the same legal theories; (d) Plaintiff
and his counsel have fairly and adequately protected the interests
of Associated Estates and the Class; (e) the prosecution of
separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a
risk of either (i) inconsistent or varying adjudications with
respect to individual members of the Class that would establish
incompatible standards of conduct for the Individual Defendants,
or (ii) adjudications with respect to individual members of the
Class that would as a practical matter be dispositive of the
interests of the other members of the Class not parties to the
individual adjudications or substantially impair or impede their
ability to protect their interest; and (f) there were allegations
that Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally
applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect
to the Class as a whole.

For purposes of the Settlement only, the Action is certified as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(1) and (2) on behalf of the Class consisting of all owners
of Associated Estates common stock as of March 19, 2014, the
record date for the determination of stockholders who were
entitled to vote at the 2014 Annual Meeting, including any and all
of their respective successors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs,
assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them,
and each of them. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, members
of the immediate family of any of Defendants, any entity in which
any of Defendants has or had a controlling interest, and the legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such
excluded person.

For purposes of the Settlement only, Plaintiff Terry Monson is
certified as the representative of the Class. Plaintiff's Counsel
is certified as class counsel.

The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate as to each of the Parties and that the Settlement
provides substantial benefits to Associated Estates, its
shareholders, and members of the Class. The Court hereby finally
approves the Stipulation and the Settlement in all respects, and
orders the Parties to perform its terms to the extent the Parties
have not already done so.

The Action and all claims contained therein, as well as all
Released Claims, are dismissed with prejudice. As between
Plaintiff, the members of the Class, and the Defendants, the
Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided
in the Stipulation.

A copy of Judge Gaughan's final judgment and order dated November
25, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/KjsXYIfrom Leagle.com.

Terry Monson, Derivatively on behalf of Associated States Realty
Corp. and Individually and On Behalf of all other similarly
situated shareholders of Associated Estates Realty Corp.,
Plaintiff, represented by Aanchal Soni -- asoni@wilsonlawyers.com
-- Rochelle L. Paley -- rpaley@wilsonlawyers.com -- James D.
Wilson -- jwilson@wilsonlawyers.com -- at Law Office of James D.
Wilson; Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky

Defendants, represented by Adrienne F. Mueller --
afmueller@jonesday.com -- John M. Newman, Jr. --
jmnewman@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day


BATHING BRANDS: Faces "Kraemer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Kraemer, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. Bathing Brands, Inc., and David Sadowski,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00495 (N.D. Ill., January 19, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants manufacture residential and commercial steam bath
generators and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Fish, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. Fifith Ave., Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      Facsimile: (630) 929-7590
      E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com


BEER STORE: Responds to Beer Price-Fixing Class Action in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beer Store spokesperson Jeff Newton issued a statement about the
class action lawsuit filed against The Beer Store on Jan. 12.

Mr. Newton said "The Beer Store is reviewing the statement of
claim in detail, but the facts in this matter are clear and we
believe the claim has no merit."

"The plaintiffs' statement of claim contains factual errors which
demonstrate they lack an understanding of how Ontario's beer
retail system works.  In particular, the plaintiff's claim that
the Beer Store sets prices is false (paragraph 21).  The Beer
Store doesn't set the price of beer in Ontario.  Not only does
each brewer that sells in the Beer Store independently set its own
prices, these prices are approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis."

"In June 2000, the Beer Store and the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario entered into the Framework Agreement, which was intended
to benefit Ontario beer consumers.  The efficiencies of the Beer
Store system allow for great brand selection and for brewers to
independently set beer prices, which are the lowest average beer
prices in Canada.

"The agreement was common knowledge.  It was negotiated with the
LCBO pursuant to its powers under the Liquor Control Act. The
Government of Ontario directed and participated in these
negotiations.  Any other suggestion is misleading.

"The Beer Store has always operated according to the rules
established by the Government of Ontario for regulation, sale and
distribution of beer in this province.  The plaintiffs acknowledge
this in their claim, when they attempt to argue that aspects of
Ontario's regulatory scheme is itself illegal and the federal
government's Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act is
unconstitutional."

                      About The Beer Store

The Beer Store offers customers 490 brands, provided by 105
brewers.  Approximately 1-in-4 brands come from small Canadian
brewers.  It is a completely open system that allows any brewer in
the world to sell their brands in any store they choose.  The Beer
Store is deeply committed to responsible sale and not selling to
minors and people who are intoxicated.  More than 3.6 million
customers were challenged in 2013 alone.  It is also one of the
greenest retailers in the world and collected more than 1.7
billion beer bottles in 2012-2013 (a 92 per cent return rate) and
300 million wine and spirit containers (a 80 per cent return
rate).  The Beer Store employs 7,000 hard-working Ontarians with
well-paying full and part-time jobs.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Wants Battery Suit to Remain in Fed. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reports that BMW of North
America LLC said on Jan. 9 that a putative class action over
defective batteries should remain in New Jersey federal court
rather than state court because the plaintiffs are unable to
accurately estimate damages and may be forum shopping.

The automaker said it appreciated the plaintiffs' "candid"
estimate that their damages would not exceed the Class Action
Fairness Act's $5 million threshold, but it rejected that
contention and said the damages could potentially reach more than
$17 million.

"Simply because plaintiff says he does not believe his putative
class -- if ever it could be certified -- will surpass CAFA's $5
million and 100-member jurisdictional requirements is no more
reason to dismiss this action than [BMW's] belief that plaintiff
cannot state a claim or certify a class," the company said.

The complaint alleges that BMW violated its warranty and
maintenance agreements by refusing to replace defective batteries,
and it proposes a class composed of Florida residents and
businesses that purchased or leased a BMW within six years of the
suit's filing.

Lead plaintiff John J. Morano now seeks to narrow the class to
include only Floridians who paid out of pocket to replace a failed
battery after falling under BMW's since-abandoned "unfavorable
driver profile" provision, which denied new batteries to drivers
found to have driven extremely short distances over a prolonged
period.

Mr. Morano's complaint said that the battery in his 2009 BMW 650i
CV repeatedly lost its charge and wouldn't hold a charge.  He said
he paid approximately $150 for a new battery after BMW refused to
provide a replacement.

Filed in November, Mr. Morano's motion to dismiss the case and
send it to New Jersey state court estimated that, including
attorneys' fees, the damages would likely be less than $2.5
million.  He said BMW cannot prove to a legal certainty that the
new proposed class meets the requirements for CAFA jurisdiction.

On Jan. 9, BMW conceded that point, but countered that, just as it
can't prove the proposed class meets federal requirements,
Mr. Morano can't prove that it doesn't.

Aside from its concern that the damages are currently
"unknowable," BMW also argued it would be impossible to determine
members that would qualify under the new class definition because
its records don't include warranty claims that were rejected and
therefore not submitted.

The company also said that the plaintiffs would gain an unfair
tactical advantage by moving the complaint to state court.

"There is also a whiff of forum shopping at play here.  In the
three years since this action was filed, the landscape for class
certification in the Third Circuit has changed," BMW said.  "And
that change is significant to this case."

BMW said the Third Circuit's decisions in Marcus v. BMW of North
America, LLC and Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. resulted in a
higher bar for class certification that is absent from New Jersey
state courts, and it would therefore be unable to challenge class
membership as it can at the federal level.

BMW is represented by Rosemary Joan Bruno and Christopher J.
Dalton -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- of Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney PC.

Morano is represented by William J. Pinilis --
wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- of Pinilis Halpern.

The case is Morano v. BMW of North America LLC, case number 2:12-
cv-00606, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


BNSF RAILWAY: D. Neb. Judge Denied Plaintiff's Discovery Demands
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart of the District of Nebraska
denied plaintiff's motion in the case KELLY HEIM, Plaintiff, v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, No. 8:13CV369 (D. Neb.)

Kelly Heim injured his foot, while performing track maintenance
and repair for defendant BNSF. While being transported to a
hospital and under the influence of narcotic pain medications, a
railroad supervisor required him to complete a BNSF personal
injury report and directed him on how to answer the questions, in
which he did so.

BNSF initiated a disciplinary investigation charging plaintiff
with failing to be alert and attentive and failing to comply with
the instructions received at a morning safety meeting. After
conducting the investigation, on September 14, 2010, BNSF imposed
a 30-day record suspension and placed plaintiff on probation for
one year. The plaintiff's complaint alleges he was disciplined for
reporting a work-related injury in violation of the Federal
Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 20109. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for his lost income and emotional distress,
punitive damages, and an award of litigation costs and attorney
fees.

The plaintiff moves for an order compelling the defendant to
produce: 1) documents of all FRSA complaints filed by any BNSF
employee from five prior to the date Plaintiff's complaint was
filed to present, all findings on those complaints, and any
documentation of how those complaints were resolved; 2) all
documents which would serve as raw data to determine whether there
is a correlation between being injured and being disciplined,
including the discipline records for all BNSF employees who
suffered an FRA-reportable injury from five years preceding the
Complaint's filing to present; and 3) all documents concerning
'points assessed against employees for an injury.

The railroad objected to the discovery demands as overbroad,
encompassing irrelevant information, and demanding disclosure of
private and confidential information for non-party employees.

Magistrate Judge Zwart denied plaintiff's motion to compel.

A copy of Judge Zwart's memorandum and order dated December 9,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/5ledL4from Leagle.com.

Kelly Heim, Plaintiff, represented by:

     John P. Inserra, Esq.
     INSERRA, KELLEY LAW FIRM
     6790 Groover St, Ste 200
     Omaha, NE 68106
     Telephone: 402-391-4000

          - and -

     Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
     Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
     NICHOLS, KASTER LAW FIRM
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: 612-256-3200
     Facsimile: 612-338-4878
     Email: morgan@nka.com
            nthompson@nka.com

          - and -

     Russell A. Ingebritson, Esq.
     INGEBRITSON LAW FIRM
     IDS Center
     7141 Amundson Avenue
     Edina, MN 55439
     Telephone: 612-340-8290
     Facsimile: 612-342-2990
     Email: info@ingebritson.com

BNSF Railway Company, Defendant, represented by:

     Katherine Q. Martz, Esq.
     Thomas C. Sattler, Esq.
     SATTLER, BOGEN LAW FIRM
     701 P Street, Suite 301
     The Creamery Building
     Lincoln, NE 68505
     Telephone: 402-475-9400
     Facsimile: 402-475-9411


C.R. BARD: S.D.W. Va. Judge Disqualified Expert Witness
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert of the Southern District of West
Virginia, Charleston Division, granted C.R. Bard's motion to
disqualify an expert witness in the case entitled IN RE: C.R.
BARD, INC PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATIONIN RE:
C.R. BARD, INC PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL NO. 2187 (S.D.W. Va.)

This multidistrict litigation (MDL) involves surgical mesh
products designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by C. R. Bard,
Inc. to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary
incontinence, and is one of seven pelvic mesh MDLs currently
pending in court.

Dr. Neeraj Kohli was a preceptor for Bard. Dr. Kohli possessed
extensive knowledge of Bard's pelvic mesh products, implantation
procedures, and instructions for use prior to being retained by
Bard's legal counsel.

Taylor Daly, an attorney spearheading Bard's efforts to retain
expert witnesses on the safety and efficacy of its pelvic mesh
products, contacted Dr. Kohli by telephone to discuss his interest
in becoming an expert witness for Bard in pelvic mesh litigation.
Ms. Daly asked Dr. Kohli to act as an expert witness in the case
of Scott v. Kannappan, Bard et al., pending in the Superior Court
of California, County of Kern, and to provide opinions and
testimony on case-specific medical issues, as well as broader
issues relating to the history of vaginal mesh, his experience
with Bard's mesh products, the complications associated with mesh
products, foreign body reactions, Bard's training programs and
warnings, and Dr. Kohli's opinions and analysis of the FDA's
public health notices related to vaginal mesh products.

Dr. Kohli was contacted by Henry Garrard, counsel for plaintiffs
in the MDL, who asked Dr. Kohli if he had a consulting agreement
with Bard or any conflict of interest, in which Dr. Kohli answered
in negative. Mr. Garrard and his partner, Jim Matthews, met with
Dr. Kohli to determine if he would be interested in acting as an
expert witness for plaintiffs in the pelvic mesh MDL. After Dr.
Kohli signed a confidentiality agreement, they showed him some
documents that Bard had produced during discovery in the MDL,
including a material safety data sheet and internal
communications.  Dr. Kohli agreed to become involved in the MDL as
an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a designation and disclosure of general expert
witnesses applicable to all 200 Wave 1 and Wave 2 cases. Included
in this designation and disclosure was Dr. Neeraj Kohli. In
addition, plaintiffs filed a detailed Rule 26 expert report
prepared by Dr. Kohli in three specific MDL cases, although the
report was noted also to be applicable to all Wave 1 and Wave 2
cases.  Upon receiving the designation and disclosure, Bard's
counsel contacted Mr. Garrard and asked him to withdraw Dr. Kohli
as an expert witness given his prior and ongoing relationship with
Bard as an expert witness in the pelvic mesh litigation. Although
Mr. Garrard knew that Dr. Kohli had appeared as an expert witness
for Bard at the Scott trial, he refused to withdraw Dr. Kohli on
the basis that Dr. Kohli had been terminated as an expert witness
by Bard. Bard filed a motion to disqualify Dr. Kohli.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Eifert's order dated December 8, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/nQVeADfrom Leagle.com.


CARPENTER CO: April 2 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND NOTICE IN
CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENT

If You Purchased Certain Products -- Carpet Cushion, Bedding
Products (for example, mattresses or pillows), or Upholstered
Furniture -- Containing Polyurethane Foam, a Class Action Lawsuit
and Settlement May Affect Your Rights.

Si usted compro Cojin Alfombra, Ropa de cama (por ejemplo,
colchones o almohadas), o muebles tapizados que Contiene espuma de
poliuretano, una demanda colectiva y solucion puede afectar sus
derechos.  Para una notificacion en Espa¤ol, llamar o visitar
nuestro website.

A lawsuit called In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation,
Index No. 10-MD-2196 (JZ) is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Toledo.  The case is
about whether certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam (which is
used in carpet cushion, bedding products (such as, mattresses or
pillows), and upholstered furniture) conspired to raise the prices
of polyurethane foam.  On April 9, 2014, the Court decided that
this lawsuit could proceed as a class action on behalf of a
"Class" or group of people and entities that may include you.
Defendants petitioned for leave to appeal that decision and on
September 29, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
Defendants' request.  Additionally, a partial settlement has been
reached with two of the Defendants: Valle Foam Industries, Inc.
and Domfoam International, Inc. (the "Settling Defendants").  The
litigation is continuing against all other defendants (the "Non-
Settling Defendants").

The Court has not decided who is right or wrong and nothing in
this Notice or the Court's order permitting this case to proceed
as a class action expresses any opinion by the Court as to whether
the Class will ultimately be successful on their claims or whether
Defendants are in any way liable to the Class.  Instead, the Court
has ordered this notice to provide information so you may make an
informed decision regarding your legal rights.

This notice summarizes your rights and options before an upcoming
trial against the Non-Settling Defendants and related to the
proposed Partial Settlement.  More information is contained in a
detailed notice available at the website below.

What Is This Case About?
The lawsuit claims that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
increase prices of polyurethane foam, which is used in carpet
cushion, bedding products (like mattresses and pillows), and
upholstered furniture, and to allocate customers.  Plaintiffs
contend that Defendants' actions violated antitrust and consumer
protection laws in numerous states.  The parties have vigorously
litigated the suit for several years, including many motions and
an interlocutory appeal.  The Non-Settling Defendants deny that
they did anything wrong and/or that they are liable to the Class.
The Court has not decided who is right.  If this case goes to
trial, the lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims
with the Non-Settling Defendants at a trial.

Are You Affected?
If you purchased, not for resale, carpet cushion, bedding products
(for example, mattresses or pillows), or upholstered furniture
containing polyurethane foam made by Carpenter Co., Domfoam
International, Inc., FFP Holdings LLC (f/k/a/ Flexible Foam
Products LLC and f/k/a Flexible Foam Products, Inc.), FXI-Foamex
Innovations, Inc., Future Foam, Inc., Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Co., Mohawk Industries, Inc., Leggett & Platt,
Incorporated, Scottdel Inc., Valle Foam Industries, Inc., Vitafoam
Products Canada Limited, Vitafoam, Inc., Woodbridge Foam
Corporation, Woodbridge Sales & Engineering, Inc., or Woodbridge
Foam Fabricating, Inc., in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, HI, IL, IA, KS,
ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, RI, SD,
TN, VT, WV, WI during the period January 1, 1999 to the present,
then you are a member of the Class.  You are included in the Class
if you purchased polyurethane foam "indirectly," meaning that you
did not purchase polyurethane foam directly from any of the
Defendants, but instead bought a product from a company other than
one of the Defendants that incorporated polyurethane foam made by
one of the Defendants.

What Does the Partial Settlement Provide?
A Partial Settlement has been reached with the Settling
Defendants: Valle Foam Industries, Inc. and Domfoam International,
Inc.  No money is being paid by Valle Foam Industries, Inc. and
Domfoam International, Inc., but they have agreed to provide
substantial assistance to the Class in the prosecution of their
claims.

Who Represents You?
The Court has appointed Marvin A. Miller of Miller Law, LLC to
represent the Class.  The lawyers for the Class will have to prove
their claims with the remaining Defendants at a trial. No date has
been set for when the trial will begin.

What Are Your Options?
If you are included in the Class, you will need to decide whether
to: (1) stay in the Class or (2) ask to be excluded from the
Class.

To stay in the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time.
You will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the
Court, and you won't be able to sue, or continue to sue, the
Defendants as part of any other lawsuit for conspiring to fix
prices or allocate customers of polyurethane foam or polyurethane
foam products which contain polyurethane foam manufactured by
Defendants.

If you do not want to participate in this lawsuit or the Partial
Settlement, you may request to exclude yourself from the Class.
If you exclude yourself, you will not be bound by or benefit from
any court orders, jury verdicts, or settlements approved by the
Court, but you keep your right to sue or otherwise resolve your
claims, if any, with Defendants on your own.  Requests to Exclude
must be in writing and received by March 13, 2015.  You can obtain
more information at www.PolyFoamClassAction.com

The Court will hold a hearing on April 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. at
the Carl B. Stokes U.S. Court House, 801 W. Superior Avenue,
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 to consider whether to approve the proposed
Partial Settlement with Valle and Domfoam.  If you stay in the
Class, you may object or comment on the Partial Settlement by
March 13, 2015.  You or your own lawyer may, but are not required
to, ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own cost. The
Court may change the date, time or location of the hearing. To
obtain the most up-to-date information regarding the hearing date
and location, please visit www.PolyFoamClassAction.com or call
866-302-7323.

If you have questions or want a detailed Notice or other documents
about this lawsuit and your rights, go to
www.PolyFoamClassAction.com or call 866-302-7323. Para una
notificacion en Espa¤ol, llamar o visitar nuestro website.


CHEVRON CORP: Judge Narrows Claims in "Ogala" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti of the Northern District of California
ruled on the motions in the case FOSTER OGALA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-173-SC (N.D.
Cal.)

On January 16, 2012, an explosion occurred on the KS Endeavor
drilling rig, which was drilling for natural gas in the North Apoi
Field off of the coast of Nigeria. Plaintiffs are persons who
reside in the Niger Delta region of southern Nigeria and claims to
represent a class of 65,000 people who were affected by the
explosion, fire, and resulting environmental damage. Plaintiffs
allege that the KS Endeavor was operated by KS Drilling under the
management of Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL), which in turn acted
at Defendant Chevron's direction.

This is the third motion to dismiss in this case. The Court
dismissed Plaintiffs' original complaint in large part because
Plaintiffs failed to properly allege that Chevron was liable --
either directly or secondarily -- for CNL's actions. Plaintiffs
resolved that problem in their first amended complaint, but the
Court dismissed that complaint as well, because Plaintiffs failed
to allege that the lead plaintiffs had suffered injury in fact.
Plaintiffs responded with their second amended complaint.

Chevron Corp. filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint (SAC). Chevron moves in the alternative to strike
plaintiffs' assertions of claims on behalf of, and separately by,
the communities in which they live.

Judge Conti ruled that the defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's public nuisance
claim is dismissed with prejudice, but Chevron's motion is denied
with respect to all other claims. Chevron's motion to strike is
granted to the extent that the second amended complaint asserts
claims on behalf of communities rather than the communities'
individual members.

A copy of Judge Conti's order dated November 25, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/zaM4Vrfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Neil James Fraser, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF NEIL J. FRASER
     945 Mayo St.
     Los Angeles, CA 90042
     Telephone: (323 254-5781)

          - and -

     Jacqueline Anne Perry, Esq.
     RUFUS-ISAACS, ACLAND AND GRANTHAM, LLP
     232 N Canon Dr
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (310) 274-3803
     Facsimile: (310) 733-7442
     E-mail: jperry@rufuslaw.com

Chevron Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by David L. Wallach -- dwallach@jonesday.com -- at
Jones Day

Chevron Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert Allan
Mittelstaedt -- ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- Caroline Nason
Mitchell -- cnmitchell@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day.


CHUMLEYS OF COLUMBUS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overitme Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Graham, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Chumleys of Columbus, LLC, Daniel Schreiber, Debra Bruce, and
Cassandra Coldren, Case No. 2:15-cv-00136 (S.D. Ohio, January 19,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar located at
1918 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
      Columbus, OH 43219
      Telephone: (614) 604-8759
      Facsimile: (614) 583-8107
      E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com


CITIFINANCIAL INC: Appellate Court Remands Case to Trial Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Eileen Gallagher of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eight
District, Cuyahoga County reversed and remanded the case KAREN
RIMMER, ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. CITIFINANCIAL, INC.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, No. 101254 (Ohio Ct. App.)

Karen Rimer sued Citifinancial alleging that Citi failed to file
an entry of satisfaction of mortgage with the county recorder
within 90 days of full payment of the mortgage, in violation of
R.C. 5301.36. Rimmer sought automatic damages, interest, and costs
as allowed under R.C. 5301.36(C).

Rimmer filed a motion for class certification and moved for
partial summary judgment as to her individual claim against Citi.
Citi also moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of Rimmer on her individual claim. The
court, however, denied her motion for class certification, without
providing an analysis. Rimmer appealed the trial court's denial of
class certification. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the
summary judgment in favor of Rimmer on her individual claim,
rejecting Citi's claim that it timely processed Rimmer's release
and was entitled to a presumption of timely delivery.

Citi appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio and the court remanded
the case to the Eighth District for further consideration in light
of its decision in Alexander v. Wells Fargo Fin. Ohio 1, Inc. In
Alexander, the Ohio Supreme Court held that an arbitration
agreement is applicable to statutory mortgage satisfaction claims.
Upon remand, the trial court issued a decision certifying the
class but excluded individuals who had an arbitration agreement in
their loan agreements.

Rimmer filed her second appeal seeking to define the class for
this litigation. On appeal, the court agreed with Rimmer that the
trial court's definition limited the class to persons who entered
into mortgage agreements only with Citifinancial Inc.

The appellate court ordered the trial court on remand, to revise
the definition to properly reflect the inclusion of those
individuals.

On remand, the trial court again failed to insert the
parenthetical clause (or any predecessor or other entity) after
both mentions of Citifinancial as instructed by the Appeals Court.

Rimmer now appeals asserting the following sole assignment of
error: The trial court erred in changing the wording of the class
definition ordered by this court in its Judgment/Mandate of
December 26, 2013, by omitting certain mortgagors of predecessors
or other entities acquired, merged with, or otherwise now part of
Citifinancial, including affiliates, subsidiaries, and/or related
lending institutions.

Justice Gallagher reversed the judgment of the trial court and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

A copy of Justice Gallagher's journal entry and opinion dated
November 26, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/LiDwl8from
Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Appellant:

     Brian Ruschel, Esq.
     925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 660
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Telephone: 216-621-3370

        - and -

     Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
     DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
     60 South Park Place
     Painesville, OH 44077
     Telephone: 216-206-6414
     Facsimile: 216-861-1403
     E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

Attorneys for Appellee:

     James L. Defeo, Esq.
     Kip T. Bollin, Esq.
     THOMPSON HINE L.L.P.
     3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Telephone: 216-566-5500
     Facsimile: 216-566-5800
     E-mail: Jim.DeFeo@ThompsonHine.com
             Kip.Bollin@ThompsonHine.com

The panel of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District,
Cuyahoga County, consists of Associate Justice Mary J. Boyle and
Justices Patricia A. Blackmon and Eileen A. Gallagher.


COMM 2012-LC4: Court Okays Dismissal of State Court Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
COMM 2012-LC4 Mortgage Trust said in its Form 10-D Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2015,
that in December 2014, the class action plaintiffs' motion to
voluntarily dismiss their original state court complaint was
granted.

In June 2014, a civil complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, by a group of
institutional investors against U.S. Bank National Association
("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as
the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts.  The plaintiffs are investment funds
formed by nine investment advisors (AEGON, BlackRock, Brookfield,
DZ Bank, Kore, PIMCO, Prudential, Sealink and TIAA) that purport
to be bringing suit derivatively on behalf of 841 RMBS trusts that
issued $771 billion in original principal amount of securities
between 2004 and 2008.  According to the plaintiffs, cumulative
losses for these RMBS trusts equal $92.4 billion as of the date of
the complaint.  The complaint is one of six similar complaints
filed against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank
of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo) by certain of these
plaintiffs.  The complaint against U.S. Bank alleges the trustee
caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the
sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS
trusts and asserts causes of action based upon the trustee's
purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage
loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and
warranties concerning loan quality.  The complaint also asserts
that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported
events of default allegedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan
servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by
appropriate standards of care following events of default.  Relief
sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable relief.

In November 2014, the plaintiffs sought leave to voluntarily
dismiss their original state court complaint and filed a
substantially similar complaint in the United States District
Court for the Sourthern District of New York.  The federal civil
complaint added a class action allegation and a change in the
total number of named trusts to 843 RMBS trusts.  In December
2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original
state court complaint was granted.  Other cases alleging similar
causes of action have previously been filed against U.S. Bank and
other trustees by RMBS investors in other transactions.


COMVERGE INC: Del. Court Narrows Claims in Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons, Jr. of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware ruled on the parties' motion in the case entitled IN RE
COMVERGE, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO.
7368-VCP (Del. Ch.)

Gary K. Schultz and Saravanan Somlinga are stockholders who owned
common stock at Comverge, Inc.

Comverge was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Norcross, Georgia. Each of Comverge's ten directors,
R. Blake Young, Nora Mead Brownell, Alec G. Dreyer, Rudolf J.
Hoefling, A. Laurence Jones, David R. Kuzma, John T. McCarter,
James J. Moore, Joseph M. O'Donnell, and John S. Rego, the Board
or the Director Defendants, and together with the Company, are
also named Defendants. Of the ten directors, only Young, the
President and CEO, was employed by the Company. Defendant H.I.G.
Capital, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, is a
private equity and venture capital firm with approximately $8.5
billion under management. Defendants Peak Holding Corp. and Peak
Merger Sub are HIG affiliates and Delaware corporations.

H.I.G. acquired Comverge in 2012 through merger.  Schultz and
Somlinga and three other plaintiffs each filed their own
complaint. Count I of the Complaint alleges that the Director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
Comverge by failing to take reasonable steps to maximize the value
of the Company in the Merger with HIG. The Comverge defendants
seek to dismiss this Count on the ground that any duty of care
claim is exculpated by a provision in Comverge's charter pursuant
to 8 Del. C. Section 102(b)(7), and that the facts as alleged do
not give rise to a reasonably conceivable claim for breach of the
duty of loyalty. Count II charges the HIG defendants with aiding
and abetting the fiduciary breaches that allegedly were committed
by the director defendants. Plaintiffs allege that those breaches
would not and could not have occurred but for HIG's conduct, and
that HIG knowingly participated in the director defendants'
breaches.

The HIG defendants seek dismissal of this claim for two reasons.
First, the complaint fails to state a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty on the part of the Comverge defendants and, without
such an underlying breach, there cannot be any liability for
aiding and abetting. Second, they argue that the allegations in
the complaint do not support a reasonable inference that the HIG
defendants knowingly participated in the Comverge defendants'
fiduciary breaches, if any actually occurred. Plaintiffs respond
that they have alleged, at a minimum, duty of care violations, and
while Comverge's 102(b)(7) provision may exculpate directors from
monetary liability for such breaches, it does not preclude a claim
of aiding and abetting against HIG. In their motion to strike,
plaintiffs accuse the HIG defendants of improperly introducing
into the record an early draft of the NDA that is not referenced
in the Complaint or included among the related documents. The HIG
defendants contend that the document is integral to, and were
referenced in the complaint, and therefore may be considered on a
motion to dismiss.

Vice Chancellor Parsons granted in part and denied in part the
Comverge defendant's motion to dismiss; and granted entirely HIG
defendants' motion to dismiss.  In particular, the Complaint is
dismissed in its entirety as to Comverge, Inc., and is dismissed
as to the director defendants except as it relates to plaintiffs'
claim for breach of fiduciary duties based on the Merger
Agreement's termination fees and expense reimbursement, and the
Convertible Notes considered in the aggregate. The Complaint is
dismissed in its entirety as to the HIG defendants. Plaintiffs'
motion to strike is denied as moot.

A copy of Vice Chancellor Parsons's memorandum opinion dated
November 25, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/PNtNmefrom
Leagle.com.

Carmella P. Keener, Esq. -- ckeener@rmgglaw.com -- P. Bradford
deLeeuw, Esq. -- bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com -- at ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT &
GODDESS, P.A.; Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl-legal.com --
Brian D. Long, Esq. -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra, Esq.
-- gms@rl-legal.com -- at RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.; James R. Banko,
Esq. -- jbanko@faruqilaw.com -- Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. --
jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com -- at FARUQI & FARUQI; James S. Notis,
Esq. -- jnotis@gardylaw.com -- Kira German, Esq., at GARDY &
NOTIS, LLP; Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. -- shopkins@zlk.com --
Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. -- stornatore@zlk.com -- at LEVI &
KORSINSKY LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Plaintiffs

A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. -- at ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLPe; Timothy A.
Duffy -- tim.duffy@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Attorneys
for Defendants H.I.G. Capital, L.L.C., Peak Holding Corp. and Peak
Merger Corp.

Thomas A. Beck, Esq. -- beck@rlf.com -- Gregory P. Williams, Esq.
-- williams@rlf.com -- Rudolf Koch, Esq. -- koch@rlf.com -- Kevin
M. Gallagher, Esq. -- gallagher@rlf.com -- Christopher H. Lyons,
Esq. -- lyons@rlf.com -- at RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.; John
L. Latham, Esq. -- john.latham@alston.com -- Robert L. Long, Esq.
-- robert.long@alston.com -- Susan E. Hurd, Esq. --
susan.hurd@alston.com -- at ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Atlanta, Georgia;
Attorneys for Defendants Comverge, Inc., Alec G. Dreyer, Joseph M.
O'Donnell, John McCarter, R. Blake Young, Nora Mead Brownell, A.
Laurence Jones, John Rego, Rudolf J. Hoefling, David R. Kuzma and
James J. Moore


CONNECTICUT: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Health Department
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the District of Connecticut
granted defendant's motion in the case CAROLYN HULL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, et al. Plaintiffs, v.
SYLVIA BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant,
No. 3:14-CV-00801 (JAM) (D. Conn.).

The plaintiffs are five elderly women who are homebound with
serious medical conditions. Each plaintiff received home
healthcare services on various dates from 2011 to 2013 of which
Medicare declined to pay.  They seek to challenge what they
believe to be a rigged process that the Medicare administrators at
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been
using. As plaintiffs describe it, after coverage for home
healthcare services is initially declined, the denial-review
process may include up to four stages: (1) a paper-review
redetermination by the contractor that made the initial
determination to deny coverage, (2) followed by a paper-review
reconsideration carried out by a separate entity that contracts
with HHS to conduct such reviews, (3) followed by a hearing before
an ALJ or administrative law judge, and (4) finally followed by a
paper review by the Medicare Appeals Council.

Plaintiffs allege that this review process is hardly a review
process at all and they claim that the defective administrative
review process violates the Medicare statute and the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of HHS, moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims, principally on the ground that plaintiffs lack standing.
According to Burwell, plaintiffs have not sustained a redressable
injury-in-fact because their Medicare claims have been separately
and fully paid by a different payor, the Medicaid program.

Judge Meyer granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
standing.

A copy of Judge Meyer's ruling dated December 8, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/LCOTjkfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Alice Bers, Esq.
     Gill W. Deford, Esq.
     Judith A. Stein, Esq.
     Margaret M. Murphy, Esq.
     CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
     P.O. Box 350
     Willimantic, CT 06226
     Telephone: 860-456-7790
     Facsimile: 860-456-2614

Kathleen Sebelius, Defendant, represented by:

     Brian G. Kennedy, Esq.
     Carolyn Aiko Ikari, Esq.
     U.S. Attorney's Office
     U.S. Department of Justice
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Telephone: 202-514-2000


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Magistrate Judge Recommends Revision of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER BROWN, TERICA LOCKHART, EDWARD DOBSON, AMANDA POTTER, CORI
PULLOM, PABLO HERMIDA, GINA PARILLON, JAHMIRA MCKINLEY, STEPHEN
MAZZO, PAULETTE BRADLEY, TAVARIUS JOHNSON, DEBORAH BENFIELD, and
RAFAEL GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT, LP, Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-02274-WBH-AJB, (N.D. Ga.) is before the
Court on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings;
plaintiffs' motion to drop parties; and plaintiff Heather Brown's
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

A United States Magistrate Judge's non-final report and
recommendation entered January 15, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Wdi8r0from Leagle.com, recommends that
District Judge Alan J. Baverman grant the Motion to Drop Parties,
without prejudice and with leave for the dropped plaintiffs to re-
file their claims in the appropriate venues; grant the Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; and deny as moot the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Because the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings seeks to
dismiss a pleading that will be superseded by the second amended
complaint, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion be
denied as moot.

Heather Brown, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Charles Moses Clapp, Esq.
   David Michael Menditto, Esq.
   Mark Thomas Lavery, Esq.
   HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC, LPA
   1100 W Cermak Rd, Suite B410
   Chicago, IL 60608
   Telephone: (312) 380-6110
   Facsimile: (312) 361-3509

Terica Lockhart, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Moses Clapp,
Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA, David Michael Menditto, Hyslip &
Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA.

Edward Dobson, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Menditto,
Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor,
LLC, LPA.

Amanda Potter, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Menditto,
Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor,
LLC, LPA.

Cori Pullom, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Menditto,
Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor,
LLC, LPA.

Pablo Hermida, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Menditto,
Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor,
LLC, LPA.

Gina Parillon, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Menditto,
Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor,
LLC, LPA.

Jahmira McKinley, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael
Menditto, Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip &
Taylor, LLC, LPA.

Stephen Mazzo, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Menditto,
Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor,
LLC, LPA.

Paulette Bradley, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael
Menditto, Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip &
Taylor, LLC, LPA.

Tavarius Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael
Menditto, Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip &
Taylor, LLC, LPA.

Deborah Benfield, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael
Menditto, Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip &
Taylor, LLC, LPA.

Rafael Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Menditto,
Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA & Mark Thomas Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor,
LLC, LPA.

Credit Management, LP, Defendant, represented by:

   John H. Bedard, Jr., Esq.
   Michael K. Chapman, Esq.
   Bedard Law Group, P.C.
   2810 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Suite D
   Duluth, GA 30097
   Telephone: 678-253-1871 ext. 244


DEOLEO USA: Faces Class Action Over Olive Oil Deceptive Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
proposed class action alleging that two popular brands of olive
oils are deceptively marketed and labeled as "extra virgin" and
"imported from Italy" has survived a motion to toss the case.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of
California ruled it is premature to weigh whether plaintiff Scott
Koller lacks standing to pursue his claims that Bertolli and
Caparelli brand olive oil do not meet the quality standards to be
marketed as "extra virgin."

Mr. Koller alleges that olive oil importer and marketer Deoleo USA
Inc. falsely labels the oils as "extra virgin" even though the
products are mixed with refined oil, and then are bottled in clear
glass that does not protect the oil from sunlight and heat that
cause the oil to oxidize, degrade and degenerate, according to the
complaint.

"Even if the oil is 'extra virgin' at the time of bottling,
defendants know that the oil will not qualify (and cannot be
defined) as 'extra virgin' at the time it is sold to consumers,"
the complaint alleges.

Judge Seeborg's ruled on Jan. 6 that it is too early to address
the plaintiff's claim in Koller v. Med Foods Inc. that Deoleo
falsely promotes its olive oils as being "imported from Italy,"
when they include oils from olives grown and pressed in other
countries.  Deoleo USA formerly was known as Med Foods.

The judge delayed consideration of whether Mr. Koller can advance
claims relating to specific products he did not purchase.

"Deoleo's arguments would require a level of proof at the pleading
stage that simply is not required," Judge Seeborg wrote.

Among those arguments, Deoleo contends that Mr. Koller has not
alleged sufficient facts to show that the particular bottle of
olive oil he purchased necessarily failed to meet "extra virgin"
standards.  The company also argues that Mr. Koller's pleadings
demonstrate that he read a label on the back of the bottle, which
includes a disclosure that the olives may come from countries
other than Italy and thus cannot claim to have been misled.

Mr. Koller alleges that Deoleo has engaged in fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation in violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies and Health and Safety acts, and state false advertising
codes.

Deoleo is represented by attorneys with the firm Fulbright &
Jaworski. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with the firms
Tycko & Zavareei and Gutride Safier.


DICK'S SPORTING: Recalls Fitness Gear Inversion Table
-----------------------------------------------------
DICK'S Sporting Goods (NYSE: DKS) has voluntarily recalled the
Fitness Gear Inversion Table.

Customers who purchased the table (Style STE00059FG or Style
STE00118FG) anytime between November 2011 and September 2014 from
DICK'S stores in the United States or online at DICKS.com are
encouraged to return the unit to a local store to receive a full
refund in the form of a DICK'S Sporting Goods gift card.

While the Fitness Gear Inversion Table product manual clearly
stresses the importance of ensuring the ankle locking systems are
engaged, some customers have fallen and sustained injuries.

For any concerns or questions, please contact the DICK'S Customer
Service team at 1-866-677-4771, Monday through Friday, 8 AM - 6PM
EST.

Health care professionals and customers may report adverse events
or quality problems experienced with the use of this product to
the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online,
by regular mail, fax or by phone.

Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail: use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at:
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm. Mail to MedWatch 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787
Facsimile:  1-800-332-0178
Telephone:  1-800-332-1088

About DICK'S Sporting Goods

Founded in 1948, DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. is a leading omni-
channel sporting goods retailer offering an extensive assortment
of authentic, high-quality sports equipment, apparel, footwear and
accessories. As of November 1, 2014, the Company operated more
than 595 DICK'S Sporting Goods locations, serving and inspiring
athletes and outdoor enthusiasts to achieve their personal best
through a blend of dedicated associates, in-store services and
unique specialty shop-in-shops. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA,
DICK'S also owns and operates Golf Galaxy, Field & Stream and True
Runner specialty stores. For more information, visit the Press
Room at www.DICKS.comdisclaimericon.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429557.htm


DISH NETWORK: Judge Converts Order of Denial to "With Prejudice"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the District of Colorado
denied plaintiff's motions in the case SETH WARNICK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DISH
NETWORK LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-01952-WYD-MEH (D.
Colo.)

Plaintiff Seth Warnick filed a suit against Dish Network, LLC
(DISH) for violations of the Telephone Consumers Act of 1991
(TCPA).

On June 27, 2014, Judge Daniel made an Order to Show Cause at the
hearing why the Judge should not enter an immediate order
converting the denial without prejudice of the Motion for Class
Certification to a denial with prejudice, and then set the case
for trial on Warnick's individual claims. The Judge sees that
Warnick lack standing to sue as class representative.

At the hearing, Plaintiff proposed that he can cure his standing
problem by redefining his class as noncustomers of DISH who
complained to DISH, either through calling DISH or by filing a
lawsuit about robocalls made to them by DISH. While Plaintiff did
not call DISH and is thus not part of the TCPA Tracker, he argues
he has standing to represent the putative class since he
complained by filing a lawsuit, and is thus similarly situated to
the other seven individuals who sued DISH. With the addition of
those seven individuals, Warnick asserts he would then part of the
class as required for a class representative.

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce to Produce Documents.

In his order dated November 25, 2014, which is available at
http://is.gd/Laib5ifrom Leagle.com, Judge Daniel ordered that the
Order to Show Cause of October 28, 2014 is made absolute.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed August 9, 2013,
which was previously denied without prejudice by Order of June 27,
2014, is now denied with prejudice and plaintiff's motion to
enforce Judge Daniel's Order to Produce Documents filed on October
3, 2014 is denied.

Seth Warnick, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Megan Lynn Lindsey, Esq.
     Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
     EDELSON, P.C.
     999 18th Street, Suite 3000
     Denver, CO 80202
     Telephone: (303) 357-4878
     Facsimile: (303) 446-9111
     E-mail: mlindsey@edelson.com

          - and -

     Brian James Trenz, Esq.
     David Patrick Schafer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHAFER
     2139 N.W. Military HWY
     San Antonio, TX 78213
     Telephone: (210) 348-0500

          - and -

     Keith James Keogh, Esq.
     Timothy James Sostrin, Esq.
     KEOGH LAW, LTD.
     55 W. Monroe Ste. 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 265-3258
     Facsimile: (312) 726-1093

Dish Network, LLC, Defendant, represented by:

     David Mehretu, Esq.
     Jeremiah Joseph Burke, Esq.
     Richard Ralph Patch, Esq.
     Susan K. Jamison, Esq.
     Zuzana Svihra Ikels, Esq.
     COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS, LLP
     One Ferry uilding, Suite 200
     San Francisco, CA 94111-4213
     Telephone: 415 391 4800
     Facsimile: 415 989 1663
     E-mail: info@coblentzlaw.com

          - and -

     Rachel Ann Morris, Esq.
     Todd Estes Mackintosh, Esq.
     WOOD, RIS & HAMES, P.C.
     1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1600
     Denver, CO 80203-4313
     Telephone: (303) 863-7700
     Facsimile: (303) 830-8772
     E-mail: rmorris@wrhlaw.com
             tmackintosh@wrhlaw.com


DOLE PACKAGED: N.D. Cal. Judge Denies Motion for Reconsideration
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division denied plaintiff's motion in the case CHAD
BRAZIL, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC,
Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-01831-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Chad Brazil moves for leave to file a Motion for
Reconsideration of two of the Court's orders. First, Brazil asks
the Court to reconsider its March 25, 2013, order granting in part
and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss brought by Defendant
Dole Packaged Foods, LLC (Dole). Second, Brazil asks the Court to
reconsider its November 6, 2014, order granting in part and
denying in part Dole's Motion to Decertify.

District Judge Koh denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file
motion for reconsideration. Judge Koh said Brazil has not
established grounds for reconsideration of the Court's order
decertifying the damages class, nor has Brazil shown that the
Court should reconsider its order dismissing Brazil's cause of
action for unjust enrichment. To start, the Court has granted
summary judgment in Dole's favor on Brazil's so-called UCL, FAL,
and CLRA claims due to insufficient evidence that Dole's "All
Natural Fruit" label statement was likely to mislead reasonable
consumers. Brazil's claim for unjust enrichment, which would have
arisen under those same statutes, fails for the same reason.
Brazil's contention is therefore moot.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated December 8, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/S6Wj36from Leagle.com.

Chad Brazil, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Peet -- Dewitt
Marshall Lovelace, Sr. -- info@lovelacelaw.com -- at Lovelace Law
Firm, P.A.; Ben F. Pierce Gore -- at Pratt & Associates; David
Shelton -- david@davidsheltonpllc.com -- at David Shelton, PLLC;
Frank Karam -- fkaram@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Ananda N. Chaudhuri
-- achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Keith M. Fleischman --
keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- at Fleischman Law Firm; Brian K
Herrington -- David Malcolm McMullan, Jr. -- John W. (Don) Barrett
-- Katherine B. Riley -- info@barrettlawgroup.com -- at Don
Barrett, P.A.; Carol Nelkin -- cnelkin@nelkinpc.com -- Stuart M
Nelkin -- Jay P. Nelkin -- jnelkin@nelkinpc.com -- at Nelkin,
Nelkin & Krock, PC; Charles F. Barrett -- charles@cfbfirm.com --
at Charles Barrett, P.C.; Colin Harvey Dunn -- CHD@CliffordLaw.com
-- Kristofer Scott Riddle -- KSR@CliffordLaw.com -- Robert Anthony
Clifford -- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- at Clifford Law Offices,
P.C.; J. Price Coleman -- at Coleman Law Firm; Richard Barrett --
at Law Offices of Richard R. Barrett, PLLC;

Dole Packaged Food, LLC, Defendant, represented by William Lewis
Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Claudia Maria Vetesi --
cvetesi@mofo.com -- Lisa Ann Wongchenko -- lwongchenko@mofo.com
-- William Francis Tarantino -- wtarantino@mofo.com -- at Morrison
& Foerster LLP


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline.com reports that just over a month after the trio of
class-action lawsuits against Disney, Sony, DreamWorks Animation
and other animation studios were consolidated into a single
complaint, some of the heavyweight defendants in the alleged anti-
poaching and wage-fixing case have struck back -- on several
fronts.

The first line of attack is a dense filing in federal court by the
studios seeking to have the amended class action from digital
artists David Wentworth, Robert Nitsch Jr. and Georgia Cano
dismissed "in its entirety with prejudice".  The primary thrust of
their argument is that the statute of limitations has expired on
the trio's claims.

"The DOJ's 2009 investigation, in turn, led to the High-Tech
Employee Antitrust Litigation, filed in 2011," says the January 9
motion, citing the federal investigation and still on-going legal
action against Apple, Google and others that revealed details of
the toon studios' supposed anti-poaching shenanigans.  "But the
present plaintiffs did not bring litigation either in response to
the DOJ investigation or after the High-Tech cases were filed.
Instead, they waited nearly five years after the DOJ commenced its
investigation.  In an effort to manufacture new claims not covered
by the HighTech lawsuits, plaintiffs assert that animation
studios, other than High-Tech defendants Pixar and Lucasfilm, also
participated in the alleged conspiracy.  However, plaintiffs'
attempt is futile as a matter of law and comes far too late."

Taking his case to the courts on September 8 last year, former DWA
visual effects artist Mr. Nitsch was the first to file against the
studios.  Cano's case soon followed and Wentworth was the third to
file on October 2.  The cases were consolidated into one class
action and filed as an amended complaint on December 2.

For the animation studios it's all hot air and old news.  "They
cite no allegedly wrongful communications or actions at all within
the past five years," the motion continues, noting also that the
statute of limitations on such matter is 4 years.  "Instead, they
refer to communications and actions by some defendants that
occurred before the DOJ investigation and then conclusorily assert
that defendants' alleged conduct continued despite the obvious
peril of conspiring in the face of such intense scrutiny."

Also noting "insufficient" evidence in the consolidated complaint
that anyone's wages were actually fixed or suppressed by illegal
multi-corporate consensus, Disney, DWA, Sony and Blue Sky Studios
are seeking a March 26 hearing on their motion in front of Judge
Lucy H. Koh.  That could be a rough ride for the defendants.
Presiding over the High-Tech Employee Litigation and rejecting the
tech-giants proposed $325 million settlement as too low, Judge Koh
agreed last September to take over the 'toon cases after a request
from Mr. Nitsch based on his assertion they were related.

If that wasn't enough of a move to shut down the potentially
sprawling class action, DWA, Disney, Sony and others also filed a
separate motion on Jan. 9 seeking to stay the case and compel
arbitration of Mr. Nitsch's claims.  Hedging their bets if the
requested dismissal motion falters, the 'toon studios want an
April 23 hearing in Judge Koh's San Jose courtroom on this motion,
which they assert is binding under two employment agreements Mr.
Nitsch had with DWA in 2007 and 2010.

"A court must compel arbitration where (1) a valid arbitration
agreement exists and (2) the arbitration agreement encompasses the
claims at issue," says the 14-page motion.  "Here, there can be no
question that Nitsch entered into valid arbitration agreements
with DreamWorks Animation.  The agreements expressly provide for
arbitration under AAA (American Arbitration Association) Rules.
As such, they clearly manifest the parties' intent that questions
of arbitrability be decided by the arbitrator.  Furthermore, the
assertion of arbitrability is not wholly groundless.  The broad
language in Nitsch's agreements plainly encompasses his
compensation-based claims for antitrust violations and unfair
competition."

Weaving legal knots, the gaggle of studios is actually seeking
three nicely interconnected orders in this motion.  An order that
Mr. Nitsch must arbitrate his claims against former employer DWA
and a perhaps over-reaching order that the visual effects artist
must arbitrate his claims against Disney, Sony and the others.
Lastly, they want an order putting the whole case on ice while
Mr. Nitsch's claims are before the arbitrator. There is a nice
symmetry to all this. Not only does it hit the pause button on
Mr. Nitsch's allegations and an embarrassing public airing of
them, but with the matter being a consolidated case, getting those
orders would pretty much freeze Cano and Wentworth's claims too.

Let's see if Judge Koh will go for any of it or Sony and Blue
Sky's additional attempt to seal portions of emails from then Blue
Sky exec Chris Meledandri and others as well as the likes of
Pixar's internal "Competitors List" document.

Fitting a big deal case like this, the studios are represented by
a slew of big time law firms such as Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Covington and Burling, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Williams & Connolly plus McManis Faulkner.


DRIVERS SOLUTIONS: D. Ariz. Judge Certifies Narrow Class
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Neil V. Wake of the District of Arizona granted in
part and denied in part plaintiff's motion in the case Daniel J.
Foschi, Plaintiff v. Dennis M. Pannella, et al., Defendants, No.
CV-14-01253-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.)

The plaintiff has worked as a delivery driver and dispatcher for
defendant Drivers Solutions. Defendant's contracts with its
workers, who have numbered up to 500 since 2007, include "monthly
contracts, daily contracts, special-day-rate contracts and per-
delivery or Hot Shots contracts.

Plaintiff filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court against
defendants, Drivers Solutions and its owners, Dennis and Mary
Pennella for; (1) willfully failing to compensate him for overtime
work, as required by 29 U.S.C. Section 207; (2) willfully failing
to pay him at least the federal minimum wage, as required by 29
U.S.C. Section 206, and (3) willfully failing to pay him at least
the Arizona state minimum wage, as required by A.R.S. Section 23-
363(A). Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that it is brought on behalf
not only of Plaintiff, but also of all other similarly situated
employees who work, or have worked, for defendants and who have
not been paid the requisite overtime compensation since January 1,
2007. Defendants removed the case to the District Court.

Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a collective action brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging defendants
paid plaintiff and fellow class members less than minimum wage and
failed to pay increased wages for overtime work.

Judge Wake granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff's Motion to certify a collective action seeking unpaid
overtime wages under the FLSA is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to
certify a collective action seeking unpaid minimum wages under the
FLSA is granted, to the extent of any damages suffered within
three years of the date on which each driver plaintiff opts in to
the collective action. Plaintiff's Motion to certify a Rule 23
class action seeking unpaid minimum wages under the Arizona state
minimum wage law is denied without prejudice.

The Court directed the defendants to provide the plaintiff with
the names and last known addresses of all drivers who have worked
for defendants in Arizona for the three years prior to the date of
this order. On the same date the parties shall confer and submit
to the court a revised proposed notice to send to potential class
members, unless by that date plaintiff has filed a motion to amend
the pleadings and the parties shall submit to the court a proposed
schedule for the mailing of notice to potential FLSA class
members, unless by that date plaintiff has filed a motion to amend
the pleadings.

A copy of Judge Wake's order dated December 9, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/h32ioPfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel J Foschi, a single man, and a class of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Kaitlyn Alissa Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
     Nicholas Jason Enoch, Esq.
     Natalie Brooke Virden , Esq.
     LUBIN & ENOCH PC
     349 North Fourth Avenue
     Phoenix AZ 85003-1505
     Telephone: 602-234-0008
     Facsimile: 602-626-3586

Defendants, represented by:

     Laurent Richard George Badoux, Esq.
     Ryan Grant Lockner, Esq.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
     2375 East Camelback Road
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Telephone: 602-445-8000
     Facsimile: 602-445-8100
     Email: badouxl@gtlaw.com
            locknerr@gtlaw.com


DUPONT: Judge Grants Motions to Enforce Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gene E. Pratter of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted defendant's motions in the case entitled IN
RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Case
No. 2:11-MD-02284-GP (E.D. Pa.)

DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to
selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-target
vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-target
vegetation, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) began
investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis. DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process to
compensate victims of Imprelis damage. Despite this voluntary
process, Plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging
consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or
implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance,
and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After
months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties
came to a settlement agreement.

DuPont filed three motions seeking to enforce the class action
settlement in this multidistrict litigation against parties who,
DuPont claims, failed to opt out of the settlement but continue to
pursue lawsuits against DuPont, to wit, Michael and Judith
Stovall, Eric Greener, and William and Beth Depietri.

The Imprelis class action settlement covers three classes of
Imprelis plaintiffs. Among the three settlement classes is a
property owner class to which, DuPont argues, the Stovalls, the
Depietris, and Mr. Greener belong.

Two of the motions seek an injunction barring state court law
suits, and the third seeks to dismiss a claim that was originally
filed in state court but later removed to federal court and
transferred to Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court.

Judge Pratter granted DuPont's motions.

A copy of Judge Pratter's memorandum dated December 5, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/cIzTRQfrom Leagle.com.


EIGHT STAR: Faces "Hua" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yun Hong Hua, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Eight Star Inc., Ci Ci Wong, Michael C. Lee,
Ngan Ying Chee, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00275 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants are engaged in bus business located at 135-05 38th
Avenue, Suite 3A, Flushing, New York 11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


EILLIEN'S CANDIES: Recalls Walnut Products Over Salmonella Scare
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eillien's Candies Inc. announced that it is voluntarily recalling
various sizes and brands of Walnut Pieces because some of these
products may be contaminated with Salmonella.

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

Consumers who have recently purchased the items with the BEST BY
DATES listed below at stores located in AR, CO, FL, IA, ID, IL,
IN, KS, KY,MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NY, NE, OH, OK, PA, TN,TX, SD, UT,
WA, WV, WI, WY should not consume this product and should return
it to the store of purchase for a full refund or replacement. The
BEST BY DATES can be found on the back of the bags.

Item Description:

034952-007022     EILLIEN'S WALNUT PIECES 2OZ   BEST BY 7/31/15
034952-129991     EILLIEN'S WALNUT PIECES 4OZ   BEST BY 9/10/15
034952-572759     EILLIEN'S WALNUT        11OZ  BEST BY 6/9/15
                  PIECES TRAY
034952-129977     EILLIEN'S WALNUT PIECES 14OZ  BEST BY 7/30/15
034952-129977     EILLIEN'S WALNUT PIECES 14OZ  BEST BY 7/31/15
034952-129977     EILLIEN'S WALNUT PIECES 14OZ  BEST BY 9/10/15
034952-573282     EILLIEN'S WALNUT PIECES 16OZ  BEST BY 7/30/15
034952-561968     EILLIEN'S WALNUT PIECES 24OZ  BEST BY 8/13/15
034952-561968     EILLIEN'S WALNUT PIECES 24OZ  BEST BY 9/9/15
034952-812770     BLAIN'S FARM AND        16OZ  BEST BY 7/31/15
                  FLEET WALNUT PIECES
034952-360011     MILL'S FLEET FARM       24OZ  BEST BY 9/9/15
                  WALNUT PIECES
034952-360479     MILL'S FLEET FARM       16OZ  BEST BY 9/9/15
                  WALNUT PIECES
034952-579789     PIGGLY WIGGLY WALNUT    2OZ   BEST BY 7/31/15
                  PIECES
034952-574463     PIGGLY WIGGLY WALNUT    11OZ  BEST BY 6/9/15
                  PIECES TRAY
034952-584875     RURAL KING WALNUT       16OZ  BEST BY 7/30/15
                  PIECES
034952-564679     TRIG'S WALNUT PIECES     14OZ  BEST BY 9/9/15

To date, Eillien's Candies has not received any reports of
illnesses in connection with the items listed above.
This voluntary recall is the result of a routine sampling program
conducted by the FDA in the retail marketplace which revealed that
a package of Walnut Pieces contained Salmonella.

Consumers or Customers who may have questions about the above
recall may contact Eillien's Candies Customer Service toll free at
800-448-1556 Monday through Friday 6:00 AM to 5:00 PM central
time.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 25,000 Mesh Cases Pending as of Nov. 3
----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20,
2015, that as of November 3, 2014, approximately 25,000 filed mesh
cases are currently pending against AMS and/or the Company or
certain of its subsidiaries, some of which may have been filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and a minority of which seek class
action certification.

Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the Company
or certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in
multiple lawsuits in various federal and state courts, as well as
in Canada, Scotland, the UK and the Netherlands alleging personal
injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh
products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress
urinary incontinence (SUI).  Plaintiffs in these suits allege
various personal injuries including chronic pain, incontinence and
inability to control bowel function and permanent deformities.

On February 7, 2012, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed,
and cases pending in federal courts are now consolidated in the
Southern District of West Virginia as part of MDL No. 2325.
Similar cases in various state courts around the country are also
currently pending.

As of November 3, 2014, approximately 25,000 filed mesh cases are
currently pending against AMS and/or the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, some of which may have been filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs, and a minority of which seek class action
certification.

In addition, other cases have been served upon AMS pursuant to a
tolling agreement order issued in the MDL in May 2013. Any
complaint properly served on AMS from the effective date of that
order on May 15, 2013 through October 1, 2013, and ultimately
filed with the court by February 14, 2014 is deemed filed as of
the service date. Some of these cases served pursuant to the
tolling agreement have been timely filed with the court.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Entered Into Master Settlement Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20,
2015, that as of September 30, 2014, AMS and certain plaintiffs'
counsel representing mesh-related product liability claimants have
entered into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding
settling up to approximately 41,700 filed and unfiled mesh claims
handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs,
which were executed at various times from June 14, 2013 through
September 30, 2014, were entered into solely by way of compromise
and settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the Company or AMS.

The following table presents the changes in the vaginal mesh
Qualified Settlement Funds accounts and product liability balance
during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 (in thousands):

                                     Qualified
                                     Settlement        Product
                                     Funds             Liability
                                     ----------        ---------
Balance as of December 31, 2013      $11,518           $520,000
Additional charges                        -            1,128,358
Cash distributions to
  Qualified Settlement Funds         149,630                   -
Cash distributions to
  plaintiffs' counsel                     -              (7,098)
Cash distributions to
  plaintiffs' counsel from escrow    (11,518)           (11,518)

Balance as of September 30, 2014     $149,630         $1,629,742

Approximately $728.2 million of the total liability amount shown
above is expected to be paid by September 30, 2015 and is
classified as Accrued expenses in the September 30, 2014 Condensed
Consolidating Balance Sheet, with the remainder to be paid over
time and classified as Other liabilities in the September 30, 2014
Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet. AMS expects to fund the
payments under all settlement agreements by December 31, 2017. As
the funds are disbursed out of the Qualified Settlement Funds
accounts from time to time, the product liability accrual will be
reduced accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restricted
cash and cash equivalents. Amounts included in the Qualified
Settlement Funds are included in Restricted cash and cash
equivalents in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and
procedures for administering the settlements and the release of
funds and have participation thresholds requiring participation by
the vast majority of claims represented by each law firm. If
certain participation thresholds are not met, then AMS will have
the right to terminate the settlement with that law firm. In
addition, one agreement gives AMS a unilateral right of approval
regarding which claims may be eligible to participate under that
settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are authorized under
an agreement participate, the total settlement payment under that
agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such
non-participating claim. Distribution of funds to any individual
claimant is conditioned upon a full release and a dismissal of the
entire action or claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior
to receiving funds, an individual claimant shall represent and
warrant that liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are
identified in the claims administration process have been or will
be satisfied by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement
awards to participating claimants, the claims evaluation process
and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and
the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept
confidential by all parties and their counsel.

AMS and the Company intend to contest vigorously all currently
remaining pending cases and any future cases that may be brought,
if any, and to continue to explore other options as appropriate in
the best interests of the Company and AMS. However, it is not
possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate
outcome of these matters or the effect of potential future claims.

"We will continue to monitor each related legal claim and adjust
the accrual for new information and further developments. It is
possible that the outcomes of such cases could result in
additional losses that could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows," the Company said.

"In addition, we have been contacted regarding a civil
investigation that has been initiated by a number of state
attorneys general into mesh products, including transvaginal
surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI. In November
2013, we received a subpoena relating to this investigation from
the state of California, and have subsequently received additional
subpoenas from other states. We are cooperating fully with this
investigation. At this time, we cannot predict or determine the
outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or
range of amounts of fines or penalties, if any, that might result
from a settlement or an adverse outcome from this investigation."


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in Pending MCP Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20,
2015, that the Company and its subsidiaries have reached an
agreement with certain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach
resolution of substantially all of the pending MCP cases.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, and in certain cases the Company or
certain of its subsidiaries, along with several other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in
numerous lawsuits in various federal and state courts alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of the prescription
medicine metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various
personal injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movement
disorders and death. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and the Company
intend to contest all of these cases vigorously and to explore
other options as appropriate in the best interests of the Company
and Qualitest Pharmaceuticals.

Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any additional litigation will be brought against the Company or
its subsidiaries. As of November 3, 2014, approximately 600 MCP
cases, some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple
plaintiffs, are currently pending against Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals and/or the Company.

The Company and its subsidiaries have reached an agreement with
certain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach resolution of
substantially all of the pending MCP cases. The agreement was
entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not
in any way an admission of liability or fault by the Company or
any of its subsidiaries. An essential element of these settlements
will be participation by the vast majority of plaintiffs involved
in pending litigation. If certain participation thresholds are not
met, the Company will have the right to terminate the agreements.
Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will be
conditioned upon, among other things a full release and a
dismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to the
Company and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving an
award, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation process
and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and
the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept
confidential by all parties and their counsel. The cost of this
settlement has been incorporated into the increase in our product
liability reserve.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 40 Propoxyphene Cases Pending v. Qualitest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20,
2015, that as of November 3, 2014, approximately 40 propoxyphene
cases, some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple
plaintiffs, are currently pending against Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals and/or the Company.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and, in certain cases, the Company or
certain of its subsidiaries, along with several other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in
numerous lawsuits originally filed in various federal and state
courts alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
prescription pain medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs in
these suits allege various personal injuries including cardiac
impairment, damage and death.

In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and
certain transferable cases pending in federal court were
coordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No.
2226. On March 5, 2012 and June 22, 2012, pursuant to a standing
show cause order, the MDL Judge dismissed with prejudice certain
claims against generic manufacturers, including Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals and the Company. Certain plaintiffs appealed those
decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
cases that had been pending as part of a consolidated appeal.

In November 2012, additional cases were filed in various
California state courts, and removed to corresponding federal
courts. Many of these cases have already been remanded, although
appeals are being pursued. A coordinated proceeding was formed in
Los Angeles.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and the Company intend to contest all of
these cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate
in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any additional litigation will be brought against the Company or
its subsidiaries," the Company said.

As of November 3, 2014, approximately 40 propoxyphene cases, some
of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the
Company. The Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict
the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial
liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this matter.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Testosterone Class Suit Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20,
2015, that as of November 3, 2014, approximately 14 testosterone
cases are currently pending against EPI, including a class action
complaint filed in Canada.

EPI, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has
been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury
resulting from the use of prescription medications containing
testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including pulmonary embolism,
stroke, and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries.

In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI and other
manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable cases
pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern District
of Illinois as part of MDL No.2545. In addition to the federal
cases filed against EPI that have been transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545,
litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of Common
Pleas Philadelphia County.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in
federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL 2545. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any such additional litigation will be brought against the Company
or EPI, but EPI intends to contest the litigation vigorously and
to explore all options as appropriate in the best interests of EPI
and the Company," the Company said.

As of November 3, 2014, approximately 14 cases are currently
pending against EPI, including a class action complaint filed in
Canada.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Testosterone Class Action Filed in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20,
2015, that on November 5, 2014, an civil class action complaint
was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against EPI and
various other manufacturers of testosterone products on behalf of
a proposed class of health insurance companies and other third
party payors that had paid for certain testosterone products,
alleging that the marketing efforts of EPI and other defendant
manufacturers with respect to certain testosterone products
constituted racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1962(c), and other civil RICO claims. Further, the complaint
alleges that EPI and other defendant manufacturers violated
various state consumer protection laws through their marketing of
certain testosterone products. The Company and its subsidiaries
are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate
legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for this
matter, if any.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: No Decision Yet on Bids to Dismiss Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20,
2015, that a decision has not yet been reached on Defendants'
motions to dismiss each of the operative complaints in the
Antitrust Litigation.

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed
a number of cases against EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku
Col, LTD, Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively Teikoku) and
Actavis plc., f/k/a as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and a number
of its subsidiaries (collectively Actavis). The complaints in
these cases generally allege that Endo, Teikoku and Actavis
entered into an anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade
through the settlement of patent infringement litigation
concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent). Some of
the complaints also allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529
patent in the Orange Book as related to Lidoderm(R), that Endo and
Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that
Endo abused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizen
petition and amendments solely to interfere with generic
companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions of
Lidoderm(R). The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, 2) and various state antitrust
and consumer protection statutes. These cases generally seek
damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order on April 3, 2014,
transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
before Judge William H. Orrick.

Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in
federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of
California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation.

On June 13, 2014, pursuant to a case management order entered by
Judge Orrick, the direct and indirect purchasers each filed
consolidated amended class complaints. In addition, one indirect
purchaser filed a separate complaint. Defendants recently filed
motions to dismiss each of the operative complaints. These motions
were heard on November 5, 2014, but a decision has not yet been
reached.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any of this
litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought
against the Company or EPI," the Company said.


ESH LABORATORY: Faces "Portillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Portillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ESH Laboratory, Inc. and Elizabeth Salcedo, Case No.
2:15-cv-00273 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Orthotics & Prosthetics Service
laboratory at 52 2nd Avenue, Brentwood, NY 11717

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Dickerson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com


EXXON MOBIL: Judge Narrows Plaintiffs' Requests for Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois of the Middle District of
Louisiana granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to
compel discovery in the case ROGER JEAN LeBLANC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION, ET AL., Nos. 14-201-SDD-RLB, C/W 14-218-SDD-RLB (M.D.
La.)

Plaintiffs Roger Jean LeBlanc and James Smith filed class action
complaints on behalf of thousands of purchasers of defective fuel
manufactured at Exxon Mobil's Baton Rouge Refinery facility and
distributed to retail outlets in Louisiana. Plaintiffs alleged
that the fuel released during this period damaged or reduced the
performance of vehicle engines when used.

Defendants reasoned that after becoming aware of the release, they
shut down the Baton Rouge Terminal, reduced the UWG release limit
to 10 mg/hml, issued press releases, and implemented a claims
handling program to address consumer complaints.

Plaintiffs moved to certify their purported class and propounded
fifteen interrogatories and fifteen requests for production on
defendants. Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion
to certify and argued that plaintiffs have failed to meet all of
the Rule 23 class certification requirements.

The Court held a scheduling conference with the parties and
provided that the scope of discovery prior to the court's ruling
on certification shall be limited to class certification issues
and shall not go to the merits of the actions.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery purportedly limited
to class certification issues.

A copy of Judge Bourgeois's order dated December 8, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/rLvSN1from Leagle.com

Roger Jean LeBlanc and Karen M Davis, Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Charles F. Zimmer, II, Esq.
     Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
     O'BELL LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
     3500 North Hullen Street
     Metaire, LA 70002
     Telephone: 504-456-8677
     Facsimile: 504-456-8653
     E-mail: EJO@OBellLawFirm.com

          - and -

     John H Smith, Esq.
     Loren Diane Shanklin, Esq.
     SMITH SHANKLIN LAW FIRM
     Hillside Oaks Square 16851
     Jefferson Highway, Suite 5A
     Baton Rouge, LA, 70817
     Telephone: 225-223-6333

          - and -

     Paul M. Brannon, Esq.
     BRANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
     Telephone: 504-456-8696
     Facsimile: 504-456-8697
     E-mail: PMB@BrannonwLawFirm.com

James Smith and Ashley Guillory, Plaintiffs - Consolidated,
represented by:

     Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
     Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR.
     106 West Seventh Street
     P.O. Drawer H
     Reserve, LA 70084
     Telephone: (985) 536-1186
     Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
     E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
             schristina@becnellaw.com

Defendants, represented by James Conner Percy, Esq., Michael Ryan
Rhea, Esq., and William D. Lampton, Esq., at Jones Walker LLP; and
Andrew G. Phillips, Esq., Angela M. Spivey, Esq., Kelly Beth
Hapgood, Esq., and Ronald G. Franklin, Esq., at McGuire Woods LLP


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Judge Denies Co-Defendant's Bid to Dismiss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of
California denied defendant's motion in the case MICHAEL KIRCHNER,
an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SHRED-IT USA INC., a Delaware Corporation;
FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., and Does 1 through
10, Defendants, CIV. NO. 2:14-1437-WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.)

Michael Kirchner applied for a job with Shred-it, and as a part of
the application process, received and signed a one-page form
entitled "USA - Notice, Authorization and Release for a Consumer
Report."

Plaintiff allegedly obtained and reviewed his personnel file with
Shred-it. Upon doing so, he allegedly discovered that First
Advantage had provided Shred-it with a consumer report on him.
Plaintiff alleges that First Advantage violated the FCRA by
furnishing Shred-it with a consumer report on plaintiff without
first obtaining a certification from Shred-it stating that Shred-
it has complied with its statutory obligations with respect to the
consumer report.

Plaintiff brought a putative class-action lawsuit against
defendants Shred-it USA and First Advantage LNS Screening
Solutions, Inc. Plaintiff has reached a settlement with Shred-it.
First Advantage filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's First
Amendment Complaint.

Judge Shubb denied defendant's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Shubb's memorandum and order dated November 25,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/K7Babofrom Leagle.com.

Michael Kirchner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter R Dion-
Kindem -- peter@dion-kindemlaw.com -- at Peter R. Dion-Kindem,
P.C.

Shred-It USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Greg S. Zucker -- gzucker@westermanllp.com -- Phillip J.
Campisi -- pcampisi@westermanllp.com -- Robert A. Cirino --
rcirino@westermanllp.com -- at Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker
& Sharstein, LLP, Shon Morgan - shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urguhart & Sullivan, LLP

First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Esther S. McDonald -- emcdonald@seyfarth.com --
Frederick T. Smith -- fsmith@seyfarth.com -- Peter Grajski --
mgrajski@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP


FIRST AMERICAN: Judge Won't Allow Reimbursement to Non-Party
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denied non-party's motion for
reimbursement in the case FELTON A. SPEARS, JR. and SIDNEY SCHOLL,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT (a/k/a eAppraiseIT,
LLC), a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
5-08-CV-00868-RMW (N.D. Cal.)

The plaintiffs sought discovery from non-party JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (Chase) relating to loans issued by Washington Mutual
Bank, F.A. (WMB). Chase, as the entity that purchased all of the
plaintiff class members loans from the FDIC after WMB went into
receivership, has WMB's loan files for most or all of the class.
Plaintiffs sought discovery on the loan files, and served three
subpoenas on Chase.

Chase moves for an order compelling plaintiffs to reimburse for
costs incurred in responding to discovery. In total, Chase
represents that it produced over 334,000 pages of documents and
now seeks reimbursement of $455,589.52 in expenses.

Judge Whyte denied the motion for reimbursement.

A copy of Judge Whyte's order dated December 8, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/TrNv9xfrom Leagle.com.

Felton A Spears, Jr. and Sidney Scholl, Plaintiffs, represented by
Janet Lindner Spielberg -- jlspielberg@gmail.com -- at Law Offices
of Janet Lindner Spielberg; Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. --
JKRAVEC@FDPKLAW.COM -- Ellen Mary M. Doyle -- EDOYLE@FDPKLAW.COM -
- Joel R. Hurt -- JHURT@FDPKLAW.COM -- McKean James Evans --
MEVANS@FDPKLAW.COM -- Wyatt A. Lison -- WLISON@FDPKLAW.COM -- at
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC; Michael D. Braun --
mdb@braunlawgroup.com -- at Braun Law Group, P.C.; Gretchen
Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Khesraw Karmand
-- kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn Lincoln Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Matthew J Preusch --
mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- Raymond John Farrow --
rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- Tana Lin -- tlin@kellerrohrback.com
-- at Keller Rohrback LLP

Mr. Juan Bencosme, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun --
mdb@braunlawgroup.com -- at Braun Law Group, P.C.; Janet Lindner
Spielberg -- jlspielberg@gmail.com -- at Law Offices of Janet
Lindner Spielberg; and Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. --
JKRAVEC@FDPKLAW.COM -- at Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC

Mrs. Carmen Bencosme, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun -
- mdb@braunlawgroup.com -- at Braun Law Group, P.C.; Janet Lindner
Spielberg -- jlspielberg@gmail.com  -- at Law Offices of Janet
Lindner Spielberg; Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. -- JKRAVEC@FDPKLAW.COM --
at Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC; and Raymond John Farrow --
rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- at Keller Rohrback

First American Eappraiseit, Defendant, represented by Alvin
Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- John C. Hueston --
jhueston@irell.com -- Justin Nathanael Owens -- jowens@irell.com
-- Allison Lauren Libeu -- alibeu@irell.com -- Brian Clifton
Berggren -- bberggren@irell.com -- Jeffrey Scott Wilkerson --
jwilkerson@irell.com -- Moez Mansoor Kaba -- mkaba@irell.com --
Nathaniel H Lipanovich -- nlipanovich@irell.com -- at Irell and
Manella LLP


GABRIEL HOMES: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Flores, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Gabriel Homes, Inc. and Rebecca Hartner, Case No.
1:15-cv-00068 (E.D. Va., January 16, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction and home improvement
in Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Harry Erlich, Esq.
      THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE PLLC
      2111 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700
      Arlington, VA 22201
      Telephone: (703) 791-9087
      E-mail: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Menora Group Loses Appeal on Lead Plaintiff Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Linda V. Parker of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Menora Group's motion for
reconsideration in the case GEORGE PIO, Individually and on Behalf
of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL
MOTORS COMPANY, MARY T. BARRA, DANIEL AMMANN, ALAN S. BATEY, JAMES
B. DELUCA, and DANIEL F. AKERSON, Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 2:14-
CV-1191 (E.D. Mich.)

On October 24, 2014, the Eastern District of Michigan Court,
Southern Division, issued an opinion and order appointing New York
State Teachers' Retirement System as lead plaintiff and Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as lead counsel, pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

Menora Mivtachim Insurance Limited and Menora Mivtachim Pensions
and Gemel Limited filed a motion for reconsideration for lead
counsel position and if the court denies its motion, the Menora
group requests certification for interlocutory appeal. The Menora
Group also asks the Court to stay all proceedings until the Court
rules on its motion and any appeal there from.

Judge Parker finds no palpable defect in its decision appointing
New York Teachers as lead plaintiff. The decision made does not
present an exceptional case where interlocutory review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) is warranted. Having denied the Menora
Group's request for reconsideration and interlocutory appeal,
there is no need for a stay.

Judge Parker denied  the Menora Group's motion for reconsideration
of the order denying motion for appointment as lead plaintiff or
motion for certification for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b), together with a motion to stay all
proceedings until the determination of these motions and any
appeal therefrom.

A copy of Judge Parker's opinion and order dated December 8, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/hL4kfJfrom Leagle.com.

George Pio, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Joshua B. Silverman --
jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - at Pomerantz LLP; Patrick E. Cafferty --
pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com -- at Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP

Defendants, represented by Raymond W. Henney --
rhenney@honigman.com -- at Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP;
Robert J. Kopecky -- robert.kopecky@kirkland.com -- Timothy A.
Duffy -- tim.duffy@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis

KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by:

     Nancy V. Savageau, Esq.
     BENNER, BILICKI
     28116 Orchard Lake Rd
     Farmington Hills, MI 48334
     Telephone: (248) 737-5544

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Casey
A. Fry -- E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- Sharon S.
Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com  -- at The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

New York State Teachers' Retirement System, Movant, represented by
Casey A. Fry -- E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- Sharon
S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com  -- at The Miller Law Firm,
P.C.; Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Salvatore J. Graziano
-- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossman LLP

Menorah Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., and Menora Mivtachim Pensions
and Gemel Ltd.,  Movants, represented by Jeremy A Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Joshua B. Silverman --
jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP; Patrick E. Cafferty --
pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com -- at Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP

Gemel Ltd., Movant, represented by Jeremy A Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP; and Patrick E.
Cafferty -- pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com -- at Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP


GGNSC SCOTTSBLUFF: D. Neb. Judge Directed Parties to Arbitrate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart of the District Court of Nebraska
granted defendant's motion in the case GLADYS BERRY, Plaintiff, v.
GGNSC SCOTTSBLUFF, LLC, a Nebraska Limited Liability Company;
Defendant, NO. 4:14CV3208 (D. Neb.)

The plaintiff was admitted to Defendant's facility. As part of the
admission paperwork, the plaintiff, along with her family members,
reviewed an optional Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement.
Gladys Berry, with the approval of her family, signed the ADR
Agreement.

Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against defendant alleging that she
sustained personal injuries due to negligent care provided by the
defendant and its employees.

The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff
has not responded to the motion, and the deadline for responding
has passed.

Magistrate Zwart granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration
and stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. The
parties shall each file a status report, not less than once every
six months, regarding the progress of their arbitration.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Zwart's memorandum and order dated
December 8, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/DcpaX8from
Leagle.com.

Gladys Berry, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Reynolds --
rbr@rkslawoffice.com -- Trevor W.L. Perkins --
twlp@rkslawoffice.com -- at REYNOLDS, KORTH LAW FIRM

GGNSC Scottsbluff, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Wilbrand -- cwilbrand@knudsenlaw.com -- Kevin R. McManaman --
kmcmanaman@knudsenlaw.com -- KNUDSEN, BERKHEIMER LAW FIRM.


GLAXOSMITHLINE LLC: E.D. Pa. Judge Won't Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied plaintiff's motion in the case entitled IN RE:
AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATON. This document relates to HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC. et
al. v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC., et al., No. 07-MD-1871, Civil Action
No. 10-6733 (E.D. Pa.)

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is the manufacturer of the diabetes
medication Avandia, and the defendant in cases brought by
individuals alleging that they suffered personal injury from the
use of Avandia. GSK has settled tens of thousands of those claims.

Humana is a Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) which provides
insurance to more than one million Medicare beneficiaries under
Medicare Part C. Pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payor Act (MSP
Act), MAOs have the right to assume secondary payor status and may
bill for reimbursement of any conditional payments they make for
Medicare benefits if it is later shown that another plan is
primary. Under the MSP Act, product liability tortfeasors or their
liability insurers that pay settlement funds to allegedly injured
individuals become primary plans, and are required to reimburse
the MAOs for payments made to treat injuries arising from the
alleged tort. If the primary plan fails to make provision for
reimbursement, the secondary payer can seek double damages from
the primary plan.

Even if the MAO which provides Medicare coverage to a particular
settling claimant agrees to the terms of a private lien resolution
program (PLRP), each settling claimant must affirmatively agree to
resolve any MAO liens on the settlement proceedings through the
PLRP program. Thus, although the PLRPs have resulted in the
resolution of the vast majority of MAO's MSP Act liens, there are
two categories of unresolved liens: 1) those in which the MAO is
not a signatory to a PLRP; and 2) those in which the MAO is a
signatory to a PLRP, but the settling claimant does not opt to
resolve his or her liens through that program. In both instances,
GSK is still obligated, under the MSP Act, to provide for
repayment to the MAO for benefits provided to the settling insured
for treatment of Avandia-related injuries. GSK does not dispute
this obligation.

At issue is whether GSK is making adequate provision for
reimbursements in these two categories of cases.

Humana filed suit to enforce its claimed rights as a secondary
payer under the MSP Act 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b), seeking
reimbursement from GSK for costs the MAOs incurred to cover
treatment for Avandia-related illnesses and injuries on behalf of
settling MAO enrollees.

Humana seeks class certification, arguing that certification will
facilitate efficient resolution of these two categories of
unresolved MSP Act claims. GSK opposes class certification,
arguing that Humana has not met the standards for class
certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23.

Judge Rufe says Humana has failed to establish that class
certification is appropriate in this case. The Court particularly
notes that it has failed to prove the requirements of commonality
and predominance, and failed to demonstrate the superiority of the
class action to adjudicate the controversy. The Court finds that
individual issues likely will predominate in the assessment of
liability. Accordingly, the Motion for Class Certification is
denied.

A copy of Judge Rufe's memorandum opinion dated November 24, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/wTxP4Wfrom Leagle.com.

IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by:

     Lauria Ann Lynch-German, Esq.
     HODAN DOSTER & GANZER SC
     7161 North Port Washington Road
     Milwaukee, WI 53217
     Telephone: (414) 351-9150
     Facsimile: (414) 352-6901

          - and -

     Turner W. Branch, Esq.
     BRANCH LAW FIRM
     2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW
     Albuquerque, NM 87104
     Telephone: (505) 243-3500
     Facsimile: (505) 243-3534
     E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com

PATRICK A. JUNEAU, Special Master, represented by PATRICK A.
JUNEAU, JR.

BRUCE P. MERENSTEIN, Special Master, represented by BRUCE P.
MERENSTEIN -- bmerenstein@schnader.com -- at SCHNADER HARRISON
SEGAL & LEWIS

ANDREW A. CHIRLS, COMMON BENEFIT FUND ADMINISTRATOR,
Administrator, represented by ANDREW A. CHIRLS --
achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- at FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC

PLAINTIFFS' STEERING COMMITTEE, Amicus, represented by:

     Bill Robins, III, Esq.
     Jason E. Dunahoe, Esq.
     HEARD ROBINS CLOUD & BLACK LLP
     808 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 450
     Santa Monica, CA 90401
     Telephone: (310) 929-4200
     Facsimile: (310) 566-5900

          - and -

     Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Tel: 215-923-9300
     Fax: 215-923-9302
     E-mail:Info@NastLaw.com

          - and -

     Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
     KIESEL LAW LLP
     8648 Wilshire Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
     Tel: (310) 854-4444
     Fax: (310) 854-0812

          - and -

     Turner W. Branch, Esq.
     BRANCH LAW FIRM
     2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW
     Albuquerque, NM 87104
     Tel: (505) 243-3500
     Fax: (505) 243-3534
     E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Faces Suit Over Local Homestead Exemption
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hall, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that a
lawyer representing a Glynn County couple who claims they paid
more in property taxes than they should have says their complaint
is now a class action lawsuit that others in the community can
join.

The couple claims an improper application of a local homestead
exemption caused them to overpay for years on their property taxes
and says there are potentially thousands of other residents who
could join what are now three class action lawsuits.

Cobb County Senior Judge G. Grant Brantley ruled on Jan. 6 in
Glynn County Superior Court that three lawsuits alleging the
county tax office used the wrong base year to apply the Scarlett-
Williams Homestead Exemption are qualified to be class actions.
That means others who claim to be impacted by the same issue can
join the lawsuits.

Judge Brantley ruled on the motion to certify the cases as class
actions after judges in the Brunswick Judicial Circuit recused
themselves.

The three companion civil complaints filed by J. Matthew Coleman
and Elizabeth Blair Coleman in 2012, 2013 and 2014 claim they
overpaid on their property taxes by around $1,500 per year from
2006 to 2012.  They contend that when they applied for the
exemption in 2006, the 2005 property valuation of $70,006 should
have been locked for future tax purposes as the Scarlett-Williams
Act dictates, according to the orders.

Instead, they say the assessed value of their property was locked
in at the 2006 valuation of $133,800.

Lawyer James L. Roberts of the Roberts Tate Law Firm on St. Simons
Island said more property owners in Glynn County might have
overpaid.

"We believe there are thousands affected and could be as many as
6,000 or more per year," Roberts said.

The class actions are open to plaintiffs who claim to have had the
wrong base year used to determine the valuation of their exemption
under the Scarlett-Williams Act between 2001 and 2014.  Each
action covers plaintiffs with claims from different time periods.

The Colemans will serve as class representatives for the actions
and the Roberts Tate law firm will serve as counsel.

Former chief property appraiser for Glynn County Robert Gerhardt
brought the potentially incorrect tax billings into the public eye
last year when he started a website listing the names of property
owners he believed were overcharged. Gerhardt, who served as
appraiser from 2008 to 2012, when his contract was not renewed,
said he began compiling the list of who in the county may have
been overcharged after he left the office.

Some Glynn County commissioners at the time questioned Gerhardt's
motives and called his claims sour grapes.

Glynn County Commission Chairman Dale Provenzano said the
commission was set to discuss the litigation on Jan. 15 in
executive session, and he expects there will be a vote to decide
if the county wants to appeal the class certification.  The
meeting is set for 6 p.m. at the old county courthouse.

Either way, Mr. Provenzano said the commissioners have been well
aware of the lawsuits since the first was filed in 2012. Seeing
them become class actions was somewhat expected.

"We are not surprised at all by this," Mr. Provenzano said.
He would not comment further because the case is still pending.
Aaron Mumford, general counsel for Glynn County, also had no
comment.

Florence Dees, Glynn County tax Commissioner, also declined to
comment.


H-E-B: Recalls Tortilla Soup & Corn Chowder Due to Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------
H-E-B has issued a voluntary and precautionary recall for H-E-B
Single Serving Tortilla Soup and H-E-B Single Serving Poblano Corn
Chowder due to undeclared peanut allergens in seasoning provided
by Southern Style Spices. There have been no reported illnesses
related to this precautionary recall.

H-E-B was notified of this issue on January 5, 2015 by the vendor
Southern Style Spices that one of the spice blend ingredient
components used in the products had tested positive for peanut
residue. This spice blend is added only to the H-E-B Tortilla Soup
and the H-E-B Poblano Corn Chowder.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products. There have been no consumer complaints or
reports of allergic reactions at this time. H-E-B is asking
customers at risk for peanut allergies that may have purchased one
of these products to return it to their H-E-B store for a full
refund.

The affected products include:

  -- H-E-B Single Serving Tortilla Soup - prepackaged in 8oz. and
     16oz. sizes, purchased on or before 1/6/2015

  -- H-E-B Single Serving Poblano Corn Chowder - prepackaged in
     8oz. and 16oz. sizes, purchased on or before 1/6/2015

  -- All H-E-B Tortilla Soup and H-E-B Poblano Corn Chowder soup
     purchased from the hot soup kettle at the Deli/Prepared
     Foods Counter - purchased on or before 1/6/2015

The voluntary recall has been issued by H-E-B, in an abundance of
caution, to ensure the safety of its customers. "H-E-B is
committed to the highest standards of food safety for our
customers," said Winell Herron, Group Vice President of Public
Affairs and Diversity. "We take every precaution necessary to
ensure the integrity and quality of the products sold in our
stores."

Any product purchased on or before the dates listed above should
be returned to any H-E-B store for a full refund. Customers with
concerns or questions may contact H-E-B Customer Relations at 210-
938-8357 or 1-800-432-3113 between the hours of 8AM and 5PM Monday
through Friday.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429683.htm


HAPPY APPLES: Expands Recall of Caramel Apple Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Out of an abundance of caution and concern for consumer safety
Happy Apples is expanding their voluntary recall of caramel apples
to include Kroger Brand caramel apples produced by Happy Apple
Company with a best use by date between September 15th and
November 18th 2014, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Kroger brand caramel apples produced by Happy Apple Company are
sold in single packs and three packs and each package will have a
best use by date on the front of the label. They were distributed
to the following states: Arizona, Alaska, Kansas, Idaho,
Louisiana, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Texas,
Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

We have been working with the Food and Drug Administration in
their investigation of the current outbreak of Listeriosis which
has been associated with caramel apples. We recently received
notice from Bidart Brothers, one of our apple suppliers to our
California facility that there may be a connection between this
outbreak and the apples that they supplied to that facility.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Happy Apples ceased operations at the end of October as part of
our normal, seasonal shut down and the caramel apples produced are
no longer available in stores, however, out of deep concern for
public safety, we are recommending that consumers follow the
advice of the CDC and remove any caramel apples you may have in
storage and dispose of them in a secure container to avoid
potential contamination in animals.

Consumers who have any product may return it to the store where
purchased or dispose of it per the advice of the CDC. Consumers
with questions may contact us at 636-584-6001 Monday through
Friday during normal business hours or via
email@customercare@happyapples.com

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428863.htm


HOME RETENTION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Gregory" FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey
granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion in the case
ALBERT GREGORY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HOME RETENTION SERVICES, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-CV-5366 (SRC) (D.N.J.)

Plaintiff Albert Gregory became indebted to Champion Mortgage.
Defendant Home Retention Services, Inc. sent plaintiff a written
letter regarding the debt plaintiff may have owed Champion
Mortgage.

Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against defendant.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), which prohibits debt collectors from
engaging in abusive, deceptive, or unfair practices. Plaintiff
claims that defendant violated the FDCPA by: (a) Using false
representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to
collect the debt; (b) Using unfair or unconscionable means to
collect or attempt to collect the debt; [and] (c) Failing to
provide the proper notices in their initial communication with the
consumer. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, which comprises at least 30 New Jersey
consumers who received debt-collection notices from Defendant.

Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant makes three arguments in
support of its motion:

     -- plaintiff committed numerous procedural errors which
should bar his complaint.

     -- Defendant is not a debt collector and that its letter was
not part of a debt-collection effort, rendering the FDCPA
inapplicable.

     -- the letter is not deceptive under the FDCPA, and that
instead it complies with all of the statute's notice requirements.

Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to dismiss. The Judge granted defendant's motion to dismiss
with respect to all theories apart from the letter's potentially
contradictory purposes.

A copy of Judge Chesler's opinion dated November 24, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/qDr4qkfrom Leagle.com.

Albert Gregory, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq
     Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Telephone: (973) 227-5900
     Facsimile: (973) 244-0019

Home Retention Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     frederick W. Alworth, Esq.
     Joshua Robert Elias, Esq.
     Kevin Reed Reich, Esq.
     GIBBONS PC
     One Gateway Center
     Newark, NJ 07102-5310
     Telephone: 973-596-4500
     Facsimile: 973-596-0545
     E-mail: falworth@gibbonslaw.com
             jelias@gibbonslaw.com
             kreich@gibbonslaw.com


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Plaintiffs' Claims to be Litigated in "Goebel"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 20, 2015, that it now appears that both plaintiffs' claims
regarding the conveyances and trust indenture will be litigated in
state district court in the Goebel case.

On September 12, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against Bank of America
as trustee and XTO Energy styled Harold Lamb v. Bank of America
and XTO Energy Inc., in the U.S. District Court - Western District
of Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Harold Lamb, is a unitholder in the
trust and alleged that XTO Energy failed to properly pay and
account to the trust under the terms of the net overriding royalty
conveyances on certain Kansas and Oklahoma properties and that
Bank of America, N.A., as the previous trustee, failed to properly
oversee such payment and accounting by XTO Energy. Additionally,
the plaintiff alleged that Bank of America, N.A. and XTO Energy
breached a fiduciary duty to the trust based on the allegations
found in the Fankhouser class action discussed in the most recent
Form 10-Q. The plaintiff sought unspecified amounts for
actual/compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement and
injunctive relief. Subsequently, the plaintiff dismissed Bank of
America, N.A. from the lawsuit. The court granted XTO Energy's
motion to transfer venue and transferred the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Court
granted XTO's motion to dismiss and dismissed the case citing the
plaintiff's failure to make a sufficient pre-suit demand on the
trustee. Subsequent to the dismissal, attorneys for Mr. Lamb sent
a letter to Bank of America, N.A. demanding that it initiate
proceedings against XTO Energy. Bank of America, N.A. declined to
do so, and on December 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed a new lawsuit
against Bank of America as trustee (as nominal defendant) and XTO
Energy styled Harold Lamb v. XTO Energy Inc. and Bank of America
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. XTO
Energy and Bank of America, N.A. appeared in the lawsuit and filed
respective motions to dismiss.

Sandra Goebel, another unitholder of the trust, filed a Motion to
Intervene in Lamb's lawsuit and to stay the action in favor of her
lawsuit pending in the Dallas County District Court or, in the
alternative, for the court to appoint her attorneys lead counsel
in Lamb's lawsuit.

On September 5, 2014, Goebel withdrew her Motion to Intervene.
That same day, Lamb filed a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss his
claims. In that same Motion, Lamb stated that he intended to
intervene and pursue his claims in the Goebel suit pending in
state district court.

On September 29, 2014, the Lamb case was dismissed without
prejudice to refile in state court. Lamb's counsel has notified
the Goebel court of their intention to be added as counsel of
record for Goebel, although Lamb has not yet filed a motion to
intervene in the Goebel lawsuit. It now appears that both
plaintiffs' claims regarding the conveyances and trust indenture
will be litigated in state district court in the Goebel case.


INTEGRITY STAFFING: Supreme Court Reversed 9th Cir. Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the
appealed case INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., PETITIONER v.
JESSE BUSK ET AL., No. 13-433 (U.S.)

Petitioner Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., provides warehouse
staffing to Amazon.com throughout the United States. Integrity
Staffing required its employees to undergo a security screening
before leaving the warehouse at the end of each day. During this
screening, employees removed items such as wallets, keys, and
belts from their persons and passed through metal detectors.

Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro worked as hourly employees of
Integrity Staffing at warehouses in Las Vegas and Fenley, Nevada,
respectively. In 2010, Busk and Castro filed a putative class
action against Integrity Staffing on behalf of similarly situated
employees in the Nevada warehouses for alleged violations of the
FLSA and Nevada labor laws.

The employees alleged that they were entitled to compensation
under the FLSA for the time spent waiting to undergo and actually
undergoing the security screenings. They also alleged that the
screenings were conducted to prevent employee theft and thus
occurred solely for the benefit of the employers and their
customers.
The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
claim, holding that the time spent waiting for and undergoing the
security screenings was not compensable under the FLSA. Employees
appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in
relevant part. The Court of Appeals asserted that postshift
activities that would ordinarily be classified as noncompensable
postliminary activities are nevertheless compensable as integral
and indispensable to an employee's principal activities if those
postshift activities are necessary to the principal work performed
and done for the benefit of the employer. The Court of Appeals
concluded that the screenings were necessary to the employees'
primary work as warehouse employees and done for Integrity
Staffing's benefit. Petitioner filed certiorari.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

A copy of the Supreme Court's decision dated December 9, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/VffC8Vfrom Leagle.com.

The Supreme Court panel consists of Associate Justices Clarence
Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.


INTELLIGENDER LLC: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard Ullman, writing for My Distribution Law, reports in The
People of the State of California v. IntelliGender, LLC, 771 F.3d
1169 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014) (Wardlaw, J.), the Ninth Circuit said
the answer is "no."  A federal court had approved a class action
settlement involving false advertising and unfair competition
claims that, among other things, awarded $10 per approved claim.
Subsequently, the California Attorney General's Office San Diego
City Attorney brought its own Section 17200 suit challenging the
same practices and seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief
as well as restitution under its parens patriae authority.

The Ninth Circuit held that the State could maintain its action
for penalties and injunctive relief.  However, its claim for
restitution was barred under the doctrine of res judicata, because
as to the sought-after restitution, the State stood in privity
with the settlement class members.  Res judicata barred the claim
for restitution even though the State did not participate in the
private class action.

The decision will help simplify the settlement calculus for
defendants sued in class actions who otherwise would remain
exposed to subsequent similar monetary claims brought by a state
enforcer under its parens patriae authority.


INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Invensense, Inc.,
Behrooz Abdi and Alan Krock, Case No. 5:15-cv-00249 (N.D. Cal.,
January 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Invensense, Inc. is an international semiconductor company that
designs and manufactures devices which are used to track motion
and sense audio, most of which are a combination of a micro-
electrical-mechanical system, mixed-signal integrated circuit, and
proprietary software.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone:  (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              lhooker@saxenawhite.com


INVENSENSE INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against InvenSense, Inc. and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under
15-cv-00142, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased InvenSense securities between July 29, 2014
and October 28, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased InvenSense securities
during the Class Period, you have until March 8, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells Micro-Electro-
Mechanical Systems ("MEMS") sensors, such as accelerometers,
gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics.  The Company
targets sales of its products to manufacturers of smartphones and
tablets, console and portable video gaming devices, and other
types of consumer electronics.

The Complaint alleges that defendants concealed the adverse
effects the Company would experience as a result of its agreement
with Apple to supply sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus at
heavily discounted prices.  The low prices charged had negatively
impacted, and would continue to negatively impact, InvenSense's
margins. Instead of revealing the Company's true financial
condition and prospects, defendants concealed these adverse facts
from investors and chose to issue strong guidance.  As a result of
defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions,
InvenSense common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $25.85 per share,
allowing certain of the Company's insiders to sell their
personally held stock at artificially inflated prices for
aggregate proceeds of over $5.3 million.

On October 28, 2014, the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, ended Sept.
28, 2014.  Net revenue for the second quarter fiscal 2015 was
$90.2 million, up 35 percent from $66.7 million for the first
quarter fiscal 2015.  Gross margin determined in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the
second quarter of fiscal 2015 was 35 percent, compared with 47
percent for the first quarter of fiscal 2015 included stock-based
compensation and related payroll taxes, and amortization of
acquisition intangibles.

On this news, shares of InvenSense fell $5.10 per share, or more
than 23.74%, to $16.08 per share on October 29, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


JC SOFTWARE: "Milo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milena Milo, and other similarly situated individuals v. JC
Software Solutions, Inc., A Florida Profit Corporation, Juan C.
Vargas, and Taylor-Vargas Florence, Case No. 1:15-cv-20195 (S.D.
Fla., January 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

JC Software Solutions, Inc. provides data collection and software
integration for various Healthcare, Legal, and Oil & Gas
industries throughout the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEYSTONE MERCY: Pa. Superior Court Narrows "Baum" Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sallie Updyke Mundy of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
affirmed in part and vacated in part, and remanded the proceedings
in the case AVRUM M. BAUM, AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF CHAYA BAUM,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
Appellant, v. KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN, AND AMERIHEALTH MERCY
HEALTH PLAN Appellee, No. 2677 EDA 2013 (Pa.)

Appellant is the father and guardian of Chaya Baum, a special-
needs minor child who has health insurance with appellee Keystone
Mercy Health Plan. Sometime in 2010, one of the appellees'
employees copied data from Appellees' computer system onto an
unencrypted flash drive that was misplaced and never found. The
information on the flash drive included, variously, names,
addresses/zip codes, date of birth, social security numbers,
member identification numbers and clinical information, including
medications, lab results and health screening information.
Appellant received a notice informing him that his daughter's
member identification number and health screening information were
on the lost flash drive.

Appellant filed a complaint alleging violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), as
well as claims of negligence and negligence per se. Appellees
filed a notice of removal of the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. On November 14, 2011, the District
Court remanded the case back to the trial court.

Appellant filed an amended complaint and a motion for class
certification. The trial court conducted a hearing on Appellant's
class certification motion on April 29, 2013. On July 25, 2013,
the trial court and entered an order denying appellant's motion
for class certification. Appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal.

The panel concluded that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Appellant's motion for class
certification regarding his claim of negligence and his claim
under the UTPCPL regarding fraudulent conduct. However, the trial
court abused its discretion when it held that Appellant's UTPCPL
claim could not be certified to the extent it alleged deceptive
conduct under the UTPCPL's catchall provision. Accordingly, the
trial court's July 25, 2013 order is affirmed in part, vacated in
part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Mundy's non-precedential decision dated December
9, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/fUuktLfrom Leagle.com.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania panel consists of Judges Anne
E. Lazarus, Sallie Updyke Mundy and Platt.


LA FLOR: Recalls Ground Cumin Due to Undeclared Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------
La Flor Products Co., Inc. of Hauppauge, NY, is recalling its 2-
oz, 6-oz, and 5-lb packages of La Flor-Ground Cumin because they
may contain traces of undeclared peanuts. People who have
allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled La Flor-Ground Cumin was distributed in the Tri-State
area to supermarket chains, independent supermarkets and mass
merchandisers.

The recalled product will be found in three (3) distinct packages.

Clear 2-oz square glass jar with label UPC-077636014503 and lot
RLF 800 and expiration dates 5/13/18 or 7/14/18 stamped on the
side.

Clear 6-oz clear round plastic jar with label UPC-077636014602 and
lot RLF 800 and expiration date 5/14/18 stamped on the side.

Clear 5-lb large plastic jar with handle with label UPC-
077636514409 and lot RLF 800 and expiration date 6/16/18 stamped
on the side.

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

The recall was initiated after it was revealed by a supplier that
the product we received contained traces of peanut and we
distributed this product in packaging that did not reveal or state
the presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem originated at the country of origin where the product was
harvested and processed.

Consumers who have purchased any of the "La Flor-Ground Cumin" in
the packages listed above are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 631-851-9601, Monday-Friday 9am-4 pm ET.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429879.htm


LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL: Judge Strikes Third Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phil Gilbert struck plaintiff's third amended
complaint in the case CALVIN MERRITTE, # R-53322, Plaintiff, v.
C/O KESSELL, C/O GANGLOFF, MARC HODGE, J. FREEMAN, and TATE,
Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-263-JPG-PMF (S.D. Il.)

Calvin Merritte, while confined at Lawrence Correctional Center,
filed a suit against Defendants Kessell, Gangloff, Tate, J.Freeman
and Breedan for retaliation against plaintiff and threatening him
after he exercised his First Amendment right to file grievances
against them. He also alleges that defendants Tate and Breeden
identified him as a "stooly", thereby subjecting him to a risk of
serious harm from other inmates and that defendant Warden Hodge
refused to transfer plaintiff and denied his request for
protective measures in light of fear of imminent harm.

In December 2012, plaintiff sought leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint. His motion was denied because the proposed amended
complaint did not comply with Southern District of Illinois Local
Rule 15.1, which requires all new material in an amended pleading
to be underlined. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's denial of his motion for leave to amend. He submitted
another proposed Third Amended Complaint along with his motion.
The Court denied the reconsideration motion and rejected the
proposed amended pleading, noting that it again failed to meet the
formatting requirements of SDIL-LR 15.1. Plaintiff was, however,
granted an extension of time to file another Third Amended
Complaint, up to March 28, 2013. The Defendants answered the
Second Amended Complaint on March 14, 2013.

On May 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of the
denial of his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The Court
of Appeals remanded the matter to the Southern District of
Illinois Court for further proceedings one year later, on May 9,
2014.  Six months later, Plaintiff submitted the proposed Third
Amended Complaint.

Judge Gilbert granted plaintiff's motion in open court on November
20, 2014 and the same is now reviewed by the court.

Judge Gilbert struck plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Should
plaintiff wish to again attempt to amend his complaint, he was to
file a Fourth Amended Complaint within 30 days -- on or before
January 9, 2015.  The Fourth Amended Complaint is subject to
review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.

A copy of Judge Gilbert's memorandum and opinion dated December 9,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/tUfzHBfrom Leagle.com.

Calvin Merritte, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by:

     Htin Myat Win, Esq.
     Kelly R. Choate, Esq.
     Illinois Attorney General's Office
     Chicago Main Office
     100 West Randolph Street
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 814-3000


LES SCHWAB: Judge Denies Class Cert. Bid in "O'Hearn" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification and the parties' stipulated motion to strike in the
case RICHARD O'HEARN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LES SCHWAB WAREHOUSE CENTER,
INC. and LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., Defendants,
No. C13-2005 TSZ (W.D. Wash.)

Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. operates 114 stores in
Washington.  Les Schwab is affiliated with Les Schwab Warehouse
Center, Inc. (LSWCI), but neither defendant is the parent or
subsidiary of the other. Les Schwab has a decentralized structure
in which each store operates like an independent business, with a
store's management having almost complete control over how its own
store is run.

Until January 1, 2013, assistant managers were compensated on a
salary and profit-sharing basis, and were not paid for overtime.
Effective January 1, 2013, Assistant Managers became hourly
employees, and the second and third Assistant Manager positions
were eliminated. Les Schwab had been in the process of phasing-out
the second and third Assistant Manager positions since 2008.

Plaintiff was a second Assistant Manager at Store No. 304, located
in Bothell, Washington, from February 2005 until December 2012,
and a Sales & Service Professional at the same store from January
2013 until July 2013, when he resigned.

Plaintiff filed a suit against Les Schwab and makes 3 claims under
3 different Washington statues, namely RCW 49.46.130, RCW
49.48.010, and RCW 49.52.050. The crux of plaintiff's suit is that
Les Schwab's Assistant Managers are not exempt from Washington's
requirement that employees be compensated at 1-1/2 times their
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification asking the court to certify
a class of all Assistant Managers employed by Les Schwab stores in
Washington during the three-year limitations period and until
December 31, 2012, who were classified as exempt" from
Washington's overtime pay regulations.

Judge Zilly denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The
parties' stipulated motion to strike the trial date and all
related deadlines was also denied and the court in sua sponte
extended the expert disclosure deadline from November 5, 2014, to
December 22, 2014, and the discovery completion deadline from
January 5, 2015, to January 30, 2015.

A copy of Judge Zilly's order dated November 24, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/P82UaEfrom Leagle.com.

Richard O'Hearn, Plaintiff, represented by Jeniphr A.E.
Breckenridge -- eniphr@hbsslaw.com -- at HAGENS BERMAN LLP & Steve
W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- at HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP (WA)

Les Schwab Warehouse Center Inc. and Les Schwab Tire Centers of
Washington Inc., Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Alan
Hollingsworth -- JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com -- William B.
Stafford -- WStafford@perkinscoie.com -- at PERKINS COIE; Kenneth
J Diamond -- ken@winterbauerdiamond.com -- at WINTERBAUER &
DIAMOND


LIFELOCK INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Marketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Lifelock, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00258 (N.D. Cal., January 19, 2015), arises out of the Defendants
false and misleading representation of its Membership Plans as
providing the most comprehensive identity theft protection in the
industry and service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a
year, when in fact its service is subject to frequent delays and
freezes and it failed to implement and maintain technology to
deliver and maintain security standards as promised.

Lifelock, Inc. provides identity theft services to over 3 million
subscribers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Henry ("Hank") Bates, Esq.
      Randall K. Pulliam
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
      Little Rock, AR 72212
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
              rpulliam@cbplaw.com


LINKEDIN CORPORATION: Sued Over Illegal Use of Names & Likeness
---------------------------------------------------------------
Branton Lea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00236 (N.D.
Cal., January 16, 2015), arise out the Defendant's practice of
misappropriated the names and likenesses of the Plaintiff and
Class member without permission and used them in a misleading
manner to promote its contact uploader service for financial gain.

LinkedIn Corporation is a business-oriented social networking
service that enables its members to make connections with other
members for the purported goal of advancing members' professional
pursuits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      Rose F. Luzon, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 429-5272
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
              rluzon@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
      Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
      Christina D. Saler, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 W. Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500


M3P DIRECTIONAL: Faces "Graham" 1st Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weston Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M3P Directional Services, Ltd., Case No. 7:15-cv-00007
(W.D. Tex., January 16, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

M3P Directional Services, Ltd. is a Texas based oilfield service
company with significant operations throughout Texas and the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, Texas 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     Facsimile: (7130 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


M3P DIRECTIONAL: Faces "Graham" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weston Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M3P Directional Services, Ltd., Case No. Case 4:15-cv-
00147 (W.D. Tex., January 16, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

M3P Directional Services, Ltd. is a Texas based oilfield service
company with significant operations throughout Texas and the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

        - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, Texas 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     Facsimile: (7130 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MGIC INVESTMENT: To Vigorously Defend Against Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 20, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend
itself against the allegations in class action lawsuits.

Consumers continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders
and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including
MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the
anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly
known as FCRA. MGIC's settlement of class action litigation
against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled
the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA
in December 2004, following denial of class certification in June
2004.

Since December 2006, class action litigation has been brought
against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive
mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.  Beginning in
December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage lenders and
other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant in twelve
lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S.
District Courts. Seven of those cases have previously been
dismissed without any further opportunity to appeal.

The complaints in all of the cases allege various causes of action
related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the
mortgage lenders, including that the lenders' captive reinsurers
received excessive premiums in relation to the risk assumed by
those captives, thereby violating RESPA.  MGIC denies any
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations in the lawsuits.

"There can be no assurance that we will not be subject to further
litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such
litigation, including the lawsuits mentioned above, would not have
a material adverse effect on us," the Company said.


MICHIGAN: Appellate Court Remands "Fulicea" Case to Claims Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed and remanded the
appellate case of FELIX FULICEA and KENNETH ALLEN, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 317283 (Mich. App.)

The plaintiffs, as employees of defendants, filed a class action
complaint for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 USC 201 et seq., alleging that defendants denied them overtime
compensation for services they were forced to perform outside
their normal work hours.

Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4),
arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
plaintiffs' statutory claims under MCL 600.6419(1)(a), which
provided that the Court of Claims had power and jurisdiction to
hear and determine all claims and demands, liquidated and
unliquidated, ex contractu and ex delicto, against the state and
any of its departments.

The Court of Claims agreed that it did not have jurisdiction over
plaintiffs' statutory claims and granted defendants' motion in
June 2013.

After plaintiffs filed their claim of appeal, the Legislature
enacted 2013 PA 164, which amended several statutes affecting the
Court of Claims, including MCL 600.6419(1)(a). MCL 600.6419(1)(a)
now provides that the Court of Claims has power and jurisdiction
to hear and determine any claim or demand, statutory or
contractual, liquidated or unliquidated, ex contractu or ex
delicto, against the state or any of its departments. Plaintiff
argues on appeal that the Court of Claims' order granting
defendants summary disposition should be reversed and remanded
under the current and previous version of MCL 600.6419(1)(a).

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case
for further proceedings.  A copy of the Court of Appeals of
Michigan's opinion dated November 25, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/2zKeXafrom Leagle.com.

The Appellate Court panel consists of Presiding Judge Kirsten F.
Kelly, and Judges Patrick M. Meter and David H. Sawyer.


MOLYCORP INC: Colorado Judge Stays Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the District of Colorado
granted defendants' motion in the consolidated case THOMAS B.
WELLS, derivatively on behalf of Molycorp, Inc., Plaintiff, v.
MARK A. SMITH, et al. Defendants, and MOLYCORP, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Nominal Defendant, and JAMES SWAGGERTY, derivatively
on behalf of Molycorp, Inc., Plaintiff, v. MARK A. SMITH, et al.
Defendants, and MOLYCORP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal
Defendant. and AVERY JAMES KAYTEN, derivatively on behalf of
Molycorp, Inc., Plaintiff, v. ROSS R. BHAPPU, et al. Defendants,
and MOLYCORP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant,
Civil Action Nos. 12-CV-00447-WJM-KLM, 12-CV-00589-WJM-KLM, 13-CV-
03155-WJM-KLM (D. Colo.)

The action consists of three consolidated cases: (1) Wells v.
Smith, No. 12-cv-00447-WJM-KLM, (2) Swaggerty v. Smith, No. 12-cv-
00589-WJM-KLM, and (3) Kayten v. Bhappu, No. 13-cv-03155-WJM-KLM.
The Wells and Swaggerty cases were consolidated under the Wells
caption and complaint.

These actions are derivative of two securities class actions. The
Colorado class action, which is styled; In re Molycorp, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 12-cv-00292-RM-KMT (D. Colo.), alleging
that defendants made false statements in Molycorp's public filings
and during earnings calls and investor presentations over a nine
month period in 2011 in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also includes
claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against Molycorp, certain members of the Board, and various
underwriters in connection with the stock and debenture offerings.

The second securities class action, deemed the New York class
action and styled; In re Molycorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
13 Civ. 5697 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.). It asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers during the period February 21, 2012 through October 15,
2013. It further alleges that Molycorp and certain of its officers
made materially false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding various aspects of the company.

On July 15, 2014, the District Judge denied defendants' motion to
proceed in one jurisdiction and denied defendants' request for a
stay predicated on the similarities between the derivative actions
and another related case in Delaware.

Defendants seek a stay on both the Wells and the Kayten complaints
pending resolution of the Colorado class action and a further stay
on the Kayten complaint pending resolution of the New York class
action.

Judge Mix granted defendants' motion and stayed the case for
further proceedings. The parties were directed to file a Joint
Status Report within 10 days of resolution of the Colorado class
action. The Joint Status Report must include the parties'
respective positions regarding the continued efficacy of a stay on
all or part of this lawsuit. It is further ordered that the
parties shall file a Joint Status Report within ten days of
resolution of the New York class action. The Joint Status Report
shall include the parties' respective positions regarding the
continued efficacy of a stay on all or part of this lawsuit.

A copy of Judge Mix's order dated December 8, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/COHflzfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas B. Wells, Plaintiff, represented by Brian James Robbins --
brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- George Carlos Aguilar --
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- at Robbins Arroyo LLP

James Swaggerty, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Brian James
Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- George Carlos Aguilar --
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- at Robbins Arroyo LLP

Avery James Kayten, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Frank James
Johnson -- FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- at Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Mark A. Smith, John L. Burba, John F. Ashburn, Jr., James S.
Allen, Ross R. Bhappu, Brian T. Dolan, Defendants, represented by
Eric Neil Landau -- elandau@jonesday.com -- Travis Shenandoah
Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day; Gregory J. Kerwin
-- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

Alec Machiels, Mark S. Kristoff, Charles R. Henry, Jack E.
Thompson, Russell D. Ball, Defendants, represented by Gregory J.
Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

RCF Management, L.L.C, Defendant, represented by:

     Daniel F. Wake, Esq.
     SANDER INGEBRETSEN & WAKE, P.C.
     1660 17th Street #450
     Denver, CO 80202
     Telephone: (303) 285-5300

Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P., Defendant, represented by Brian
Thomas Carney -- bcarney@akingump.com -- Stephen M. Baldini --
sbaldini@akingump.com -- at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP

Molycorp, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Gordon McMillan,
III -- mcmillanj@pepperlaw.com -- M. Duncan Grant --
grantm@pepperlaw.com -- at Pepper Hamilton, LLP

John Graell and Michael Schwarzkopf, Consol Defendants,
represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com -- at
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

Traxys North America LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by David
Adam Berger, Allegaert Berger Vogel LLP


MORNINGSTAR FARMS: Recalls Spicy & Chipotle Black Bean Burgers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MorningStar Farms is issuing a voluntary and precautionary recall
of certain code dates of Spicy Black Bean Burgers and Chipotle
Black Bean Burgers because they may contain undeclared peanut.

MorningStar Farms was notified by a third party supplier that one
of the spice ingredients used in Spicy Black Bean Burgers and
Chipotle Black Bean Burgers may inadvertently contain peanut, an
allergen that is not declared on the products' ingredient
statements. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

This recall affects the following products:

  Description(retail)     UPC Code    Size       Better if Used
  ------------------      --------    ----       Before Date
                                                 --------------
MorningStar Farms       2898971750 18.90 oz        APR14 16 XXXX
Spicy Black Bean Burger            (8 ct)          XX:XX to JUN30
                                                   16 XXXX XX:XX
MorningStar Farms       2898939207 9.50 oz(4 ct)   APR14 16 XXXX
Spicy Black Bean Burger                            XX:XX to JUN30
                                                   16 XXXX XX:XX
MorningStar Farms       2898971674 38.10 oz        MAR22 16 XXXX
Chipotle Black Bean                (9 ct)          XX:XX to JUN30
Burger                                             16 XXXX XX:XX
MorningStar Farms       2898940864 50.80 oz        MAR22 16 XXXX
Chipotle Black Bean                (12 ct)         XX:XX to JUN30
Burger                                             16 XXXX XX:XX

  Description             UPC Code    Size       Better if Used
  (foodservice)           --------    ----       Before Date
  -------------                                  --------------
MorningStar Farms       2898949938  8.7 lb case    MAR 24 2016
Spicy Black Bean Burger              ( 48 ct)     XXXX XX:XX to
                                                   JUN 30 2016
                                                   XXXX XX:XX
MorningStar Farms       2898931651  12.75 lb case  APR 09 2016
Spicy Black Bean Burger             (4 sleeve)     XXXX XX:XX to
                                                   JUN 30 2016
                                                   XXXX XX:XX
MorningStar Farms       2898997765  9.75 lb case   APR 20 2016
Spicy Black Bean Burger             (4 sleeve)     XXXX XX:XX to
                                                   JUN 30 2016
                                                   XXXX XX:XX

These products were distributed nationwide in the U.S. at both
retail stores and through foodservice channels. No illnesses have
been reported to date in connection with this recall.
Consumers with questions may contact the Consumer Response Center
using the Contact Us feature on www.MorningStarFarms.com  or by
calling at 1-800-962-0120 from Monday - Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6
p.m. Eastern Time.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429691.htm


NATIONAL CREDITORS: "Campo" and "Diaz" Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denis R. Hurley of the Eastern District of New York
granted defendant's motion in the case SALVATORE CAMPO, Plaintiff,
v. NATIONAL CREDITORS CONNECTION, INC., Defendant, ALTAFRACIA
DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CREDITORS CONNECTION, INC.,
Defendant, Nos. 12 CV 1405 (DRH) (SIL), 13 CV 3467 (DRH) (SIL)
(E.D.N.Y.)

Salvatore Campo alleges that National Creditors Connection, Inc.
(NCCI) has been attempting to collect a residential mortgage loan
from plaintiff on behalf of its client Seterus.

Altagracia Diaz alleges that defendant has been attempting to
collect a residential mortgage loan from plaintiff on behalf of
its client Residential Credit Solutions.

Campo and Diaz each commenced actions against defendant asserting
that NCCI violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Campo brings the action on behalf of a class consisting of (a) all
natural persons with a New York address, (b) that defendant
contacted with a request for information or communications, (c) on
or after a date one year prior to filing this action [(March 22,
2011)], and (d) on or before a date 20 days after the filing of
this action [(April 11, 2012)], (e) to whom defendant did not
provide the disclosures described in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.

Diaz brings the action on behalf of a class consisting of (a) all
natural persons with a New York address (b) that defendant
contacted with a request for information or communications (c) on
or [after] April 12, 2012, and (d) on or before a date 20 days
after filing this action [(July 9, 2013)] (e) to whom defendant
did not provide the disclosures described in 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g.

Defendant seeks to consolidate plaintiffs' respective actions,
Campo v. National Creditors Connection, Inc., 12-cv-1405 and Diaz
v. National Creditors Connection, Inc., 13-cv-3567, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.

Judge Hurley granted defendant's motion to consolidate the Campo
and Diaz actions.

A copy of Judge Hurley's memorandum and order dated November 25,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/jAd99Jfrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
     Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
     EDELMAN, COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
     20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, Il 60603
     Telephone: 312-739-4200
     Facsimile: 312-419-0379

          - and -

     Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
     KLEINMAN, LLC
     626 RXR Plaza
     Union Dale, NY 11556-0626
     Telephone: (516) 522-2621
     Facsimile: (888) 522-1692

Attorney for Defendant:

     Jason Alex Storipan, Esq.
     Regina A. Petty, Esq.
     FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
     430 Mountain Avenue
     Murray Hill, NJ 07974
     Telephone: (908) 516-1050
     Facsimile: (908) 516-1051
     E-mail: rpetty@laborlawyers.com
             jstoripan@laborlawyers.com


NEW YORK LIFE: Claims on Policy Barred by Statute of Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph J. Vukovich of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh
District, affirmed the decision of Mahoning County Common Pleas
Court in the case SAT ADLAKA, et al., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v.
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORP., et al., DEFENDANTS-
APPELLEES, No. 13 MA 171.2014-Ohio-5404 (Ohio Ct. App.)

The plaintiffs Sat Adlaka, Karen Adlaka, Adlaka & Associates
Profit Plan, and The Sat Adlaka Irrevocable Trust, filed a
complaint against New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation,
William Mangano, Eagle Strategies LLC, and New York Life Insurance
Company. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract,
fraud, violation of the Consumer Sales Practice Act alleging
consumer fraud by way of unfair and deceptive acts, and a Chapter
1707 securities law violation involving a breach of fiduciary duty
due to the breach of contract, misrepresentations, and non-
disclosures. The claims revolve around the sale of a 1994 whole
life insurance policy and the sale of a 1999 variable life
insurance policy.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

The trial court sustained the defendants' motion for summary
judgment on the plaintiffs' claims involving the 1994 whole life
policy, ruling that the dispute was resolved in the so-called
Willson class action settlement.

A class action lawsuit was certified in New York in the case of
Willson v. New York Life Ins. Co., Civ. No. 94/128704 due to
allegations of misrepresentation and "vanishing premiums"
concerning the 1994 policy. The suit was settled, releasing the
companies and agents from liability for the settled claims, and
the court entered judgment on the settlement in 1996. The class
members could choose from certain options as the remedy such as an
optional premium loan, enhanced value policy, enhanced value
annuity, or alternative dispute resolution.

The court, however, denied summary judgment on the plaintiffs'
claims involving the 1999 variable life policy and opined that the
preliminary matter of the agent selling the 1999 policy should be
first pursued through an action to enforce the settlement in a
proper forum. The entry then set the case for a status hearing.

After that status hearing, the defendants filed a motion asking
the court to reconsider the ruling denying summary judgment as to
the claims concerning the 1999 variable life policy, pointing out
that they were satisfied with the grant of summary judgment in
their favor on the claims involving the 1994 whole life policy.
The defendants mentioned that the court suggested at the status
conference that it believed the plaintiffs could pursue a remedy
in New York on the 1999 policy, but the parties agreed that no
further remedies are available in the Willson case after all these
years. The defendants also noted that they would merely assert the
same defenses in any New York case that it was asserting here.

Their motion noted that the court's ruling with regard to the 1999
policy did not address the summary judgment arguments. The court
was asked to grant summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims
involving the 1999 policy on the grounds that such claims are
barred by the statute of limitations in R.C. 1707.43(B). It was
reasserted that the 1999 variable life policy was a security with
a statute of limitations being the shorter of two years from when
plaintiff should have known of the issue or five years from the
date of the sale. As the suit was filed more than ten years from
the date of the sale, it was urged that the statute had run as to
all claims dealing with the 1999 policy.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the reasons set forth
in the June 15, 2012 judgment entry and on the basis that both
claims involving the 1994 whole life policy and the 1999 variable
life policy are time barred by R.C. 1707.43(B). The plaintiffs
filed a timely notice of appeal from the entry.

Judge Vukovich upheld the trial court's decision finding that the
plaintiffs' claims involving the 1999 variable life policy are
barred by the statute of limitations in R.C. 1707.43(B).

A copy of Judge Vukovich's opinion dated December 5, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/fbX7HIfrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants:

     James Gentile
     42 North Phelps Street
     Youngstown, Ohio 44503
     Telephone: 330-746-5000

Attorney for New York Life:

     Gregory Mersol, Esq.
     Chris Bator, Esq.
     BakerHostetler
     PNC Center
     1900 East Ninth Street, Suite 3200
     Cleveland, OH 44114-3482
     Telephone: 216-621-0200
     Facsimile: 216-696-0740
     Email: gmersol@bakerlaw.com
            cbator@bakerlaw.com

Attorney for William Magno, Defendants-Appellants:

     Steven Janik, Esq.
     Colin Sammon, Esq.
     JANIK LLP
     9200 South Hills Blvd., Suite 300
     Cleveland, OH 44144-3521
     Telephone: 440-838-4600
     Facsimile: 440838-7601
     E-mail: steven.janik@janiklaw.com
             colin.sammon@janiklaw.com

The Seventh District Court of Appeals panel consists of Judges
Cheryl L. Waite and Gene Denofrio and Joseph J. Vukovich


NORM KRAMER: Judge Denies Detainee's Motion for Reconsideration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin of the Eastern District of
California denied plaintiff's motion in the case entitled JASON
TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. NORM KRAMER, et al., Defendants, No. 1:14-
Cv-00939-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Jason Taylor is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff and 15 co-plaintiffs filed the
Complaint commencing this action on June 18, 2014. On September
26, 2014, the court issued an order severing the plaintiffs'
claims and opening 15 new cases, one for each of the 15 co-
plaintiffs.

On July 10, 2014, before the plaintiffs' claims were severed, the
court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for
appointment of counsel and on July 17, 2014, issued an order
denying the plaintiffs' request to proceed as a class action. On
November 17, 2014, Plaintiff and the 15 former co-plaintiffs filed
a motion for reconsideration of the orders denying appointment of
counsel and denying class action certification.

Magistrate Judge Austin denied plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration.

A copy of Judge Austin's order dated November 24, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/1knQxafrom Leagle.com.

Jason Taylor, Plaintiff, Pro Se


RAMIN DESIGN: Faces "Sheldon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Sheldon and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Ramin Design, LLC, Ramin Aleyasin, Case No. 1:15-cv-
20200 (S.D. Fla., January 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


RANCHO CORDOVA: Class Certification Motion Due July 1
-----------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification must be filed no later than July
1, 2015, in a lawsuit against the City of Rancho Cordova, in
California.

District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr., of the Eastern District of
California vacated the status conference scheduled for December
15, 2014, in the case B.O.L.T., an unincorporated association of
motorcycle riders and enthusiasts; MARK TEMPLE, an individual;
NOREEN MCNULTY, an individual; WARREN PEARL, an individual; LYLE
DUVAUCHELLE, an individual; GLENN OSBORN, an individual; JEFFREY
RABE, an individual; DAVID ZALITSKIY, an individual; WILLIAM
LANGHORNE, an individual; THOMAS BELL, an individual; ROBERT
BALTHORPE II, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RANCHO
CORDOVA, a political subdivision of the state of California;
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a political subdivision of the state of
California; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT, an independent legal
agency of the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA;
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL GOOLD, in his
official capacity as the Chief of Police of the CITY OF RANCHO
CORDOVA; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE TRAFFIC SERGEANT G. LANE, in his
individual and official capacity as Supervisor of the Traffic
Division; SCOTT R. JONES, in his official capacity as the SHERIFF
of the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER S.
CARRDOZZO (badge number 480); RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER M.
JAMES (badge number 507); RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER S. PADGETT
(badge number 1174), Defendants, NO. 2:14-Cv-01588-GEB-DAD (E.D
Cal.)

The status conference scheduled for hearing on December 15, 2014,
is vacated since the parties' filed on December 1, 2014 a Joint
Status Report.

The parties' proposed briefing schedule concerning whether the
putative class action should be certified as a class action is
adopted as follows: The motion for class certification shall be
filed no later than July 1, 2015; an opposition or statement of
non-opposition to the motion shall be filed no later than July 23,
2015; and any reply shall be filed no later than August 6, 2015.
The hearing on the motion shall be noticed for August 24, 2015, at
9:00 a.m.

A further Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is scheduled to
commence at 9:00 a.m. on October 26, 2015. A joint status report
shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to the status
conference.

A copy of Judge Burrell's status order dated December 5, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/XfFfJVfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel M. Karalash -- dan@stratlaw.org
-- at Strategic Law Command; Gary William Gorski --
usrugby@gmail.com -- at Law Offices of Gary W. Gorski

Defendants, represented by Terence John Cassidy --
tcassidy@porterscott.com -- at Porter Scott, APC


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Entered Into MOU to Settle North Carolina Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its 8-K Current Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2015, that
defendants in a North Carolina class action entered into the North
Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of
disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit.

The Company filed the Form 8-K in connection with a memorandum of
understanding regarding the partial settlement of a lawsuit
challenging certain aspects of the transactions related to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 15, 2014 (the
"Merger Agreement"), by and among Lorillard, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Lorillard"), Reynolds American Inc., a North
Carolina corporation ("RAI"), and Lantern Acquisition Co., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of RAI, pursuant
to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain
conditions, Lorillard will become a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI
(the "Merger"). Defined terms used but not defined below have the
meanings set forth in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of
RAI, that was declared effective on December 22, 2014 (the "S-4"),
and the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus that RAI and
Lorillard filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") on December 22, 2014 (the "Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus").

As disclosed in the S-4 and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, RAI,
the members of the RAI board of directors and British American
Tobacco p.l.c. ("BAT") have been named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Corwin v. British American Tobacco
PLC, et al., No. 14-CVS-8130 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2014), brought in
North Carolina state court (the "North Carolina Action") by a
person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI.

The North Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an
amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The amended
complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members
of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
RAI shareholders by approving the share purchase and the sharing
of technology with BAT. The amended complaint also alleges that
there were various conflicts of interest in the transaction. The
North Carolina Action seeks injunctive relief, damages and
reimbursement of costs, among other remedies.

On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for
January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely
opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to take
place on January 16, 2015.

RAI believes that the North Carolina Action is without merit and
that no further disclosure is required to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, defendants in the North Carolina Action entered into the
North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
settlement of disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit. The
North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of
the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release
disclosure claims which were or could have been asserted in the
North Carolina Action. In consideration of the partial settlement
and release, the parties to the North Carolina Action have agreed,
among other things, that RAI will make certain supplemental
disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, all of which
are set forth below. The North Carolina Memorandum of
Understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good
faith to agree upon a stipulation of partial settlement to be
submitted to the court for approval as soon as practicable. The
stipulation of partial settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including approval by the court, which will consider
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the partial
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of partial settlement or that
the court will approve the partial settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such a stipulation. In that event, the proposed
partial settlement will be null and void and of no force and
effect. As is more fully set forth the North Carolina Memorandum
of Understanding, the partial settlement will not resolve or
terminate non-disclosure claims in the North Carolina Action. The
partial settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
Lorillard shareholders in connection with the Merger.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Entered Into MOU to Resolve Delaware Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its 8-K Current Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2015, that
defendants in the Delaware class action entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding regarding the settlement of disclosure claims
asserted in that lawsuit.

The Company filed the Form 8-K filed in connection with a
memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of certain
litigation, as previously disclosed in the S-4 and Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, relating to the putative class action
lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Lorillard
shareholders challenging the proposed merger with RAI, naming
Lorillard, the members of the Lorillard board of directors, RAI
and BAT as defendants (the "Delaware Actions").  The complaints
generally allege, among other things, that the members of the
Lorillard board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Lorillard shareholders by authorizing the proposed merger of
Lorillard with RAI. The complaints also allege that RAI and BAT
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly
committed by the members of the Lorillard board of directors.

On November 25, 2014, the court granted a motion for consolidation
of the lawsuits into a single action captioned In re Lorillard,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9904-CB and appointment of
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, lead
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion to expedite. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in
support of their motion for a preliminary injunction on January 9,
2015.

Lorillard and RAI believe that these lawsuits are without merit
and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws; however, to
eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such
litigation, on January 15, 2015, the defendants entered into the
Delaware Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of
the Delaware Actions. The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding
outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
settle and release all claims which were or could have been
asserted in the Delaware Actions. In consideration for such
settlement and release, the parties to the Delaware Actions have
agreed, among other things, that Lorillard and RAI will make
certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding
contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith to
agree upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the
court for approval as soon as practicable. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
approval by the court, which will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, or if the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the
proposed settlement will be of no force and effect.


RIDDELL INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consumers' Concussion Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated actions in IN RE RIDDELL CONCUSSION REDUCTION
LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-7585 (JBS/JS), (D. N.J.),
Plaintiffs contend that Riddell, Inc. and its associated corporate
entities marketed a line of football helmets, primarily to youth
and high school football players, with the purported ability to
reduce concussions based on unique concussion reduction
technology, yet Defendants' helmets are no more capable of
reducing concussions than other football helmets.

Defendants Riddell, Inc., Riddell Sports Group, Easton-Bell
Sports, LLC, EB Sports Corporation, RBG Holdings Corporation, and
All American Sports Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are four individuals and one school district who allege
they were exposed to Defendants' allegedly false and deceptive
claims, purchased Defendants' football helmets, and suffered harm
because those helmets do not offer the promised protection against
concussions. Plaintiffs' class action complaint asserts claims
under the consumer protection laws of five states: New Jersey,
Illinois, Florida, California, and Arizona. Defendants' motion
seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims under Rule 8(a), Rule 9(b),
and Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. In addition to various
purported deficiencies in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint,
Defendants contend that their advertising claims were supported by
scientific, peer-reviewed study and that their helmets bear a
disclaimer that no helmet can prevent brain injury or concussions.

Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle, in an opinion entered
January 15, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/eSWDTNfrom Leagle.com, granted in part and denied in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Judge Simandle concluded that although Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint passes muster under Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P., it fails to
satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
because Plaintiffs have not identified which marketing statements
each Plaintiff observed, nor have they identified when, where, or
how they were exposed to same. The Court further found that
Plaintiffs' essential theory of the case is so unclear and
inconsistent that it fails to satisfy the plausibility standard
under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.  Plaintiffs in the Amended
Complaint, in briefing, and at oral argument have not articulated
how the marketing claims at issue are false. It remains unclear
whether Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' claims of concussion
reduction are false because the three helmets identified in the
Amended Complaint cannot reduce concussions at all or if these
helmets cannot reduce concussions by 31% as compared to other
helmets. Plaintiffs' vague and conclusory allegations as to
ascertainable loss also warrant dismissal for failure to state a
claim under New Jersey and Florida law. Because the Court finds
that amendment would not be futile, the Court will dismiss without
prejudice to refiling of almost all claims if Plaintiffs are able
to cure these deficiencies, Judge Simandle says.

"The Court will deny Defendants' motion to the extent it is based
on Plaintiffs' alleged failure to comply with Rule 8. The Court
will grant Defendants' motion to the extent it is based on
Plaintiffs' failure to comply with Rule 9(b) and Rule 12(b)(6).
Defendants' claims will be dismissed without prejudice, except the
Cohokia School District's claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act which the Court dismisses with prejudice due to lack of
standing," ruled Judge Simandle.

James E. Cecchi, Esq., Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. --
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C., Roseland, NJ, and Stephen A. Corr, Esq. --
scorr@stark-stark.com -- STARK & STARK, Yardley, PA, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Norma D. Thiel, Nicholas W. Farrell, Cahokia School
District, Gustavo Galvan, Kenny King, Douglas Aronson, and Denise
Aronson

Joseph A. Boyle, Esq. -- jboyle@kelleydrye.com -- Michael Andrew
Innes, Esq. -- minnes@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP,
Parsippany, NJ, Attorneys for Defendants Riddell, Inc., Riddell
Sports Group, Easton-Bell Sports, LLC, EB Sports Corporation, RBG
Holdings Corporation, and All American Sports Corporation.


SAKUMA BROTHERS: Responds to Berry Pickers' Suit Over Rest Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jenkins, writing for Capital Press, reports that Sakuma
Brothers files its response to a lawsuit seeking piece-rate berry
pickers be paid separately for 10-minute rest breaks.

Washington's practice of not separately paying piece-rate pickers
for rest breaks rewards good workers, according to a brief filed
with the state Supreme Court by Sakuma Brothers Farms.

"Farmworkers return to Sakuma year after year because of high
piece-rate wages that can far exceed minimum wages," the company's
attorney, Adam Belzberg, states in written arguments submitted
Jan. 9.

The Burlington, Wash., berry farm is being sued by piece-rate
pickers seeking additional compensation for 10-minute rest breaks,
which workers are allowed to take every four hours.  The workers
argue that the current practice, standard in Washington
agriculture, unfairly excludes piece-rate pickers from a benefit
guaranteed other employees.

The high court agreed to consider the workers' claim and will hold
oral arguments in March.

The challenge to established practice emerged from a federal
class-action lawsuit by Sakuma workers who alleged their pay was
not properly calculated.  The company denied any wrongdoing, but
agreed to a $500,000 settlement, which was eventually shared by
408 workers.

The settlement didn't resolve whether piece-rate workers are
eligible for additional pay for the time they spend on break.  A
federal judge referred the question to the state court.

Sakuma's case relies heavily on a 1990 administrative rule written
by the state Department of Labor and Industries, with the advice
of farmers and labor representatives.  The department considered
additional break pay for piece-rate workers, but decided against
it, according to a documents submitted to the court.

Mr. Belzberg said in an interview that the rule clearly never
intended for piece-rate workers to receive additional pay.

In written arguments, Belzberg stated that changing the rule would
interfere with the historical right of workers to engage in piece-
rate agreements with employers.

"The agricultural rest break regulation and the (Washington
Minimum Wage Act) should be properly interpreted to encourage
these opportunities for workers to financially benefit through
efficiency and hard work.

"Sakuma's piece-rate system incentivizes employees by awarding
harder-working and more productive workers with greater earnings,
which is why the system is so popular in industries, like
agriculture, where output is easily measured," Mr. Belzberg
writes.

Sakuma requires piece-rate workers take rest breaks to protect
their health and safety, according to the brief.

In a brief filed in December, workers argued pickers should be
paid for breaks based on their piece-rate earnings.  For example,
a picker who earned $10 an hour should be paid an additional $1.67
for a 10-minute break.

The Supreme Court occasionally convenes outside Olympia so more
residents can experience a court hearing.  The Sakuma case will be
one of three that justices will hear March 17 at Heritage
University on the Yakima Indian Reservation in Toppenish.

The case has drawn interest from farm groups.  The Washington Farm
Labor Association and Washington State Tree Fruit Association have
solicited contributions from members to fund separate briefs
urging the court to uphold current practices.


SANTA BARBARA SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Assorted Smoked Salmon Brands
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Barbara Smokehouse Inc. of Santa Barbara, CA, is
voluntarily recalling the following brands and batches of cold
smoked salmon produced and packed between December 17th and
December 24th 2014 because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Cambridge House Private Reserve, Cambridge House Mild, Cambridge
House Mild 4oz, Cambridge House Royal, Cambridge House Royal 4oz,
Cambridge House Royal Pastrami, Cambridge House Royal Lemon and
Dill, Cambridge House Royal Prime Tenderloin, Cambridge House Mild
Lemon Pepper, Cambridge House Balmoral, Cambridge House Balmoral
4oz, Cambridge House Gravadlax, Cambridge House Mild Citron Vodka,
Coastal Harbor, Coastal Harbor Oak, Coastal Harbor Oak Beech,
Coastal Harbor Beech, Coastal Harbor Oak Beech Pastrami, Coastal
Harbor 1lb Trimmings, Coastal Harbor Nova, Santa Barbara
Smokehouse Balmoral, Harbor Point Atlantic, Harbor Point Scottish
Style, Gelsons Market Cambridge House Private Reserve, Fresh &
Easy Atlantic Smoked Salmon 4oz, Fresh & Easy Scottish Smoked
Atlantic Salmon 4oz, Fresh & Easy Smoked Salmon Trimmings 4oz,
Channel Island Atlantic, Local Abundance 4oz, Local Abundance
Norwegian, Local Abundance unsliced, Gordon Foods Private Reserve
Wild.

Batch numbers found on the rear of the package: 200, 596, 4261,
5042, 5251, 5264, 5609, 5699, 5731, 5761, 5792, 5904, 5924, 5934,
5969, 5979, 6012, 6029, 6042, 6054, 6061, 6072, 6082, 6175, 6194,
6204, 6214, 6285, 6304, 6314, 6322, 6339, 6344, 6351, 6362, 6379,
6434, 6449, 6452, 6461, 6479, 6481, 6492, 6572, 6569, 6572, 6584,
6594, 6604, 6612, 6664, 6674, 6684.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the company revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes on
food contact surfaces.

The production of the product has been voluntarily suspended while
CDPH and the company continue to investigate the source of the
incident.

Consumers who have purchased any of the above products are urged
to return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-805-966-
9796.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429734.htm


SHARDA PAPER: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Rosas" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Gabriel Rosas, Jose Luis Cohetero, and Jesus Flores,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Sharda
Paper Inc. d/b/a Sharda Paper, Vipul Patel, Ashvin Patel and Sunny
Diggy Patel, Case No. 1:15-cv-00256 (E.D.N.Y., January 16, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a paper wholesaler
located at 378 Troutman Street, Brooklyn, New York 11237.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTH CAROLINA: DSS Faces Class Action Over Foster Care System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meaghan Wallace, writing for WCSC, reports that a new class action
lawsuit was filed on Jan. 12 in Charleston against Governor Haley
and the Department of Social Services.  It's over major issues
facing South Carolina's foster care system.  In the 74 page suit,
11 children share their stories of alleged mistreatment.
Attorneys and advocacy groups are demanding changes.

Ben Saunders, Associate Director of the National Crime Victims
Research and Treatment Center, has worked with abused children in
the state's child welfare system for over three decades.

"I think our child welfare system is under great challenges right
now," said Mr. Saunders.

A national children's advocacy group, Child's Rights, has
partnered with South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center to
bring a lawsuit against Governor Nikki Haley and the acting direct
of DSS, Susan Alford.

In the suit, the plaintiffs, 11 children ages two to 17, share
their experience in foster care.  Many of them have been through
foster homes in Charleston at some point in their life.  One of
the children included is a 16-year-old girl who was reportedly
moved 12 times in eight years.  They're demanding three main
changes to the state's child welfare system: improved health care
options, more foster home and lighter workloads for each
caseworker.

"When case loads get too high, I think children do suffer," said
Saunders.

In 2014, the Legislative Audit Council found that half of DSS
caseworkers had workloads far exceeding state standards. Some
caseworkers were handling as many as 50 children's cases.

"We need more caseworkers, we need better trained caseworkers and
we need the resources in order to attract and compensate folks at
the level they deserve for the very difficult job that they do,"
said Saunders.

Also difficult? Finding foster homes.

"Getting people to take in foster kids is an incredibly huge
challenge," said Mr. Saunders.

Governor Haley's press secretary Chaney Adams released this
statement:

"Governor Haley believes that protecting South Carolina's most
vulnerable citizens, our children, is the state's most important
job.  That's why the governor has been actively pursuing a new
direction for the agency including hiring new case workers and
human services specialists, enhanced training for those
professionals and improving coordination with key stakeholders
such as law enforcement, mental health and addiction professionals
and families.  We will continue to pursue reforms at DSS --
knowing that our work will never be done protecting the children
of South Carolina."


SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Snyder" Suit in Pa. Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. c, Case No. 2:15-cv-00077 (W.D. Pa., January 16,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Speedway, LLC owns and operates a convenience store located at
4311 Steubenville Pike, McKees Rocks, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Minnesota Judge Won't Decertify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the District of Minnesota
denied defendant's motion to decertify in the case entitled In re
St. Jude Medical Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 10-CV-0851
(SRNTNL) (D. Minn.)

Lead Plaintiff Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund and
Plaintiff City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System claim
that Defendant St. Jude Medical, Inc. (STJ), and four of its
officers, Daniel J. Starks, John C. Heinmiller, Eric S. Fain, and
Michael T. Rousseau violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), 78t(b),
and the Securities Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5. In Count I, Plaintiffs assert a claim under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, alleging that
defendants made false statements of material fact that deceived
plaintiffs. In Count II, plaintiffs assert a derivative claim
under Section 20(a) against all defendants, alleging that they
were liable as control persons under the Exchange Act.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the
allegations failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1985 and that
plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation. On December
23, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion only to the extent
that it sought dismissal of Count I with respect to defendants
Fain and Rousseau.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify this action as a class action
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, in which the court granted the motion.

Defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants' motion was
premised on a purported lack of evidence of the same three
elements of securities fraud that defendants attacked in their
motion to dismiss. The court issued an order granting the motion
in part, and denying it in part.

Plaintiffs retained Dr. Atulya Sarin to examine and discuss issues
related to market efficiency, loss causation and damages for STJ
common stock purchased during the class period. On September 5,
2014, Defendants filed a motion to exclude Dr. Sarin's opinions
and testimony pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.
579(1993).

On November 7, 2014, the same day on which the parties argued
their Daubert motions, defendants filed their motion for leave to
seek decertification of the class. Defendants simultaneously filed
their proposed Motion to Decertify the Class and supporting
memorandum.

Judge Nelson denied defendant's motion for leave to file the
motion to decertify the class and defendant's motion to decertify
the class has been termed mooted.

A copy of Judge Nelson's memorandum opinion and order dated
December 8, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/sy91JQfrom
Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs are represented by Dennis J. Herman --
dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com --
Matthew S. Melamed -- mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com -- Armen Zohrabian --
AZohrabian@rgrdlaw.com -- Ekaterini M. Polychronopoulos --
katerinap@rgrdlaw.com -- Daniel S. Drosman -- dand@rgrdlaw.com --
X. Jay Alvarez -- jaya@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP

Carolyn G. Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Brian C.
Gudmundson -- Brian.Gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed,
P.L.L.P.

Defendants are represented by James K. Langdon --
langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Michelle S. Grant --
grant.michelle@dorsey.com -- Jaime Stilson --
stilson.jaime@dorsey.com -- at Dorsey & Whitney LLP


STATE FARM: S.D. Ill. Judge Denies Discovery Bid in "Hale" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams of the Southern District of
Illinois denied plaintiffs' request in the case entitled MARK
HALE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-660-DRH-SCW

Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint alleging two
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act or RICO claims
against Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that State Farm devised a
scheme to elect Judge Lloyd Karmeier to the Illinois Supreme
Court, conceal its involvement in the financing and management of
the campaign from Plaintiffs and the Illinois Supreme Court so
that Judge Karmeier could preside over the Avery case which was
then pending before the supreme court, and concealed their
involvement by misrepresenting their involvement in two written
briefs submitted to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2005 and 2011.

Plaintiffs also allege that State Farm participated in the
Illinois State Bar Association's candidate evaluation process and
that several of the lawyers on the ISBA evaluation committee were
employed by State Farm when they evaluated and gave Judge Karmeier
a highly qualified rating.

As part of their discovery requests, Plaintiffs seek
communications between State Farm and its lawyers relating to
State Farm's 2005 and 2011 briefs to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs maintain that these filings were fraudulent and serve
as the predicate acts for Plaintiffs' RICO claims. Plaintiffs
argue that State Farm cannot shield these communications from
Plaintiffs' review under attorney-client privilege because the
communications were used to further a fraud on the Illinois
Supreme Court and Plaintiffs as the communications led to
fraudulent statements in the 2005 and 2011 briefs. Plaintiffs
argue that the communications are discoverable under the crime-
fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.

Magistrate Judge Williams denies plaintiffs' request for
communications between State Farm and its attorneys made in
preparation of the 2005 and 2011 Supreme Court briefs. Plaintiffs
have not met their prima facie showing of a crime or fraud.
Further, State Farm has provided an explanation for the evidence
which this Court accepts as adequate.

A copy of Judge Williams's memorandum and order dated November 25,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/pu49mOfrom Leagle.com.

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

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

Laurie Loger, Plaintiff, represented by George S. Bellas, Clifford
Law Offices P.C. & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott

Mark Covington, Plaintiff, represented by George S. Bellas,
Clifford Law Offices P.C. & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Schiff Hardin LLP, Patrick
D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al., Ronald S. Safer, Schiff Hardin
LLP, Harnaik Kahlon, Schiff Hardin LLP, J. Timothy Eaton, Shefsky
& Froelich Ltd. & James P. Gaughan, Schiff Hardin LLP

Edward Murnane, Defendant, represented by Richard J. O'Brien,
Sidley Austin LLP, David Gavin Jorgensen, Sidley Austin LLP, Karim
Basaria, Sidley Austin LLP & Patrick Edward Croke, Sidley Austin
LLP

William G Shepherd, Defendant, represented by Russell K. Scott,
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC &Andrew J. Tessman, Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale PC

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

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


TAJ ETHNIC: Recalls Indian Sauces Due to Undeclared Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Taj Ethnic Gourmet(R) brand has issued a voluntary and
precautionary recall of certain lots of Indian Sauces due to
undeclared peanut allergen in a spice provided by a third-party
supplier. There have been no reported illnesses related to this
voluntary recall.

These products were manufactured by IAM International, Inc., who
was notified by the supplier that cumin used in the products had
tested positive for peanut.

People who have an allergy to peanuts run the risk of a serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
There have been no consumer complaints or reports of allergic
reactions at this time.

The affected products include:

  ITEM DESCRIPTION             UNIT UPC              BEST BY DATE
  ----------------             --------              ------------
Taj Ethnic Gourmet(R)          7 18687 30010 7       15OCT16
Bombay Curry Simmer Sauce
(16.0 oz.)
Taj Ethnic Gourmet(R)          7 18687 30011 4       15OCT16
Calcutta Masala Simmer Sauce
(16.0 oz.)
Taj Ethnic Gourmet(R)          7 18687 30013 8       16OCT16
Punjab Saag Spinach Sauce
(16.0 oz.)

The best by date can be found on the side of the jar lid. The
recalled products were distributed nationwide and through web
orders.

Taj Ethnic Gourmet(R) brand is committed to providing the highest
quality products and our top priority is the safety of our
consumers. For this reason we are initiating this voluntary recall
of the products. This recall is being made with the knowledge of
the FDA.

Consumers do not need to return the product to the store where it
was purchased. Instead, consumers at risk for peanut allergy that
may have purchased one of these products are urged to dispose of
the recalled product and its container. Please contact the Company
at 1-866-367-9256 between the hours of 9AM to 7PM EST, Monday-
Friday for a replacement or refund, and with general inquiries.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429708.htm


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Injunction Bid in Stockholders' Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
denied plaintiff's motion in the case entitled IN RE TIBCO
SOFTWARE INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO.
10319-CB (Del. Ch.)

TIBCO, a Delaware corporation based in Palo Alto, California, is
in the enterprise software industry.

Plaintiff Paul Hudelson has been a TIBCO Software Inc.
stockholder. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and on
behalf of a class of all TIBCO stockholders, excluding defendants
and their affiliates, during the period from September 26, 2014,
through the present. Plaintiff challenges the per-share
consideration that Vista Equity Partners V, L.P., a private equity
fund, agreed to pay in a recently announced merger in which TIBCO
stockholders currently stand to receive $24.00 in cash per share.
In its press release announcing the Merger, TIBCO stated that the
transaction, at $24.00 per share, reflected an enterprise value
for the Company of approximately $4.3 billion. This enterprise
value implies an equity value of approximately $4.244 billion. The
enterprise value stated in the press release was incorrect because
it was based on inaccurate information about the number of fully
diluted shares of TIBCO stock to be acquired by Vista. A merger at
$24.00 per share, based on the accurate number of fully diluted
shares, translates to an enterprise value for TIBCO of
approximately $4.2 billion and an equity value of approximately
$4.144 billion -- a difference of approximately $100 million, or
approximately $0.58 per share, from what the Company had
announced.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote until the Court can
decide, after an expedited trial, his claim that the per-share
consideration in the merger agreement between TIBCO and Vista
should be reformed from $24.00 to $24.58. Plaintiff also seeks a
preliminary injunction based on a breach of fiduciary duty claim
against the directors of TIBCO and aiding and abetting claims
against Vista and Goldman. Plaintiff's fiduciary duty claim
challenges the actions of the TIBCO board after the error in the
share count was discovered. Plaintiff seeks to maintain what he
believes was the result of that process, a transaction with an
equity value of $4.244 billion.

Chancellor Bouchard denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction. Plaintiff's claim for reformation has failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that Vista and TIBCO had specifically agreed
before signing the merger agreement that the Merger would be
consummated at an aggregate equity value of $4.244 billion.
Plaintiff's fiduciary duty-related claim has failed to demonstrate
the existence of irreparable harm given that his claims concern a
quantifiable sum of money that may be remedied by an award for
damages.

A copy of Bouchard's memorandum opinion dated November 25, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/GtI2SEfrom Leagle.com.

Stuart M. Grant -- sgrant@gelaw.com -- Cynthia A. Calder --
ccalder@gelaw.com -- at GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.; Mark Lebovitch -
- markl@blbglaw.com -- Richard Gluck -- Rich.Gluck@blbglaw.com
-- Edward G. Timlin -- edward.timlin@blbglaw.com -- Adam Hollander
-- adam.hollander@blbglaw.com -- John Vielandi --
john.vielandi@blbglaw.com -- at BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP; Francis Bottini, Jr. - mail@bottinilaw.com - at
BOTTINI & BOTTINI INC.; Juan E. Monteverde --
jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com -- James Wilson Jr. --
jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- at FARUQI & FARUQI LLP, Counsel for Lead
Plaintiff

Tamika Montgomery-Reeves -- tmontgomery@wsgr.com -- and Bradley D.
Sorrels -- bsorrels@wsgr.com -- Steven M. Schatz --
sschatz@wsgr.com -- David J. Berger -- dberger@wsgr.com --
Katherine L. Henderson -- khenderson@wsgr.com -- at WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC, Counsel for Defendants TIBCO Software Inc.,
Vivek Ranadive, Nanci Caldwell, Eric Dunn, Manuel A. Fernandez,
Phillip Fernandez, Peter Job, David J. West and Philip Wood

Gregory P. Williams -- williams@rlf.com -- Anne C. Foster --
foster@rlf.com -- J. Scott Pritchard -- pritchard@rlf.com -- at
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.; Yosef J. Riemer --
yosef.riemer@kirkland.com -- Matthew Solum --
matthew.solum@kirkland.com -- David S. Flugman --
david.flugman@kirkland.com -- Shireen A. Barday --
shireen.barday@kirkland.com -- at KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Counsel
for Defendants Balboa Intermediate Holdings, Balboa Merger Sub,
Inc., and Vista Equity Partners V, L.P.

Kevin G. Abrams and J. Peter Shindel, Jr. at ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Paul Vizcarrondo, Jr. --
PVizcarrondo@wlrk.com -- Carrie M. Reilly -- CMReilly@wlrk.com --
Steven Winter -- SWinter@wlrk.com -- Luke M. Appling --
LMAppling@wlrk.com -- at WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, Counsel
for Defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co.


UNIVERSAL AUTO: W.D. Wash. Judge Denies Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom of the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification but with leave to amend, in the case ROBERT TAYLOR,
SR., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL AUTO GROUP I, INC., a Washington
corporation, d/b/a TACOMA DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP, Defendant, Case No.
3:13-Cv-05245-KLS (W.D. Wash.)

In April 2007, Old Tacoma Dodge sold plaintiff a Dodge pickup
truck.  Part of the information Old Tacoma Dodge obtained from
plaintiff in connection with the sale was his cellular telephone
number, which was then included in the Vehicle Buyer's Order.

In early 2009, Chrysler entered into bankruptcy and terminated
many of its automobile dealership franchise agreements, including
the one with Old Tacoma Dodge. In June 2009, Chrysler emerged from
bankruptcy and awarded Philip W. Bivens a franchise for the Tacoma
market area to sell Dodge, Chrysler and Jeep vehicles, which was
incorporated as Universal Auto Group I, Inc., and the defendant in
this case, in the State of Washington in September 2009.  Old
Tacoma Dodge's customer database was pushed to Universal Auto
Group I, Inc.'s data base electronically.

On three occasions during the months of February 2010, and
November 2010, plaintiff and his wife had a car serviced by
defendant. It was defendant's policy that each time customers,
including plaintiff and his wife, came into the dealership for
service work, to have the service advisor or whomever they dealt
with, ask them their preferred method of contact.

Defendant used its service personnel to contact customers via
their preferred method of contact in regard to service performed
on their vehicles. Starting in April or May 2011, defendant began
participating in a call program that Chrysler promoted as
fostering positive customer relations and to help better customer
satisfaction through OneCommand.

The last service reminder call plaintiff received occurred on July
3, 2012. That same day, defendant received an email from plaintiff
stating it had violated the law and asking for money damages.
Upon receipt of that email, defendant notified plaintiff that it
would remove him from the service reminder call program and also
notified OneCommand to remove him, which it did.  Due to a change
in Chrysler's customer relations program from telephone to email,
defendant ended its participation in the call program at that
time. Because of this, defendant's customers no longer may receive
reminders by telephone.

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47
U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., the Washington Automatic Dialing and
Announcing Device statute (WADAD), RCW 80.36.400, and the
Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), RCW 19.86 et seq.,
seeking damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss
plaintiff's TCPA, WADAD and WCPA claims. The Court granted
defendant's motion as to those calls made by OneCommand on behalf
of defendant beginning in 2011, with respect to the TCPA claim.

On July 18, 2014, plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order granting in part defendant's motion for summary
judgment was denied on October 3, 2014.

Magistrate Judge Strombom denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Specifically, class certification is denied as to
the TCPA claims concerning the calls made beginning in 2011, in
light of the Court's prior Order granting in part defendant's
motion for summary judgment. Class certification also is denied as
to both the WADAD and WCPA claims concerning the calls made
beginning in 2011, in light of the Court's rulings.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Strombom's order dated November 24,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/0QPupffrom Leagle.com

Robert Lee Taylor, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Beth E Terrell -
- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- Bradley E Neunzig --
bneunzig@tmdwlaw.com -- Michael Duane Daudt -- mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com
-- at TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC

Universal Auto Group I, Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry
Andrew Saller, Jr. -- asaller@vjglaw.com -- James A. Krueger --
jkrueger@vjglaw.com -- Lucy Russell Clifthorne --
lclifthorne@vjglaw.com -- at VANDEBERG, JOHNSON & GANDARA


V3 BUILDERS: Faces "Baeza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Baeza and Jose Zamudio, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. V3 Builders, Inc., and Mark
Vanselow, Case No. 1:15-cv-00474 (N.D. Ill., January 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


VERIZON WIRELESS: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Doc Production Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District
of California granted plaintiff's document production request in
the case JOHN LOFTON, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-05665-YGR (JSC) (N.D. Cal.)

John Lofton seeks to compel documents from Verizon Wireless (VAW)
LLC. Plaintiff contends that Verizon has failed to produce
documents in response to his Request for Production nos. 49 and
50, which both seek records in the possession of six third-party
vendors. Plaintiff advances several theories to demonstrate
Verizon's control over these documents, including the contractual
relationship between Verizon and its vendors, Verizon's past
production of its vendors' documents, and a purported principal-
agent relationship between Verizon and its vendors.

Verizon insists that it does not have control over the documents
and argues that Plaintiff's theory of control would be both
unreasonably burdensome and unmanageable.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Corley's order dated November 25, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/L3yodXfrom Leagle.com.

John Lofton, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Parisi
-- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Suzanne L. Havens Beckman --
shavens@parisihavens.com -- at Parisi & Havens LLP; Ethan Mark
Preston -- ep@eplaw.us -- at Preston Law Offices

Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles
Robert Messer -- messerc@cmtlaw.com -- David J. Kaminski --
kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Stephen Albert Watkins --
WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- at Carlson and Messer LLP

Valentine & Kebartas Inc, Miscellaneous, represented by Jonathan
Hing Yee -- JYee@kdvlaw.com -- at Kaufman Dolowich Voluck


VERMONT COUNTY STORE: "Forauer" Class Deal Gets Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The collective action DOREEN FORAUER, NANCY J. BART, MICHAEL
MULLADY, CANDY MANNING, JOLENE KALANQUIN, GWENDOLYN C. TAFT,
COURTNEY TOWLE, CANDICE MA YETTE, ROBERT MIDDLETON, MARISSA
FITZGERALD, SUSAN D. CLARK, LINDA J. KASUBA, MATTHEW MARTINDALE,
MARK W. MILLER, DONNA G. PRIOLO, RONALD S. AUSTIN, JAMIE TUCKER,
CAROLE KULIKOWSKI, DEVON R. AUSTIN, DEBBIE BEZIO, AMANDA
PRITCHARD, CAROL JEAN PRITCHARD, LINDA STOCKER REUTHER, and
DEBORAH CONNORS, Plaintiffs, v. THE VERMONT COUNTRY STORE, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-276 (D. Vt.) -- was brought under the
the Fair Labor Standards Act, where Plaintiffs allege that Vermont
County Store (VCS) required them and other similarly situated
employees to perform certain duties before, during, and after
their shifts for which they were not compensated.

Plaintiff Doreen Forauer and 23 Opt-in Plaintiffs agreed to settle
the pending action with VCS.  Under the Settlement Agreement,
among other things, VCS agrees to pay a lump sum of $22,000, of
which the opt-in Plaintiffs are to receive approximately $6,060 in
damages. Plaintiffs' counsel requests $11,205.52 in fees and
$4,733.50 in costs. The Settlement Agreement also included "a
general release of all claims relating in any way to [each
Plaintiff's] employment at VCS."

Chief District Judge Christina Reiss grants the parties'
stipulated motion to approve the Settlement Agreement as amended
by the parties' joint stipulation to revise the release provision
and as modified slightly by the Opinion and Order dated January
16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Duao28from Leagle.com.

The District Court also grants the request of Plaintiffs' counsel
for attorney's fees and costs, with the minor modification
necessary to compensate Carole Kulikowski, Donna Priolo, and Linda
Stocker Reuther for the full amount of their estimated unpaid
wages and liquidated damages. The court orders that Carole
Kulikowski is to receive $120.84, that Donna Priolo is to receive
$120.00, and that Linda Stocker Reuther is to receive $168.66.

The court orders that the difference of $109.50 between the amount
slated to be paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the
amount conditionally ordered to be paid by the court should be
subtracted from the amount authorized for attorney's fees.

The court also orders that the total lump sum payment of $22,000
be reduced by $100, which represents the damages allocated in the
Settlement Agreement to Mary Lou Marcell-Cameron, who has been
removed as a Plaintiff.  The court denies VCS's request that the
attorney's fees sought by Plaintiffs' counsel likewise be reduced
on this basis.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher J. Larson, Esq.
     Erin H. Gallivan, Esq.
     MEUB GALLIVAN CARTER & LARSON
     65 Grove Street
     Rutland, VT 05701
     P.O. Box 811-05702
     Tel: 802-779-0020

VCS is represented by Andrew H. Maass, Esq. -- ahm@rsclaw.com --
of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd.


VIBRAM USA: "Bezdek" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated actions captioned (1) VALERIE BEZDEK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. VIBRAM USA INC. and VIBRAM FIVEFINGERS LLC,
Defendants, and (2) BRIAN DEFALCO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VIBRAM USA INC. and
VIBRAM FIVEFINGERS LLC, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NOS. 12-10513-
DPW, 13-10764-DPW (D. Mass.), involve allegations of false
advertising by the defendants of their footwear products.

The lawsuit involve a nationwide class of consumers who purchased
FiveFingers "barefoot" footwear directly from Vibram USA Inc. and
Vibram FiveFingers LLC or through authorized retailers between
March 21, 2008, and May 27, 2014.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants misrepresented in their advertising and marketing that
the FiveFingers footwear provides certain health benefits to
wearers.

District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock approved the class with
finality, and granted final approval of the settlement agreement,
in the lawsuit in a Memorandum and Order dated January 16, 2015
available at http://is.gd/1jlnNTfrom Leagle.com

The Settlement establishes a $3,750,000 non-reversionary fund to
provide refunds to eligible class members and cover the costs
associated with the litigation, including administrative costs,
attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards for the named
plaintiffs.  The agreement also provides that Vibram will refrain
from making representations of health benefits associated with
FiveFingers unless it has reliable evidence to support those
representations.

Moreover, the Settlement provides that Plaintiffs' class counsel
will be awarded $937,500 in attorneys' fees, $61,674.44 in
expenses.  Incentive awards will also be awarded to Plaintiffs
Valerie Bezdek and Brian DeFalco, for $2,500 each, and to Ali
Safavi, for $1,500.  Mr. Safavi is the plaintiff in a parallel
proceeding in the Central District of California, who has agreed
to file a joint stipulation to dismissal of that action with
prejudice if this settlement is approved.  All of these fees and
awards would be paid out of the settlement fund.

Three objectors raised a variety of concerns about the settlement
proposal, contending among other things that the notice to the
class and the monetary and injunctive relief provided by the
agreement are inadequate, that the requested attorneys' fees are
excessive, and that incentive awards and a cy pres provision are
inappropriate.

The judge denies the plaintiffs' motion for discovery of
objectors.

Valerie Bezdek, Plaintiff, represented by Janine L. Pollack --
pollack@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Jayne
A. Goldstein -- jagoldstein@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Joshua E.
Keller --- jkeller@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Michael K. Beck --
Michael@palmbeachtrialattorney.net -- Gary Roberts & Associates,
P.A., Nathaniel L. Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com --
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Bryan A. Wood --
bwoods@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Daryl DeValerio
Andrews -- dandrews@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & Glen
DeValerio -- gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Vibram USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew C Ryan --
ryan@cantercolburn.com -- Cantor Colburn LLP, Christopher M.
Morrison -- cmorrison@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Dana Baiocco --
dbaiocco@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Jonathon H. Roth --
jroth@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Joseph B. Sconyers --
jsconyeres@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Michael J. Rye --
mrye@cantorcolburn.com -- Cantor Colburn LLP.

Vibram FiveFingers LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew C Ryan,
Cantor Colburn LLP, Christopher M. Morrison, Jones Day, Dana
Baiocco, Jones Day, Jonathon H. Roth, Jones Day, Joseph B.
Sconyers, Jones Day & Michael J. Rye, Cantor Colburn LLP.
Madeline Monti Cain, Objector, represented by Christopher T. Cain,
Scott & Cain.

Justin Ference, Objector, represented by David C. Aisenberg --
daisenberg@lca-llp.com -- Looney Cohen & Aisenberg LLP.


VISA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Gamestop Rewards Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that
Visa Inc. on Jan. 9 sought to exit a proposed class action in
Connecticut tying the credit card company to allegations that
GameStop Corp. and an Internet marketer duped customers into
paying for a bogus rewards program, arguing Visa did not
participate or benefit from the alleged scheme.

In a motion to dismiss, Visa argues the lawsuit fails to
articulate how the credit card company could have violated federal
or state law by processing customer payments connected to the
rewards program.  Visa says the lead plaintiff, a minor, does not
allege that they interacted with Visa directly -- a missing
component that distances the company from GameStop and fellow
defendant Webloyalty.com Inc.

The lawsuit alleges Visa "aided and abetted" GameStop and
Webloyalty by processing rewards program payments from the
customer's debit card even though the way in which data was passed
along from GameStop to Webloyalty violated Visa policies regarding
card transactions.  The complaint asserts claims against Visa for
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Connecticut law.

Visa says the lawsuit fails the pleading standard for asserting an
EFTA claim and that the other claims are similarly deficient.  In
its motion, Visa also says the lead plaintiff is unable to show
that the company made misrepresentations to them directly about
the program at the center of the lawsuit.  Moreover, Visa says the
suit fails to show that it provided support to GameStop or
Webloyalty in pulling off the alleged scheme.

"GameStop allegedly provided plaintiff's full billing information
to Webloyalty through the 'data pass,' which allowed Webloyalty to
submit the full billing information when making charges to
plaintiff's debit card," the motion said.  "That Visa processed
those charges -- without knowing that the particular charges to
plaintiff's debit card were generated through a "data pass" -- is
not an unfair or deceptive act."

The suit accuses GameStop of partnering with Webloyalty and
perpetuating a fraud in which consumers became unintentionally
enrolled as members of a bogus rewards program causing monthly
credit card charges of $12.  Defendants contend that the plaintiff
understood and consented to the enrollment pages' disclosures
about the program.

In July, U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. trimmed claims
against GameStop and Webloyalty.  Judge Haight ruled at the time
that certain sections of the complaint are cast in general and
mostly conclusory terms, and don't sufficiently describe the facts
giving rise to the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiff is represented by Joseph H. Weiss and David C. Katz
of WeissLaw LLP and by James E. Miller, Laurie Rubinow and Karen
M. Leser Grenon of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC.

GameStop and Webloyalty are represented by James W. Prendergast
and John J. Regan -- john.regan@wilmerhale.com -- of WilmerHale
and by James E. Nealon -- jnealon@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP.

Visa is represented by Jonathan B. Orleans --
jborleans@pullcom.com  -- of Pullman & Comley LLC and by Robert C.
Mason -- Robert.Mason@aporter.com -- and Matthew A. Eisenstein --
Matthew.Eisenstein@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is L. S., a minor, by P. S., his parent and next friend,
et al. v. Webloyalty.com Inc. et al., case number 3:10-cv-01372,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Ill. Appeals Court Upholds Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Joy V. Cunningham of the Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, First Division, affirmed the judgment of the
Circuit Court of Cook County in the appealed case of PAUL PERONA,
ROBERT C. IZENSTARK, and DONALD S. MAWLER, on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI AG, and VOLKSWAGEN AG,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 1-13-0748 (Ill. App.)

In March 1987, plaintiffs, who purchased Audi 5000 automobiles
during model years 1983 through 1986, filed a class action lawsuit
against Volkswagen of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Volkswagen AG.
The claims arose out of the alleged unintended acceleration of the
Audi 5000 automobiles. The complaint alleged claims under the
Consumer Fraud Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty - Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act.

On February 7, 2013, the circuit court of Cook County entered an
order which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants
Volkswagen of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Volkswagen AG; denied a
cross-motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs Paul Perona,
Robert Izenstark, and Donald Mawler; and granted defendants'
motion to strike the affidavits of plaintiffs' two expert
witnesses, in a class action brought under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the Consumer Fraud
Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.

Plaintiffs appealed and argued that:

     (1) the circuit court erred in barring them from showing any
defects implicating the cruise control system in the vehicles that
were the subject of the instant action, where they had previously
"withdrawn" their allegation of a cruise control system defect
during discovery;

     (2) the circuit court erred in denying them leave to file a
seventh amended complaint;

     (3) the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in
favor of Volkswagen of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Volkswagen AG
on the plaintiffs' Consumer Fraud Act claim; and

     (4) the circuit court erred in refusing to require Volkswagen
of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Volkswagen AG to respond to certain
discovery requests by the plaintiffs.

A copy of Justice Cunningham's opinion dated December 8, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/PHlzNAfrom Leagle.com

The panel for the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District,
First Division consists of Presiding Justice Mathias W. Delort and
Justices Maureen Connors and Joy V. Cunningham


WALLCUR: Recalls Practi-0.9% Sodium Chloride IV Bags
----------------------------------------------------
This letter is to notify of a product recall involving Wallcur's
Practi-0.9% sodium chloride IV bags supplied in 50 mL, 250 mL,
500, mL, and 1000 mL sizes and the Practi-0.9% sodium chloride 100
mL IV solution bag with sterile distilled water.

As you know, all of Wallcur's products are intended for training,
simulation, and educational purposes only. Recently some of
Wallcur's training products were not used for their intended
purpose. Specifically, despite the fact that the products are
intended "for clinical simulation" only, we are aware of reports
that these products have been used outside of their intended use
and administered to patients. Because these products are not
intended for human or animal administration, and are not sterile,
administration of these products could result in adverse events.

We began shipping this product on May 22, 2014. Immediately
examine your inventory, quarantine the products subject to recall,
and return them to Wallcur. In addition, if you are a Wallcur
distributor, or have further distributed or sold this product,
please provide Wallcur with a list of your customers the products
were distributed or sold to, and notify them at once of this
product recall. Your notification to your customers may be
enhanced by including a copy of this recall notification letter
along with a copy of the enclosed product labels to make the
products easily identifiable at the user level. Please also notify
your customers that have purchased these products that the
products are for demonstration, training, and educational purposes
only, and not for human or animal use.

Your assistance is appreciated and necessary to prevent use of
these products in humans or animals. Please complete and return
the enclosed response form as soon as possible. If you have any
questions call Carla Sanderson at 619-702-4333.

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

In addition to the recall, as a precautionary measure, if you are
a Wallcur distributor or reseller, we are requesting that you
ensure your websites, catalogues, and other print materials
advertising these products and any other Wallcur products
prominently display the following language:

"THIS PRODUCT IS FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR HUMAN OR
ANIMAL INJECTION."

Wallcur intends to add product enhancement labels containing
similar language to the IV bags prior to future distribution.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429718.htm


WAXING GROUP: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lina Figueroa, Rocio Rosales and other similarly situated
individuals v. Waxing Group, LLC, a Florida Profit Corporation and
Cristobal Lander, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-20189 (S.D. Fla.,
January 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a beauty salon in Miami Dade,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Salted Caramel Crispies Due to Tree Nut
------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling Salted Caramel Crispies produced
and sold only in the Cranston, Rhode Island location due to an
undeclared tree nut allergen. The product has a Sell By date of
January 22, 2015.

The 12-packs of cookies, labeled as "Salted Caramel Crispies"
contained tree nuts (almond), a known allergen, which is not
declared on the label. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to almonds run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The cookies were sold in the store between January 2 and January
12, 2015.

Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
Cranston may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call
617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429831.htm


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Assorted Cookie Platters Due to Peanuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling its Assorted Cookie Platters, All
Sizes for the presence of an undeclared peanut and tree nut
allergens. The recalled cookie platters were sold in Whole Foods
Market stores in Arizona, Southern California, Hawaii and Nevada
in a round, clear plastic container with black plastic base and
Whole Foods Market label beginning November 24, 2014, with the
following PLUs:

PLU# 243868 - Cookie Platter Small sell by dates up to January 7,
2015
PLU# 243873 - Cookie Platter Medium sell by dates up to January 7,
2015
PLU# 247661 - Cookie Platter Large sell by dates up to January 7,
2015

One illness has been reported at this time. Signage is posted to
notify customers of this recall, and all affected product has been
removed from shelves. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

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

Photo of the Recalled Products available at

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429173.htm


WINN-DIXIE: Recalls Sour Cream Lemon Pies Due to Coconut Allergen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie announced an immediate recall of the Winn-Dixie Sour
Cream Lemon Pies in select Winn-Dixie stores in Florida and
Louisiana. According to the supplier of the pies, the reason for
the recall is that the product is mislabeled. The package actually
contains Coconut Cream Pie, which could result in an undeclared
coconut allergen.

For the safety of customers, Winn-Dixie is immediately removing
the 7 oz., single-serve pies labeled Sour Cream Lemon Pie from the
bakery departments in Winn-Dixie stores throughout Florida and
Louisiana in the following counties/parishes:

Florida:

Alachua
Citrus
Collier
DeSoto
Hardee
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Lee
Manatee
Marion
Pasco
Pinellas
Sarasota
Sumter


Louisiana:

Acadia
Ascension
East Baton Rouge
Forrest
Harrison
Iberia
Jackson
Jefferson
Jones
Lafayette
Livingston
Marion
Orleans
Pearl River
Pointe Coupee
Saint Bernard
Saint Charles
Saint James
Saint John the Baptist
Saint Landry
Saint Martin
Saint Mary
Saint Tammany
Tangipahoa
Vermilion
Washington

The recall does not affect Winn-Dixie stores in Alabama, Georgia
or Mississippi or any BI-LO or Harveys banner stores.
"We ask customers who have a coconut allergy to throw this product
out immediately to ensure they do not experience any health
issues," said Brian Wright, Winn-Dixie's vice president of
communications and government relations.

The recalled pies are labeled with the numbers 4300 on the bottom
of the plastic pie container. The product UPC code is 2114000081.
To our knowledge, Winn-Dixie has received no reports of any issues
associated with consumption at this time.

Consumers who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to coconut
products are urged not to consume and return products to the store
for a full refund.To receive the refund, customers may present
proof of purchase through a receipt or the product-packaging
label.

The most common symptoms of a food allergy include tingling or
itching of the mouth, hives, swelling of the mouth and face,
difficulty breathing, abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting and
dizziness.

Customers with questions about the recalled products may contact
the Winn-Dixie Customer Call Center toll free at 866-946-6349,
Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. EDT, and Sat., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EDT.

About Us

Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC, parent company of BI-LO, Harveys and Winn-
Dixie grocery stores, is the fifth-largest conventional
supermarket chain in the U.S. and the second-largest conventional
supermarket in the southeast based on store count.1 The company
employs more than 72,000 associates who serve customers in
approximately 804 grocery stores and 531 in-store pharmacies
throughout the eight southeastern states of Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina
and Tennessee. BI-LO, Harveys and Winn-Dixie are well-known and
well-respected regional brands with deep heritages, strong
neighborhood ties, proud histories of giving back, talented and
loyal associates, and strong commitments to providing the best
possible quality and value to customers. For more information,
please visit www.bi-lo.com, www.harveyssupermarkets.com and
www.winndixie.com.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429641.htm


WORLD WRESTLING: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Wrestler Mistreatment
------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Singleton, Vito Lograsso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00223 (E.D. Pa., January 16, 2015), arises out of
the Defendant's egregious mistreatment of its wrestlers and
concealment and denial of medical research and evidence concerning
traumatic brain injuries suffered by the WWE wrestlers.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is the largest wrestling
entertainment organization in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
      POGUST & BRASLOW LLC.
      161 Washington St., Suite 1520
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (610) 941-4204
      E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com


YOUR MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Mariah Bradford-Urban, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Your Marketing Source, Inc. d/b/a Internet
Local Listings, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of
them, Case No. 8:15-cv-00079 (C.D. Cal., January 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for negligently knowingly, and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Your Marketing Source, Inc. specializes in local Search Engine
Optimization, Social Media Marketing, and SEO reporting tools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg {SBN 211675)
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: 310-507-7924
      Facsimile: 310-507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P .C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


ZALICUS INC: Court Declines to Close Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Counsel in In re Zalicus, Inc. Stockholders Litigation
Consolidated C.A. No. 9602-CB notified the Court of Chancery of
Delaware on January 13, 2015, that Defendant Zalicus, Inc. has
agreed to pay Plaintiffs' counsel a "mootness fee" in the amount
of $400,000.  Counsel requested that Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard
enter an order closing this case.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that the
directors of Zalicus had breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their approval of a stock-for-stock merger with
Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. On June 13, 2014, Chancellor
Bouchard denied Plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings
because he concluded that the claims presented in support of that
motion were not colorable. On July 15, 2014, the Zalicus
stockholders approved the proposed merger, which closed that day.

On January 16, 2015, Chancellor Bouchard declined to enter the
proposed closure order saying the parties have not given adequate
notice of the stipulated mootness fee to the putative class.

"Should the parties elect to submit a revised order providing
notice to the members of the putative class, the parties are
directed to explain (i) what form the notice should take in these
circumstances to be adequate while being sensitive to the cost
considerations of providing notice, and (ii) what, if any, further
proceedings are necessary before this action may be closed,"
Chancellor Bouchard wrote in his ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/jI89qHfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff's counsel is:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com


ZENOBIA COMPANY: Recalls MY Spice Sage Cumin Ground Due to Peanut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zenobia Company LLC. Of Yonkers, NY is recalling MY Spice Sage
Cumin Ground in its 1 oz, 4 oz, 4.9 oz, 16 oz and 50 pound
packages, because they may contain undeclared peanut protein.
People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Product was distributed nationwide through online mail orders
only. The recall only applies to below skus sold between 7/1/14 -
1/8/15.

The product is sold in resealable plastic bags with the following
markings except for the 50 lb bag which is not resealable and
lacks UPC coding. The 4.9 oz size is in a plastic bottle:

--- My Spice Sage CUMIN GROUND, 1 oz (28g)    - UPC 00105001
--- My Spice Sage CUMIN GROUND, 4 oz (113g)   - UPC 00105004
--- MY Spice Sage CUMIN GROUND, 4.9 oz (139g) - UPC 00105000
--- MY Spice Sage CUMIN GROUND, 16 oz (454g)  - UPC 00105016
--- My Spice Sage CUMIN GROUND, 50 lb

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

The recall was initiated after our supplier notified us that the
Cumin Ground containing peanut protein was shipped to us by them
unknowingly. Consumers with questions may contact us by calling
1-877-890-5244, Monday-Friday 9 am-5 pm EST.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429985.htm


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *