CAR_Public/150130.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 22


                             Headlines

9013-2382 QUEBEC: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
ABU DHABI INVESTMENT: 2nd Cir. Upholds Ruling in Citigroup Suit
AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Simons Case Settlement Gets Final Approval
AIR CARGO SHIPPING: Summary Judgment Motions Due March 30
AIR DRILLING: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in Employees' Suit

AIRWAY CLEANERS: Faces "Buckner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AMERICAN HOME: Judge Retains TILA Claim in "Diunugala" Suit
AMERICAN REALTY: NYCERS Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports
AMERICAN REALTY: TIAA Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports
ANDY JAMES: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

APPLE INC: Decertification Order in "Branning" Case Upheld
ARBOC SPECIALTY: Recalls Spirit of Freedom and Spirit of Mobility
BOULANGERIE DU ROYAUME: Recalls Breads Due to Undeclared Milk
BRP: Recalls Ski-Doo and Can-Am Children Hoodies
CALAVO GROWERS: Faces "El Dabe" Suit Over Earn-out Payment Report

CALAVO GROWERS: Faces "O'Hanlon" Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
CASA BELLA: Faces "Caraballo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
CHINA NORTH EAST: Dist. Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
CHRYSLER: Recalls Dart Model Due to Defective Vehicle Software
DAVID ROBERTS: Recalls Classic Sysco and David Roberts Chocolate

DELL INC: Sondheimer Loses Appeal of Class Action Settlement
DENDREON CORP: Del. Chancery Court Scheduled Hearing on March 30
DIAMOND WIRELESS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
DREW'S LAWN: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standard Act
ENERGY RECOVERY: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

EQUIFAX INFO: Magistrate Judge Clarifies Oct. 31 Order in Ceccone
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Defective Engine Cradles
FIMBEL DOOR: NJ Court Dismissed Minority Investors' Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Over Defective Exhaust System
FORD MOTOR: Sued in Pa. Over Alleged Defective Vehicle's Engine

FRANZ ROESSL: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Meat Products
FREDDIE MAC: Bid to Disqualify Atty in "Urban" Suit Granted
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Dismiss "Mey" TCPA Suit
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal of "Hutchison" Suit
GEMINI PACKAGING: Recalls Fresh Power All Purpose Cleaner

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls VIBE Model Due to Defective Airbag Control
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls SRX Model Due to Incorrect Seat Bracket
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
HONDA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
HONDA AUTO: Investors File Class Action in New York

ICHIRO SUSHI: "Hidalgo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
INTEGRATED PRODUCTION: Hagans Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. Court
JIM BURKE: Faces "Bowers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Gets Final Approval of Delatorre Suit Deal
JPS COMPLETION: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

KLICK WIRELESS: "Luzardo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LEPRINO FOODS: Faces "Talavera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Court Ruled on Counterclaim in Cheapskate Suit
MAZDA: Recalls MAZDA6, MAZDASPEED6 and RX-8 Models
MEDBOX INC: Overstates Fin'l Revenue Reports, "Crystal" Suit Says

METAL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Ind. Over Illegal Wage Deductions
NATIONAL IMPORTERS: Recalls Patak's Original Canned Curry Sauces
NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Meholczo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Property Inspections Policies
NAVISTAR: Recalls Workstar Model Due to Injury Risk

NAVISTAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
NOW HEALTH: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Product Packaging
OCEAN DETAILING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
PACIFIC PREMIER: Plaintiffs' Counsel Seeks Schedule for Discovery
PAY ZONE: "Schultz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

PELLA CORP: "Andrews" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
PENFORD CORPORATION: Entered Into MOU in Washington Class Action
PHARMACARE US: Falsely Marketed IntenseX Products, Action Claims
PHARMACON DRUG: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
PRECISION DEMOLITION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Castro" Suit Says

PREMIER FLOW: Faces "Domingue" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS: "Kiser" Settlement Gets Final Court OK
PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS: Court Won't Exclude Rausser Testimony
PULASKI PIZZA: Faces "Sanz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
R.J. REYNOLDS: Court Rules on Motions in Limine in "Hoover" Case

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Court Denied Motion for Reconsideration
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Parties Agree to Stay Derivative Litigation
QUICKEN LOANS: Sued Over Real Estate Settlement Service Fee
SABINE OIL: Defendants Reached Agreement in Principle in NY Suit
SABINE OIL: Colorado Class Action Administratively Closed

SABINE OIL: No Oral Argument Yet in Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Appeal
SEADRILL LIMITED: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SEI YING: Recalls Peanut Powder Due to Undeclared Milk
SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Ottogi Hash Curry (Hice Curry)
SHOPPERS DRUG: Recalls From Our Chefs Meat Products

SOMICH DELI: "Lucero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPARTAN: Recalls Gladiator and Metro Star Models
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Pedersen" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TALIKA USA: Falsely Marketed Bust Serum Product, "Pena" Suit Says

TIFFIN: Recalls 35 Allegro Buses Due to Incorrect GAWR
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Court Defers Decision on Class Cert. Motion
TYHAN INC: "Franks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED AIRLINES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Lowest Airfares
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: "Plummer" FDCPA Suit May Proceed

VIGILANT INS: NY Court Flips Ruling in Bear Stearns Coverage Suit
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
WAWONA FROZEN: Faces "Aquilar" 1st Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WAWONA FROZEN: Faces "Aquilar" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WESTLAKE BISTRO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

WONDERBERRY NORTH: Recalls Meaoboe and Kawka Muhymka Products

* Judge Suspended for Improper Communication With Counsel


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. May Repatriate $347.5MM To Fund Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Grants Bids to Junk "Boggs" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in Insurance Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DC Court Denies Firm's Doc Request from EPA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. High Court Flips Ruling in "Page" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Toro" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SeaRiver Awarded Summary Judgment in NY PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Reargue in "Proctor" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Mont. State Fund Allowed to Proceed


                            *********


9013-2382 QUEBEC: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           9013-2382 Quebec Inc.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Quebec, Newfoundland and
                          Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9540


ABU DHABI INVESTMENT: 2nd Cir. Upholds Ruling in Citigroup Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in the case
relating to an investment agreement between Citigroup Inc. and the
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, is presented the question of
whether the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651(a), permits a
federal district court to enjoin a second arbitration between
parties to a contractual arbitration agreement based on what one
party asserts is the claim-preclusive effect of a prior federal
judgment confirming the result of the parties' earlier
arbitration.

In a Jan. 14, 2015 opinion, the Second Circuit held that the
"extraordinary remedies" authorized by the All Writs Act cannot be
used to enjoin an arbitration based on whatever claim-preclusive
effect may result from the district court's prior judgment when
that judgment merely confirmed the result of the parties' earlier
arbitration without considering the merits of the underlying
claims at issue in that arbitration.  The Second Circuit concurred
with the district court that Appellant Citigroup, Inc., has not
demonstrated an adequate basis for an extraordinary injunction
pursuant to the All Writs Act and, accordingly, affirmed the
judgment dismissing Citigroup's complaint and compelling
arbitration.

The appeals case is CITIGROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABU
DHABI INVESTMENT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, DOCKET NO. 13-
4825-CV (2d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/hsKfwwfrom Leagle.com.

LESLIE GORDON FAGEN, Esq. -- lfagen@paulweiss.com -- (Brad S.
Karp, Esq. -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- and Gregory F. Laufer, Esq.
-- glaufer@paulweiss.com -- on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Citigroup, Inc.

SANFORD I. WEISBURST, Esq. -- sandyweisburst@quinnemanuel.com --
(Peter E. Calamari, Esq. -- petercalamari@quinnemanuel.com -- and
Tai-Heng Cheng, Esq. -- taihengcheng@quinnemanuel.com -- on the
brief), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellee Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.


AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Simons Case Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey issued a final order and
judgment on January 15, 2015, in the case captioned ANGIE SIMONS,
Individually and on behalf of all others Plaintiff, v. AEGIS
COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-04012-NKL,
(W.D. Mo.).

According to the ruling, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/70F6eQfrom Leagle.com, the Lawsuit is certified as a
class action on behalf of the following Class Members:

Disclosure Class: All applicants and/or employees of Aegis,
during the Claims Period, from whom Aegis obtained written
consent, using a Consumer Disclosure and Authorization Form, to
conduct a background check and upon whom Aegis subsequently
obtained a background check subject to the consent, who are not
members of the Pre-Adverse Action Class.

Pre-Adverse Action Class: All applicants and/or employees of
Aegis in the United States, during the Claims Period, who were
the subject of a consumer report that may have been used by
Aegis, in whole or in part, to make an adverse employment
decision regarding such applicant or employee for whom Aegis
allegedly did not provide that applicant or employee a copy of
their consumer report, a copy of the FCRA summary of rights, and
a reasonable period of time before it took the adverse employment
action.

Charles Jason Brown and Jayson A. Watkins are designated as Class
Counsel. Angie Simons is designated as representative for the
Class.

All members of the class, with the exception of six opt-out
members who timely excluded themselves from the Class, are bound
by the order and are permanently enjoined from commencing,
prosecuting, or maintaining any claim already asserted in,
encompassed by, or released in connection with, this action.

The Court found that the settlement of the Lawsuit, on the terms
and conditions set forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the benefit to the
Class Members.

The Parties' recommendation of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and
Immigrants as the cy pres beneficiary is consistent with promoting
the rule of law and is approved.

The incentive award to the Named Plaintiff is approved and Named
Plaintiff is permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or
prosecuting any of the claims release in the Settlement Agreement.

The Lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice in all respects.

Angie Simons, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown --
brown@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Associates, LLC & Jayson A.
Watkins -- watkins@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Associates, LLC.

Aegis USA, Inc., formerly known as Aegis Communications Group,
LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M Place --
jplace@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Uzo N. Nwonwu --
unwonwu@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


AIR CARGO SHIPPING: Summary Judgment Motions Due March 30
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE AIR CARGO SHIPPING SERVICES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION No. 06-MD-1775 (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Viktor V.
Pohorelsky directed that all summary judgment motions (including
those on issues where both the plaintiffs and the defendants are
seeking summary judgment) are to be briefed on the following
schedule:

     a. Moving papers are to be served by March 30, 2015;

     b. Opposition papers are to be served by June 1, 2015;

     c. Reply papers are to be served by July 1, 2015.

The parties are directed to comply with Judge Gleeson's Rules of
Practice with respect to the motions.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated January 26, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/n4ZFMOfrom Leagle.com.

Defendants in the case and their counsel include:

Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Defendant, represented by Eric Mahr, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Rachel Z. Stutz, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Robert Bell, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP.

Lufthansa Cargo AG, Defendant, represented by Eric Mahr, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Rachel Z. Stutz, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Robert Bell, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP.

Swiss International Air Lines Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Andrew H. Marks, Crowell and Moring, Eric Mahr, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, Rachel Z. Stutz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP & Robert Bell, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP.

Air France, Defendant, represented by Brenda D. DiLuigi,
Linklaters LLP, Ivan Miguel Morales, Linklaters, James R. Warnot,
Jr., Linklaters LLP, Jeffery Paul Commission, Linklaters, Marc
Serge Lanoue, Linklaters LLP, Ruth E. Harlow, Linklaters & Thomas
A. McGrath, Linklaters LLP.

Singapore Airlines Cargo PTE Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Margaret M. Zwisler, Latham & Watkins LLP, Ashley M. Bauer, Latham
& Watkins, Catherine E. Palmer, Latham & Watkins LLP, Charles R.
Price, Latham & Watkins LLP, Jason D. Cruise, Latham & Watkins,
LLP & William R. Sherman, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Singapore Airlines, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Margaret M.
Zwisler, Latham & Watkins LLP, Ashley M. Bauer, Latham & Watkins,
Catherine E. Palmer, Latham & Watkins LLP, Charles R. Price,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Jason D. Cruise, Latham & Watkins, LLP &
William R. Sherman, Latham & Watkins LLP.

SAS AB, Defendant, represented by George D. Ruttinger, Crowell &
Moring LLP.

SAS Cargo Group A/S, Defendant, represented by George D.
Ruttinger, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Cargolux Airlines International SA, Defendant, represented by Marc
D. Ashley, Chadbourne & Parke LLP & Stephen Fishbein, Shearman &
Sterling LLP.

Air China Limited, Defendant, represented by George N. Tompkins,
III, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, George N.
Tompkins, Jr., Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Ian
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Margaret Elliott, Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP.

Air China Cargo Company Limited, Defendant, represented by George
N. Tompkins, Jr., Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP,
George N. Tompkins, III, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
LLP, Ian Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Margaret Elliott, Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP.

Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited d/b/a Airways New
Zealand, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Holland, Condon &
Forsyth, LLP & Roderick D. Margo, Condon & Forsyth LLP.

Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.P.A., Defendant, represented by
Richard A. Walker, Kaplan, Massamillo, & Andrews, LLC.

Ethiopian Airlines Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
R. Atadika, ATADIKA & ATADIKA.

Martinair Holland N.V., Defendant, represented by Cory J.
Skolnick, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Daniel G. Swanson, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, David Jarrett Arp, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP & Reid J Allred, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Qantas Airways Limited, Defendant, represented by William T.
Miller, Baker & Miller PLLC & Alice Glass, Baker & Miller PLLC.
Thai Airways International Public Co Ltd, Defendant, represented
by Mark S. Priver, Ohashi & Priver, Rowan D. Wilson, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore & John E. Ohashi, Ohashi & Priver.

Asiana Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Myers, Ian Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Kenneth R. O'Rourke, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Angela Wilks,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C. Byrd, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Julia Schiller, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Robert Ennis, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Scott Hammack, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Scott Schaeffer,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Stephen McIntyre, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

All Nippon Airways Co Ltd., Defendant, represented by Alysia A.
Solow, Constantine Cannon LLP, Charles Simpson, Zuckert, Scoutt &
Rasenberger, LLP & Stephen S Anderson, Constantine Cannon LLP.

Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd., Defendant, represented by John R.
Fornaciari, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Ian Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP & Robert J. Brookhiser, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Air New Zealand Limited, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Holland, Condon & Forsyth, LLP, Ian Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jean Cooper Rose, Condon & Forsyth, LLP, Jerry L. Beane,
Andrews Kurth LLP, Leasa Woods Anderson, Andrews Kurth LLP, Lynne
M. Fischman Uniman, Andrews & Kurth L.L.P, Meena T. Sinfelt,
Andrews Kurth LLP & Roscoe C Howard, Andrews Kurth LLP.

Korean Airlines Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Barry G.
Sher, Paul Hastings LLP, Jeremy P. Evans, Paul Hastings, John
Clayton Everett, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin C. Logue, Paul
Hastings LLP, William Albert Novomisle, Paul Hastings LLP, Ian
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings
Janofsky & Walker LLP.

Eurotrendz, Defendant, represented by Joseph Gentile, Sarraf
Gentile LLP.

Bruce McCaffrey, Defendant, represented by William T. Miller,
Baker & Miller PLLC.

China Airlines, LTD., Defendant, represented by Ian Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James Vernon Dick, Squire, Sanders &
Dempsey LLP.

Eva Airways Corporation, Defendant, represented by James Howard
Mutchnik, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Elizabeth Kim, KIRKLAND & ELLIS
LLP, Ian Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jason Y. Kelly, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Joyce Wing Yan Tam, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Mark F.
Schottinger, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Tammy Ann Tsoumas, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP & David Ian Horowitz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Jean Charles Foucault, Defendant, represented by Martin
Flumenbaum, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison & Roberto
Finzi, Paul, Weiss,Rifkind Wharton & Garrison.

Bram Graber, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Schissel, Arnold
& Porter LLP.

Malaysian Airline System Bhd, Defendant, represented by Ann-
Kathryn R. Tria, McBreen & Senior, David A. Senior, McBreen &
Senior & Matthew Weston, McBreen & Senior.

Volvo Logistics AB, Defendant, represented by Austin B. Cohen,
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP,
Charles Sweedler, Levin Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Daniel M.
Cohen, Cueno Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Thomas Bright, Gold Bennett
Cera & Sidener LLP, Todd E. Palmer, Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C. &
William P. Butterfield, Hausfeld LLP.

Air India, Defendant, represented by E. Christopher Murray, Ruskin
Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Ian Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jennifer Leigh Hartmann, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. & Natasha
A Moskvina, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C..

Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, represented by Harvey
Wolkoff, Ropes & Gray LLP & Ian Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
Polar Air Cargo, LLC, Defendant, represented by David A. Young,
Ropes & Gray LLP, Harvey Wolkoff, Ropes & Gray LLP & Ian Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


AIR DRILLING: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in Employees' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James M. Munley granted plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) in the
case captioned STEVEN NEAL, DAVID ROBINSON, RODNEY SUTTON, and
BRAD GOODYEAR, Plaintiffs v. AIR DRILLING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 3:14CV1104, (M.D. Penn.).

Pursuant to the FLSA, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for the
conditional class certification of similarly situated, non-exempt
field employees who have worked for Defendant Air Drilling
Associates, Inc. during any time within the past three years.

A copy of the Court's January 16, 2015 memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/XybO6Bfrom Leagle.com.

Steven Neal, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
   Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
   R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
   Winebrake & Santillo, LLC
   715 Twining Road #211
   Dresher, PA 19025
   Telephone: (215)884-2491

David Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Gottesfeld,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC.

Rodney Sutton, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Gottesfeld,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC.

Brad Goodyear, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Gottesfeld,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC.

Air Drilling Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda E
Colvin -- amanda.colvin@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Daniel M
O'Keefe -- dmokeefe@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Donald L.
Samuels -- donald.samuels@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave HRO & L.
Anthony George -- anthony.george@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.


AIRWAY CLEANERS: Faces "Buckner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Shatasia Buckner, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Airway Cleaners, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00317 (E.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Airway Cleaners, LLC is in the business of contracting with major
airline companies to clean the cabins of the company's planes and
restock any items needed for flights and is currently providing
services in New York at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Quincy Davis, Esq.
      The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis
      18 West 18th St 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10011
      Telephone: (646) 356-1010
      Facsimile: (646) 349-2504
      E-mail: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com


AMERICAN HOME: Judge Retains TILA Claim in "Diunugala" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
for Failure to State a Claim in the case, NIMAL SUSANTHA
DIUNUGALA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; THE
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE
SERVICING, INC.; POWER DEFAULT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 12CV2106-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.).

Specifically, the Motion to Dismiss the third cause of action for
violation of Truth in Lending Act is denied. In all other
respects, the Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the remaining
causes of action are dismissed.

The Court also held that the Defendants' Motion to Vacate Motion
to Certify Class is granted, and Plaintiff's Motion to Certify the
Class is denied without prejudice to refile.

On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff Nimal Susantha Diunugala initiated
this action by filing the Complaint with the San Diego County
Superior Court.  On August 24, 2012, all Defendants jointly filed
a Notice of Removal to the Court, alleging diversity jurisdiction.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. On
June 26, 2014, Defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.,
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Power Default Services, Inc., and The
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. filed the motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On August 20, 2014
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.

The Second Amended Complaint asserts the following causes of
action: (1) negligence; (2) violation of Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2605; (3) violation of
Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1641g; (4)
cancellation of documents to set aside the foreclosure sale; (5)
fraud; and (6) violation of California Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17200.

The Second Amended Complaint asserts a class action pursuant to
California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17203 on behalf of the
following putative class: "[a]ll California residential loan
borrowers with loans that originated with American Brokers Conduit
that were serviced by AHMSI at the time of their bankruptcy on or
about August 6, 2007 and were performing loans;" "[a]ll . . .
borrowers who received conflicting notifications from defendant
AHMSI, BONY or JP Morgan of the identity of their investor, or
creditor as required under 15 U.S.C. Sec.1641g after May 5, 2009;"
and "[a]ll . . . borrowers who received conflicting notifications
from defendant AHMSI of the identity of their investor, or
creditor as required under 12 U.S.C. Sec.2605 within the past two
years."

On June 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.  On
July 21, 2014, Defendants filed the motion to vacate motion to
certify class and all class-related dates.

A copy of the Court's January 21, 2015 Order is availale at
http://is.gd/f6R9Lwfrom Leagle.com.


AMERICAN REALTY: NYCERS Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York City Employees' Retirement System, et al., and On behalf
of all others similarly situated v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00422 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 21, 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.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a commercial Real
Estate Investment Trust, which owns single-tenant freestanding
commercial properties subject to medium-term leases with credit
quality tenants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Lometti, Esq.
      Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
      Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      Facsimile: (212) 838-7745

         - and -

      Steven J. Toll, Esq.
      Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq
      S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW
      Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699


AMERICAN REALTY: TIAA Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00421 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 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.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a commercial Real
Estate Investment Trust, which owns single-tenant freestanding
commercial properties subject to medium-term leases with credit
quality tenants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631)367-7100
      Facsimile: (631)367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
      Michael J. Dowd, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
              miked@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      William H. Narwold, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      One Corporate Center
      20 Church Street, 17th Floor
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860) 822-1681
      Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
      E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com

         - and -

      Donald A. Migliori, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (401) 457-7709
      Facsimile: (401) 457-7708
      E-mail: dmigliori@motlevrice.com

         - and -

      Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
      One North Broadway, Suite 509
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 997-0500
      Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
      E-mail: bhart@lowev.com

          - and -

      Howard T. Longman
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: hloneman@ssbnv.com

         - and -

      Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (8660 367-6510
      E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com

         - and -

      Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: iweiss@weisslawllp.com

         - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
      28 W. 44th St., Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 564-1637
      Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
      E-mail: psafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com

         - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON&WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
      E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


ANDY JAMES: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Mendez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Andy James Deli Inc. (d/b/a Andy's Deli), John Doe
Inc. (d/b/a Andy's Deli), Ki Nam Whang, Yang Soon Whang, and John
Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-00431 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a deli located at 291 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007.

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


APPLE INC: Decertification Order in "Branning" Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Branning, James Seybert, Stacey Blevins, Robert Allen,
Domingo Vazquez, and Kurt Bruneman appeal from a trial court's
October 4, 2010 order decertifying a limited class of consumers in
plaintiffs' action against Apple Inc. and from the trial court's
December 2, 2010 order denying certification of a narrowed class.
Plaintiffs contend that the October 4, 2010 order was procedurally
improper and that both orders "reflected erroneous analysis,
improper legal assumptions, and factual determinations that were
neither supported by the record nor permitted in deciding class
issues."

"We reject these contentions and affirm both orders," The Court of
Appeals of California, Sixth District, ruled in a January 28, 2015
decision available at http://is.gd/wkhIIzfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs sued Apple in 2005 on behalf of two groups, a consumer
group and a reseller group. The reseller group's separate appeal
from the trial court's denial of their motion for class
certification is pending in the related case of Siechert & Synn
dba Techsource v. Apple Inc. (H036402). This appeal concerns the
consumer group.

Plaintiffs filed their eighth amended complaint in 2009, alleging
that Apple "improperly calculated the time period of [plaintiffs']
express warranties and their AppleCare service contracts, such
that said warranties and service contracts expire prematurely."
Plaintiffs referred to this alleged practice as "shorting."
Plaintiffs premised their "shorting" claims on Apple's use of
provisional warranty start dates (which plaintiffs labeled
"estimated purchase date[s]") in its internal systems. They
alleged that Apple calculated warranty and AppleCare contract
periods using estimated purchase dates as opposed to actual
purchase dates. Plaintiffs maintained that the estimated purchase
dates were always earlier than the actual purchase dates and thus
caused their warranty and AppleCare coverage to expire
prematurely. They claimed to have been "wrongfully refused repair
service . . . under the one-year limited warranty and/or the
AppleCare extended service contract" as a result of the alleged
shorting.

The appellate case is, JACK BRANNING et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. APPLE INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. H036343
(Cal. App.).


ARBOC SPECIALTY: Recalls Spirit of Freedom and Spirit of Mobility
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           21
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014571
TC ID number:             2014571

On certain vehicles, the exterior electrical connections to the
side marker lights were not weatherized properly.  This could
cause these connections to ground against the body and/or frame of
the vehicle, which could blow a fuse and increase the risk of fire
causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will install heat shrink tubing to repair the wiring.

Affected products: 2015 Spirit of Mobility and Spirit of Freedom


BOULANGERIE DU ROYAUME: Recalls Breads Due to Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Boulangerie Coop du Royaume
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9534


BRP: Recalls Ski-Doo and Can-Am Children Hoodies
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 19, 2014
Posting date:             December 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42975

Affected products: Children's sweatshirt from ages 2 to 12
identified by the brand Ski-Doo and Can-Am, in different models
and colours

Children's sweatshirts from ages 2 to 12 identified by the brand
Ski-Doo or Can-Am, in different models and colours.  Style number
is written on the care label inside of the sweatshirt.

The recalled Style codes are listed:

    Description                                 Style
    -----------                                 -----
Can-Am BOY HOODIE TEEN                         286485
Ski-Doo PULL CAMP TRAINING CAMP SWEATSHIRT     453215
Ski-Doo PULL GRAFFITI HOODED SWEATSHIRT        453265
Ski-Doo TEEN X-TEAM HOODED SWEATSHIRT          453320
Ski-Doo KIDS LODGE SWEATSHIRT                  453321
Ski-Doo TEEN HEADLINE HOODED SWEATSHIRT        453375
Ski-Doo KIDS HONEYCOMB HOODIE                  453376
Ski-Doo TEEN CHECKERS HOODIE                   453464
Ski-Doo TEEN HOODIE                 453618, 453658, 453707, 453708
Ski-Doo TEEN HOODIE GIRL                       453660
Ski-Doo TEEN OVERSIZE HOODIE                   453661

Health Canada has determined that hoodies with drawstrings around
the neck area pose a strangulation hazard to children.
Drawstrings can become entangled or caught on playground slides,
hand rails, school bus doors or other moving objects, posing a
significant strangulation and/or entanglement hazard to children.

Neither BRP nor Health Canada has not received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 5093 recalled products were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
August 2007 to December 2014 in Canada.

Companies:

   Distributor     BRP
                   Valcourt
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
sweatshirt hood or neck by pulling on it to eliminate the hazard.


CALAVO GROWERS: Faces "El Dabe" Suit Over Earn-out Payment Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherif E. El Dabe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Calavo Growers, Inc., Lecil E. Cole, and
Arthur Bruno, Case No. 2:15-cv-00400 (C.D. Cal., January 20,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the earn-out payments provided under the Renaissance Food Group
Acquisition Agreement.

Calavo Growers, Inc. markets and distributes avocados, prepared
avocados, and other perishable foods to food distributors, produce
wholesalers, supermarkets, convenience stores, and restaurants
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184


CALAVO GROWERS: Faces "O'Hanlon" Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Hanlon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lecil E. Cole, Arthur J. Bruno, and Calavo Growers,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00414 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the earn-out
payments provided under the Renaissance Food Group Acquisition
Agreement.

Calavo Growers, Inc. markets and distributes fresh avocados,
prepared avocados, and other perishable foods to food
distributors, produce wholesalers, supermarkets, convenience
stores, and restaurants worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CASA BELLA: Faces "Caraballo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dayami Ruiz Carballo and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Casa Bella Home Care Inc., Barbara D. Serrano,
Rigoberto Oropesa, Case No. 9:15-cv-80062 (S.D. Fla., January 20,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility in West
Palm Beach 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


CHINA NORTH EAST: Dist. Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
In re CHINA NORTH EAST PETROLEUM HOLDINGS LIMITED SECURITIES
LITIGATION, CONSOLIDATED AS NO. 10 CIV. 4577 (MGC), (S.D.N.Y.) is
a putative class action brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased China North East Petroleum Holdings, Ltd. securities
during the period from May 15, 2008 through and including May 26,
2010 (the "class period"). In the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint dated January 15, 2011, lead plaintiff Acticon AG brings
claims against defendants China North, its former directors Wang
Hung Jun, Guizhi Ju, Zhang Yang, Edward M. Rule, Li Jing Fu and Yu
Li Guo -- the individual defendants -- and Robert C. Bruce and
Ralph E. Davis Associates, Inc. for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) & 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b) & 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

Defendants moved in three groups to dismiss Acticon's Complaint.
In October 2011, District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum dismissed
the case on the ground that Acticon had failed to demonstrate
loss. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that Acticon had
satisfactorily pled loss causation, and remanded the case for
further proceedings. District Cedarbaum subsequently dismissed the
claims against Davis and Bruce for failure to plead scienter.
District Cedarbaum now re-examines the present motion by China
North and the individual defendants to dismiss for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

In an opinion dated January 15, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/3mpCiyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cedarbaum granted
the motion because of Acticon's failure to plead scienter.  This
disposes of the case against all defendants, and the Clerk was
directed to close the case.

Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Marc I.
Gross, Esq. -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Shaheen Rushd, Esq. --
srushd@pomlaw.com -- Anthony F. Maul, Esq. -- afmaul@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP, New York, New York,
Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Acticon AG.

Thomas P. Mazzucco -- tmazzucco@mpbf.com -- Aaron K. McClellan --
amcclellan@mpbf.com -- Nicholas C. Larson -- nlarson@mpbf.com --
James A. Lassart -- jlassart@mpbf.com -- MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY
& FEENEY, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants
China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, Wang Hong Jun, Guizhi
Ju, and Zhang Yang.


CHRYSLER: Recalls Dart Model Due to Defective Vehicle Software
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           112
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014581
TC ID number:             2014581
Manufacturer recall
number:                   P76

On certain vehicles, a fault in the tire pressure monitoring
system (TPMS) could cause the vehicle to fail to display the low
pressure telltale when low tire pressure is detected.  An
inoperative TPMS could allow underinflated tires to go unnoticed
by the driver, which could affect vehicle stability and increase
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will update vehicle software.

Affected products: 2015 Dodge Dart


DAVID ROBERTS: Recalls Classic Sysco and David Roberts Chocolate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           David Roberts Food Corporation
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9492


DELL INC: Sondheimer Loses Appeal of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Barbara J.R. Jones of the Court of Appeals of California,
First District, Division Five, affirmed a trial court judgment in
the case captioned In Re Computer Service Tax, Case No. A139445
(Cal. App.).

Diane Mohan filed a class action complaint alleging that Dell,
Inc. had engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
connection with the improper collection of tax on optional sales
of computer hardware service contracts.

Defendants filed motions for summary judgment and a motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to join an indispensable party,
the State Board of Equalization (the SBE), but the motion was
eventually denied. Thereafter, Defendants filed a petition for
writ of mandate but still it suffered the same fate.

Consequently, the parties reached an agreement and asked the trial
court for preliminary certification of the settlement. The trial
court granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlements and
certified two classes, the Dell Settlement Class and the SBE
Settlement Class.

Fred Sondheimer, being a member of the Dell Settlement Class and
the sole objector, took an appeal from the trial court's judgment
approving the class action settlements between Diane Mohan and
DeMarco Enterprises, Inc. as Plaintiffs; and Dell and the SBE by
challenging the fairness of the settlements to the class members,
the adequacy of the notices class members received about the
litigation, and the amount of the attorney fee award.  Sondheimer
raises three basic challenges to the judgment and order namely:
(1) the settlements should not have been approved because class
counsel breached their fiduciary duties to the class and acted
improperly in negotiating the attorney fee agreement; (2) the
notice to the class members denied them due process of law; and
(3) the trial court committed various abuses of discretion in
awarding attorney fees and expenses to class counsel.

In affirming the trial court's judgment, Justice Jones ruled that
Sondheimer failed to meet his burden on appeal of showing that the
trial court abused its discretion. Further, Justice Jones held
that the appellate court will always presume that the fees awarded
by the trial court are reasonable, and as the objector, Sondheimer
must show error in the award.

A copy of the Order dated December 10, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1BNnyws from Leagle.com.


DENDREON CORP: Del. Chancery Court Scheduled Hearing on March 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 22, 2015,
that the Company on November 6, 2014, entered into a stipulation
to settle certain stockholder class action and derivative
litigation, subject to court approval. On January 16, 2015, the
Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order (i) scheduling a
hearing on the proposed settlement for March 30, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
in Wilmington, Delaware, as set forth in the Notice of Pendency of
Settlement of Action filed as Exhibit to the Form 8-K, and (ii)
directing that the Form 8-K be filed. A copy of the Stipulation of
Settlement, and its exhibits, is available on the Company's
website at http://is.gd/ClIcwA


DIAMOND WIRELESS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Shimpeno, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Diamond Wireless, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00257 (E.D.
Pa., January 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to properly compensate the Plaintiff and the proposed
class.

Diamond Wireless, LLC is engaged in the business of selling mobile
telephones and Verizon services for mobile telephones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106
      E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com


DREW'S LAWN: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standard Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Trejo Ramirez, and Jaime Luna Zumaya, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated v. Drew's Lawn and Snow
Service, Inc. and Andrew Wroblewski, Case No. 1:15-cv-00550 (N.D.
Ill., January 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a lawn and garden maintenance
service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENERGY RECOVERY: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Sabatino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Thomas S. Rooney, Jr., Alexander J. Buehler,
Joel Gay, and Energy Recovery, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 (N.D.
Cal., January 20, 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.

Energy Recovery, Inc. designs, develops, and manufactures energy
recovery devices that transform untapped energy into reusable
energy from industrial fluid flows and pressure cycles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


EQUIFAX INFO: Magistrate Judge Clarifies Oct. 31 Order in Ceccone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT C. CECCONE, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-1314 (KBJ/AK), (D. D.C.),
involves a putative class action lawsuit whereby Plaintiff seeks
to demonstrate that there is a group of District of Columbia
residents for which Equifax has reported District of Columbia
Recorder utility liens as unpaid even after such liens have been
released.

Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to clarify the
court's order dated October 31, 2014. That Order noted that,
"[a]ccording to plaintiff, there are 11,000 District of Columbia
consumers who have a released District of Columbia water lien
. . . [and] [t]hrough discovery, plaintiff seeks to learn whether
any of those consumers were nevertheless falsely reported by
Equifax as having a lien."

In a memorandum opinion entered January 15, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/SCxTTJfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate
Judge Alan Kay ruled that Equifax should provide the Plaintiff
with credit report information for a random sampling of 100
consumers, which includes the date of the lien (at issue in this
case), the date of the release of the lien (if applicable) and an
indication by means of a "yes" or "no' as to whether there were
any hard inquiries during the time the lien appeared on the credit
report. This information may be produced in the form of a
spreadsheet, as agreed during the January 12, 2015 hearing.

ALBERT C. CECCONE, Plaintiff, represented by Kristi C. Kelly --
kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC, Leonard A.
Bennett -- leonard@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES,
P.C. & Matthew J. Erausquin -- matt@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER
LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Defendant, represented by Barry
Goheen -- bgoheen@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING, LLP, Brian Robert
Meiners -- bmeiners@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING, LLP, Ian Edward
Smith -- iesmith@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP & John Anthony
Love -- tlove@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Defective Engine Cradles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Holland, Jr., Brenda Baldwin, Anthony Soto, John Dell and
James Morales, Individually and on Behalf of all Similarly
Situated Persons v. FCA US LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles U.S.,
LLC (f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC), Case No. 1:15-cv-00121 (N.D.
Ohio, January 21, 2015), arises out of the 2004-2008 Chrysler
Pacificas manufactured by the Defendants with the Chrysler CS
Platform engine cradles that prematurely rust, corrode and
perforate creating a substantial risk of, or causing the engine to
fall out of the vehicle.

FCA US LLC formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC is among the
leading manufacturers of automobiles in the world and throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Andrew List, Esq.
      CLARK PERDUE & LIST CO., L.P.A.
      471 East Broad Street, Suite 1550
      Columbus, OH 43215-3853
      Telephone: (614) 460-1604
      Facsimile: (614) 469-1117
      E-mail: alist@clarkperdue.com

          - and -

      Sol Weiss, Esq.
      Larry Coben, Esq.
      ANAPOL SCHWARTZ
      1710 Spruce Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103t
      Telephone: (215) 790.1130
      E-mail: sweiss@anapolschwartz.com
              lcoben@anapolschwartz.com


FIMBEL DOOR: NJ Court Dismissed Minority Investors' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned NANCIE FIMBEL and Plaintiffs, v.
FIMBEL DOOR CORP., EDWARD FIMBEL, JR., EDWARD FIMBEL, III, FIMBEL
ARCHITECTURAL DOOR SPECIALTIES, LLC and JEFFRY DEAL Defendants,
Civ. Action No. 14-1915 (FLW)(DEA)(D. N.J.).

Nancie Fimbel and Constance Nickel are minority shareholders of
Fimbel Door Corporation, a New Jersey corporation specializing in
the manufacturing of garage doors.  Plaintiffs filed an action
alleging that Edward Fimbel Jr. entered into different business
transactions in behalf of the corporation without securing prior
approval of the stockholders. Further, Plaintiffs claimed that
Defendants maintained an act of fraud, material misrepresentation
and secrecy that benefits Fimbel Jr. and his direct descendants to
the detriment of the former, which, among others, a clear
violation of the New Jersey Oppressed Minority Shareholders
statute.

Defendants moved to dismiss alleging that Plaintiffs complaint did
not meet the heightened pleading requirements for asserting fraud
claim aside from its failure to state a claim while Plaintiffs
oppose such motion and, in the alternative, request leave to amend
their complaint.

In granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Judge Wolfson ruled
that based on the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' NJRICO
claim, the Plaintiffs did not alleged a tangible personal loss
that would give them standing. At minimum, the injury to business
or property element of RICO claims can be satisfied by allegations
and proof of actual monetary loss, i.e., an out-of-pocket loss.
Without showing that Plaintiffs incurred out-of-pocket expenses
because of Defendants' racketeering activities, Plaintiffs cannot
establish standing to sue under NJRICO and thus, their NJRICO
claim must be dismissed. Other claims are likewise dismissed for
not being meritorious.

A copy of the Opinion dated December 10, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1AarV0K from Leagle.com.

Nancie Fimbel and Constance Nickel, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kristin V. Hayes -- kvhayes@wmsrlaw.com -- Wiley Malehom Sirota &
Raynes.

Fimbel Door Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard P.
Cushing -- rcushing@gklegal.com -- Gebhardt & Kiefer, PC.  The
firm also represents Edward Fimbel, Jr., Edward Fimbel, III,
Fimbel Architectural Door Specialties, LLC, and Jeffry Deal.


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Over Defective Exhaust System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-00124 (S.D. Cal., January 20, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant sold or leased hundreds of thousands of
defective 2011 through 2015 model year Ford Explorers in a
dangerous and defective condition because each such vehicle
contains design flaws, and an exhaust and HVAC system, that permit
exhaust and other gases, including carbon monoxide, to enter the
passenger compartment during the normal and customary use of such
vehicles.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gomez, Esq.
      John P. Fiske, Esq.
      Deborah S. Dixon, Esq.
      Stephanie Poli, Esq.
      GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 237-3490
      Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
      E-mail: jgomez@gomeziagmin.com
              jfiske@gomeziagmin.com
              ddixon@gomeziagmin.com

         - and -

      John J. Uustal, Esq.
      Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
      Michael A. Hersh, Esq.
      KELLEY/UUSTAL, PLC
      700 S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 3000
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 522-6601
      Facsimile:  (954) 522-6608
      E-mail: jju@kulaw.com
              jml@kulaw.com
              mah@kulaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Sued in Pa. Over Alleged Defective Vehicle's Engine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Nolan Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00287 (E.D. Pa.,
January 21, 2015), arises out of the defective vehicles equipped
with the 5.4L engine, which are manufactured, assembled and
marketed by the Defendant that caused acceleration hesitation,
loss of revolutions per minute, stalling, loss of power, sudden
and intermittent deceleration and other similarly potential life
threatening malfunctions.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry E. Coben, Esq.
      ANAPOL SCHWARTZ WEISS COHAN FELDMAN & SMALLEY PC
      1710 Spruce St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 735-1130
      E-mail: lcoben@anapolschwartz.com


FRANZ ROESSL: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Meat Products
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Franz Roessl Holdings Limited
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9537

Franz Roessl Holdings Limited is recalling ready-to-eat meat
products from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled products.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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


FREDDIE MAC: Bid to Disqualify Atty in "Urban" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Urban filed suit against the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation or Freddie Mac for breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of
Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93A.

In ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment,
Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts noted that Attorney Thomas M.
Dillon, who is representing Urban in this case, had inserted
himself into the proceedings as a percipient witness, thereby
raising the specter of Attorney Dillon being required to withdraw
from the case or being disqualified therefrom, in accordance with
Rule 3.7 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional
Responsibility.  Thereafter, Freddie Mac filed a motion to
disqualify Attorney Dillon and his firm, Schmitt & Dillon, from
serving as Urban's trial counsel.  Attorney Dillon has agreed to
withdraw from his representation as trial counsel and therefore,
as to him the motion is allowed.

In a memorandum and order dated Jan. 13, 2015, Judge Hillman
denied the motion as to Schmitt & Dillon.  Freddie Mac also
requests that the Court find that by raising certain claims in the
action, Urban has waived the attorney-client privilege regarding
her discussions with her counsel about title insurance.  Judge
Hillman also ordered that Freddie Mac's motion seeking a
declaration of an "at issue" privilege waiver is allowed.

The case is REBECCA URBAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL HOME
LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-10915-
TSH (D. Mass.).  A full-text copy of Judge Hillman's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/zQN1rofrom Leagle.com.

Rebecca Urban, Plaintiff, represented by Carl F. Schmitt, Esq. --
cschmitt@sdslawyers.com -- Schmitt & Dillon & Thomas M. Dillon,
Schmitt & Dillon.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by
James J. Duane, III, Esq. -- jduane@peabodyarnold.com -- Peabody &
Arnold LLP & Lindsey A. Gil, Esq. -- lgil@peabodyarnold.com --
Peabody & Arnold LLP.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Dismiss "Mey" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael P. Shea denied Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned DIANA MEY, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated,
Plaintiff, No. v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendant,
No. 3:13-CV-01191-MPS (D. Conn.).

Ms. Mey brought this proposed class action against Frontier under
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") and asked for damages and injunctive relief against
Frontier.  She alleged that Frontier made two telephone calls to
her cell phone in violation of a federal consumer privacy law.

After she filed her complaint and a motion asking the Court to
certify a class of similarly situated consumers, Frontier proposed
to settle Ms. Mey's claims but the latter declined the offer.
Thereafter, Frontier promptly moved to dismiss arguing that its
offer rendered the case moot and thereby deprived the Court of
subject matter jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution.
Further, Frontier claimed that its offer of judgment fully
satisfies all of her claims such that she no longer has a personal
stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, rendering her claims -- and
those of the proposed class -- moot.

However, the Court disagreed and denied Frontier's motion by
declining to enter judgment in her favor and not dismissing the
case as moot because her claims on behalf of a proposed class
still present a live controversy.

In his corrected ruling denying Frontier's motion to dismiss,
Judge Shea agreed that the case remains a live controversy and
thus declined to enter judgment on the offer of judgment. Judge
Shea held that the district court cases that Frontier cites in its
supplemental brief are not binding since Ms. Mey seeks not only
statutory damages but also injunctive relief for herself and the
proposed class. In addition, he stated that because there would be
little incentive for any particular individual to incur the time
and expense of going to court to seek an injunction against the
annoyance of a few phone calls, there would likewise be little
incentive for defendants to change company-wide practices that
might violate those statutes.

A copy of the Order dated December 9, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/13opDkq from Leagle.com.

Diana Mey, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Paronich --
anthony@brodericklaw.com -- Broderick Law, P.C., Edward Broderick
-- ted@brodericklaw.com -- Broderick Law, P.C., John W. Barrett,
Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Matthew Passi McCue, The Law Offices of
Matthew P. McCue & Nicholas John Cicale --
nicholascicale@cenergylaw.com -- Law Office of Nicholas J. Cicale.

Frontier Communications Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Henry T. Kelly -- hkelly@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren,
John H. Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Lauri A. Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Michael
Y. Scudder, Jr., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, James E.
Nealon, Kelley Drye & Warren & Stephen C. Robinson, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal of "Hutchison" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One,
in an opinion dated Jan. 15, 2015, reversed a trial court's order
dismissing representative claims plaintiff and appellant Charles
Hutchison brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 against his employer, and electronics retailer,
defendant and respondent Fry's Electronics, Inc.

The Court of Appeals based its reversal on the California Supreme
Court's recent opinion in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los
Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 382-389, where the state's
Supreme Court held that representative PAGA claims are claims
brought on behalf of the state and may not, therefore, be waived
by an employee and, further, that an employee's right to pursue
representative PAGA claims are not preempted by the Federal
Arbitration Act.

The case is CHARLES HUTCHINSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRY'S
ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. D063219 (Cal.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/FXyd6Dfrom Leagle.com.

Marcus Jackson; Arbogast Law and David M. Arbogast for Plaintiff
and Appellant.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons, Esq. --
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Matthew M. Sonne, Esq. --
msonne@sheppardmullin.com -- and Jonathan P. Barker, Esq. --
cbarker@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


GEMINI PACKAGING: Recalls Fresh Power All Purpose Cleaner
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2014
Posting date:             December 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42971

Affected products: Fresh Power All Purpose Cleaner with Bleach

The recall involves Fresh Power All Purpose Cleaner with Bleach
that is sold in a clear 650 mL spray container and can be
identified by UPC 025013300305.

Health Canada's auditing process has revealed that Fresh Power All
Purpose Cleaner with Bleach does not meet labeling and child-
resistant packaging requirements for consumer chemical products
under Canadian law.

The consumer product does not have proper hazard labeling and
child-resistant packaging required by the Consumer Chemicals and
Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act.  The lack of child-resistant packaging and improper
labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products
and lead to serious illness, injury, or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Gemini Packaging Ltd. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

Approximately 2100 units of the recalled products were sold at
various retail locations in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold in
Canada between December 2013 and November 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Gemini Packaging Ltd.
                    Richmond
                    British Columbia
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls VIBE Model Due to Defective Airbag Control
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           20605
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014568
TC ID number:             2014568
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13030

On certain vehicles, a defect in the supplemental restraint system
could result in an inadvertent deployment of the front airbag(s)
and/or seatbelt pretensioner(s).  Unintended seatbelt pretensioner
and/or airbag deployment, in a non-warranted (non-impact)
situation, could startle the driver, which could result in a
vehicle crash causing property damage and/or personal injury.  In
some instances, inadvertent deployment could cause minor injuries
to vehicle occupants.

Dealers will replace the airbag control module and may install an
in-line jumper wiring harness to correct the issue.  Note: This
recall supersedes recalls 2013033.  Vehicles that were repaired
under the previous campaign and did not receive a new airbag
control module will also need to be repaired under this campaign.

Affected products: 2003, 2004 Pontiac Vibe


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls SRX Model Due to Incorrect Seat Bracket
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D., SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats And Restraints
Units affected:           144
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014572
TC ID number:             2014572
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14863

On certain vehicles, the driver's front seat may have been
assembled with an incorrect seat track bracket.  Driver seats with
this condition may not be properly attached to the seat track,
which could result in an audible buzz or rattle.  In the event of
a severe rear collision, a portion of the driver seat -- i.e., the
front outboard seat bracket -- may disengage from the seat track,
potentially increasing the risk of injury.

Dealers will inspect, and if required, replace the drivers
outboard front seat track hook bracket.

Affected products: 2015 Cadillac SRX


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           10
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014577
TC ID number:             2014577
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14008

On certain vehicles, exhaust components may overheat while the
vehicle is idling in cold temperatures.  This could cause nearby
plastic components to overheat and melt, possibly resulting in
smoke and/or fire and increasing the risk of injury and/or damage
to property.

Dealers will reprogram the engine control module. Note: This is an
expansion of recall 2014-005.

Affected products:

   Maker         Model         Model year(s) affected
   -----         -----         ----------------------
   GMC           YUKON         2015, 2015, 2015
   CADILLAC      ESCALADE      2015
   CHEVROLET                   2015


HONDA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
--------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type:        Service Campaign Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           715830
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014567
TC ID number:             2014567

Honda Canada is conducting a voluntary Safety Improvement Campaign
concerning the driver's airbag inflator on certain vehicles
equipped with Takata airbags.  Honda will replace the driver's
inflator on affected vehicles.  This action is not being conducted
under the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Affected products:

  Maker   Model       Model year(s) affected
  -----   -----       ----------------------
HONDA     CIVIC       2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
HONDA     ACCORD      2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
HONDA     ODYSSEY     2002, 2003, 2004
HONDA     CR-V        2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
ACURA     1.7EL       2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
ACURA     TL          2002, 2003
ACURA     CL          2002
HONDA     PILOT       2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
ACURA     MDX         2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
HONDA     ELEMENT     2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
                      2010
HONDA     RIDGELINE   2006


HONDA AUTO: Investors File Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Honda Auto Receivables 2012-2 Owner Trust said in its Form 10-D
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 21, 2015, that the Indenture Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, has provided the information contained in the
following paragraph for purposes of compliance with Regulation AB.

"DBTCA has been named as a defendant in civil litigation
concerning its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of
investors ("Plaintiff Investors") filed a civil action against
DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New
York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the
benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for
alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBTCA's
and DBNTC's alleged failure to perform their obligations as
trustees for the trusts (the "NY Derivative Action"). An amended
complaint was filed on July 16, 2014, adding Plaintiff Investors
and RMBS trusts to the NY Derivative Action. On November 24, 2014,
the Plaintiff Investors moved to voluntarily dismiss the NY
Derivative Action without prejudice. Also on November 24, 2014,
substantially the same group of Plaintiff Investors filed a civil
action against DBTCA and DBNTC in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Action"), making
substantially the same allegations as the New York Derivative
Action with respect to 564 RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue
in the NY Derivative Action). The SDNY Action is styled both as a
derivative action on behalf of the named RMBS Trusts and, in the
alternative, as a putative class action on behalf of holders of
RMBS representing interests in those RMBS trusts. DBTCA is
reviewing these newly-filed pleadings. DBTCA has no pending legal
proceedings (including, based on DBTCA's preliminary evaluation,
the litigation disclosed in this paragraph) that would materially
affect its ability to perform its duties as Trustee on behalf of
the Certificateholders."


ICHIRO SUSHI: "Hidalgo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Hidalgo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Ichiro Sushi, Inc., d/b/a Ichiro Sushi, and Hui Chen,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00414 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1694 Second
Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTEGRATED PRODUCTION: Hagans Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sim Lake granted a motion transferring the case
captioned JACK HAGANS, Plaintiff, v. INTEGRATED PRODUCTION
SERVICES, INC., and WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES, CORP., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2965, (S.D. Tex.) to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The Defendants filed the motion to transfer under the Fifth
Circuit's first-to-file rule.

Judge Lake said the Court determined that this case substantially
overlaps with a case previously filed in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and found no compelling circumstances that would bar
transfer.

A copy of the Court's January 16, 2015 memorandum opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/9ZIlTGfrom Leagle.com.

Jack Hagans, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Dunlap --
adunlap@fhl-law.com -- Fibich Hampton et al, David I. Moulton --
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC, Lindsay Rae
Itkin -- litkin@fhl-law.com -- Fibich Leebron et al, Richard J
Burch -- rburch@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC & Michael
A Josephson -- mjosephson@fhl-law.com -- Fibich, Hampton, LeeBron,
Briggs & Josephson, LLP.

Integrated Production Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
William John Bux -- bbux@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

Warrior Energy Services, Corp, Defendant, represented by William
John Bux, Locke Lord LLP.


JIM BURKE: Faces "Bowers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Bowers and Mickey Miller, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Jim Burke Automotive, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00090 (N.D. Ala., January 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Jim Burke Automotive is a new and used car dealer conducting
business in the State of Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street, North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0542
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: gwiggins@wigginschilds.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Gets Final Approval of Delatorre Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal issued an order on January 14,
2015, granting final approval of a class action settlement;
awarding attorney's fees and costs, and class representative
incentive award in the case captioned LINDA DELATORRE,
individually and on behalf of others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-03214-PSG, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court found that no Class Members objected to the Settlement;
4 Class Members have requested exclusion from the Settlement; and
920 of the Class Members filed timely and valid Claim Forms.

The Court found that the applicable requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied with respect to the
Class and the proposed Settlement. The Court made final its
earlier provisional certification of the Vacation Class and
Waiting Time Penalty Class, as set forth in the Preliminary
Approval Order.

The Court found that the Stipulation of Settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable, and falls within the range of
reasonableness, and consistent and in compliance with all the
requirements of Rule 23.

The Court granted final approval to the Settlement and found the
deal reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the
Class as a whole. Accordingly, the Court directed that the
Settlement be effected in accordance with the Stipulation of
Settlement and these terms and conditions:

     a. the Settlement Administrator will pay the Individual
Settlement Payments pursuant to the method of calculation set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.

     b. the Settlement Administrator will pay the Service Payment
of $5,000.00 to Named Plaintiff Linda DelaTorre because the Court
finds the Service Payment is fair and reasonable for the work she
provided to the Class and Class Counsel.

     c. the Settlement Administrator will pay the Fee and Expense
Award of $700,000.00, plus $14,337.73 in actual costs, to Class
Counsel because Class Counsel's request falls within the range of
reasonableness and the result achieved justified the award. Class
Counsel's actual expenses in prosecuting this Lawsuit are approved
as reasonably incurred.

     d. the Settlement Administrator will pay the PAGA Payment of
$10,000.00 as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. Of this
amount, 75%, or 7,500.00 will be paid to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency and 25% or $2,500.00 will be distributed to
Class Members pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.

     e. the Settlement Administrator will be paid Administration
Costs of $33,975.00 for its services in administering the
Settlement.

The Court found that only four Class Members have timely and
properly requested exclusion from the Stipulation Settlement.
These individuals, Ronald L. Harrell, Kay Shamsa, Diana M.
Fogarty, and Rex L. Slater will not be bound by the Stipulation of
the Settlement or its releases.

GRAHAM S.P. HOLLIS -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- VILMARIE CORDERO
-- vcordero@grahamhollis.com -- GRAHAM HOLLIS APC, San Diego,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, LINDA DELATORRE.

LYNNE C. HERMLE -- lchermle@orrick.com -- JESSICA R. PERRY --
jperry@orrick.com -- LINDSEY CONNOR HULSE -- lhulse@orrick.com --
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Menlo Park, California,
Attorneys for Defendant, JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.


JPS COMPLETION: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPS Completion Fluids, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00052
(S.D. Tex., January 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaud overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

JPS Completion Fluids, Inc. is an oil and gas field services
company in Mathis, San Patricio County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N. Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


KLICK WIRELESS: "Luzardo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yaritza Luzardo, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Klick
Wireless LLC and Abhinav Bhushan, Case No. 1:15-cv-20242 (S.D.
Fla., January 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Klick Wireless LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company that
provides wen design services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
      JARA & ASSOCIATES, PA
      1200 Brickell Avenue, 1450
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-0290
      Facsimile: (305) 675-0383
      E-mail: franklin@jaralaw.com


LEPRINO FOODS: Faces "Talavera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathon Talavera, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Leprino Foods Company, a
Colorado Corporation, Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company, a
Colorado Corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00105 (E.D. Cal., January 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a food processor company in West
Lemoore, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cory Lee, Esq.
     THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, Llc
     PO Box 1021
     Unionville, PA 19375
     Telephone: (610) 324-2848
     E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Court Ruled on Counterclaim in Cheapskate Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation's motion to dismiss counterclaims filed by the so-
called Garland Parties in the case captioned CHEAPSKATE CHARLIE'S
LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-05888-JCS (N.D. Cal.).  The Court
granted Garland Parties' motion as to Louisiana-Pacific's
indemnity and contribution claims, but denied as to Louisiana-
Pacific's contract claim.

Plaintiffs filed an action alleging that they purchased decking
materials from Cal Garland and/or Meadow River Lumber Company --
Garland Parties -- in reliance on Louisiana-Pacific's
misrepresentation that the decking materials were suitable for
resale and not subject to a recall.

Cheapskate Charlie's is one of the buyers of the same decking
materials, which was later subject to recall and class action
settlement being not suitable for resale to retailers or
consumers.

Louisiana-Pacific filed an answer with motion to dismiss including
a third-party claim against the Garland Parties claiming for
indemnity, contribution, and specific performance of contractual
obligations while the latter moves for the dismissal of Louisiana-
Pacific's claim.

The Garland Parties filed a counterclaim alleging fraud to the
extent that it is found that the Subject Material was subject to
recall and not suitable for resale, Louisiana-Pacific falsely
reported to the Garland Parties that the Subject Material was
suitable for resale to retailers and consumers. Further, the
Garland Parties alleged that Louisiana-Pacific intentionally
concealed the fact that the subject decking was not suitable for
resale in order to entice them into purchasing the Subject
Material.

The Garland Parties argued that in order to hold them liable under
a claim of indemnity or contribution, there must be allegations
sufficient to demonstrate that either (1) they are joint
tortfeasors (the extent that Louisiana-Pacific is liable); or (2)
they committed fraud against Boston Cedar Inc., one of the
Plaintiffs, while acting in a capacity that would expose
Louisiana-Pacific to potential liability.

Louisiana-Pacific moved for the dismissal of the complaint based
on three arguments: (1) the Garland Parties have not alleged
recoverable damages, (2) the Garland Parties alleged reliance was
unreasonable as a matter of law, and (3) the Garland Parties
failed to allege that Louisiana-Pacific knew its alleged
statements were false or made them recklessly.  Louisiana-Pacific
also argued that aside from possible attorneys' fees, the Garland
Parties have suffered no damages because they made a significant
profit on the sale of the subject decking.

In granting Louisiana-Pacific's Motion to Dismiss, Magistrate
Judge Spero held that Garland Parties had made no allegations that
they suffered damages from the transactions other than costs and
fees of the action that are not recoverable under Michigan law.
Also, for failure to allege recoverable damages, Garland Parties'
counterclaim is also dismissed. On the other hand, Judge Spero
granted Garland Parties' motion as to Louisiana-Pacific's
indemnity and contribution claims but denied the contract claim.

A copy of the Order dated December 9, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1uGfRj2 from Leagle.com.

Cheapskate Charlie's LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Sun Rho
-- Arho@MPBF.com -- Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney & Barry A.
Steinway, Steinway Law Offices, P.C..

Cabinets To Go, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Angela Sun Rho,
Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney & Barry A. Steinway, Steinway
Law Offices, P.C..

Boston Cedar, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Angela Sun Rho,
Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney & Barry A. Steinway, Steinway
Law Offices, P.C..

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy Kuo
Alexander -- aalexander@gordonress.com -- Gordon and Rees, James E
Weatherholtz -- jweatherholtz@buistmoore.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge Rice, LLP, Rebecca R Monroe, Gordon & Rees LLP, Thomas
Arthur Packer, Gordon & Rees & Elisabeth M. Von Eitzen --
evoneitzen@wnj.com -- Warner Norcross and Judd LLP.

Meadow River Lumber Company and Calvin D. Garland, 3rd party
defendant, represented by Lindsay M Haigh.


MAZDA: Recalls MAZDA6, MAZDASPEED6 and RX-8 Models
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Service Campaign Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           46000
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014570
TC ID number:             2014570

Mazda Canada is conducting a voluntary Safety Improvement Campaign
concerning the driver's airbag inflator on certain vehicles
equipped with Takata airbags.  Mazda will replace the driver's
inflator on affected vehicles.  This action is not being conducted
under the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Affected products:

  Maker     Model         Model year(s) affected
  -----     -----         ----------------------
  MAZDA     MAZDA6        2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
  MAZDA     RX-8          2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
  MAZDA     MAZDASPEED6   2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008


MEDBOX INC: Overstates Fin'l Revenue Reports, "Crystal" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Crystal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Medbox, Inc., Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, Bruce
Bedrick, Thomas Iwanski, Guy Marsala, and Douglas Mitchell, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00426 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013, specifically by overstating the Company's
revenues by recognizing revenue on customer contracts before it
had been earned.

Medbox, Inc. through its subsidiaries provides patented
biometrically controlled medicine storage and dispensing systems
to the medical and retail industries.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com
              shawnf@johnsonandweaver.com


METAL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Ind. Over Illegal Wage Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian A. Weil and Melissa D. Fulk, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Metal Technologies, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00016 (S.D. Ind., January 20, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants has been taking illegal wage deductions from its
employees' pay checks for costs of uniforms.

Metal Technologies, Inc. manufactures different types of
automobile parts with its principal place of business in
Bloomfield, Greene County, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Peter Kondras Jr., Esq.
      HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


NATIONAL IMPORTERS: Recalls Patak's Original Canned Curry Sauces
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           National Importers Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9543

National Importers Inc. is recalling Patak's Original brand canned
curry sauces from the marketplace because they contain mustard
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
mustard should not consume the recalled products.

The products have been sold nationally.

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

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

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

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

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

Affected products:

   -- 284 ml. Patak's Original Balti Curry Sauce (canned) with all
      codes where mustard is not declared on the label;

   -- 284 ml Patak's Original Madras Curry Sauce (canned) with all
      codes where mustard is not declared on the label; and

   -- 284 ml Patak's Original Vindaloo Curry Sauce (canned) with
      all codes where mustard is not declared on the label


NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Meholczo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Meholczo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Case No. 4:15-
cv-00192 (S.D. Tex., January 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week.

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. is one of the largest oilfield
services companies in the world and provides drilling fluid
products and services to thousands of wells throughout the United
States and the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Property Inspections Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Hill, Staci Hill, Qamarun M. Shaikh and Mujahiddin Shaikh,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Solutionstar, Case No. 0:15-cv-60106
(S.D. Fla., January 20, 2015), seeks to redress the Defendants'
illegal practice of automatically ordering property inspections
via its computerized loan servicing system, which were excessive
in frequency and price, and that were unnecessary and otherwise
unlawful.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC is the principal servicing subsidiary of
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded holding
company that is engaged primarily in the servicing of residential
mortgage loans for others, the origination of, selling or
securitization of single-family conforming mortgage loans to GSEs
or other third-party investors in the secondary market.

Solutionstar provides technology and data enhanced solutions to
home buyers, home sellers, real estate agents, and companies
engaged in the origination and servicing of mortgage loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yechezkel Rodal, Esq.
      LOAN LAWYERS LLC
      2150 S. Andrews Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 523-4357
      E-mail: Chezky@Floridaloanlawyers.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604


NAVISTAR: Recalls Workstar Model Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           11
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014574
TC ID number:             2014574
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14525

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and
Retroreflective Devices.  Headlight electrical connections may
have been reversed at time of assembly, causing reduced headlight
photometric output.  This could cause the vehicle to fail to
comply with the requirements of the standard, decreasing driver
visibility and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or property damage.

Dealers will correct the wiring.

Affected products: 2013, 2014, 2015 International Workstar


NAVISTAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           264
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014573
TC ID number:             2014573
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14523

On certain vehicles, brake chamber diaphragm(s) may not be
properly seated.  This could lead to brake drag, causing brake
overheating or unintended spring brake application.  These issues
could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage.

Dealers will affect repairs as necessary.

Affected products:

   Maker         Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----         -----       ----------------------
INTERNATIONAL    9900        2015
INTERNATIONAL    PROSTAR     2015
INTERNATIONAL    LONESTAR    2015
INTERNATIONAL    DURASTAR    2015
INTERNATIONAL    WORKSTAR    2015
INTERNATIONAL    TRANSTAR    2015
INTERNATIONAL    PAYSTAR     2015


NOW HEALTH: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Product Packaging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zabrina Collazo and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Now Health Group, Inc. d/b/a Now
Natural Foods, d/b/a Now International, d/b/a Healthco, d/b/a
Nature's Delivery, d/b/a NHG, d/b/a Now Foods, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00328 (E.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
false and misleading product packaging of its NOW(R) Vitamin C
supplement Product, which is produced in the form of 100% ascorbic
acid (Vitamin C) powder with a net weight of 3 lbs (1361 grams),
when in fact the Defendant manufactures, markets and sells the
Vitamin C powder Product with non-functional slack-fill.

Now Health Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of dietary supplements,
food and nutritional products, body hygiene and hair care products
and active pharmaceutical ingredients with its headquarters
located at 244 Knollwood Drive, Suite 300, Bloomingdale, IL 60108.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCEAN DETAILING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chrisnel Dieudonne, Samuel Henry, and others similarly-situated v.
Ocean Detailing USA Management Inc., a Florida corporation, and
Russel C. Grande, individually, Case No. 0:15-cv-60108 (S.D. Fla.,
January 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages under the laws of the United States, the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides detailing
services to auto dealers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


PACIFIC PREMIER: Plaintiffs' Counsel Seeks Schedule for Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 21, 2015, that the Bank was contacted by plaintiffs'
counsel to schedule depositions and discovery, and prepare the
case to go to trial in 2015.

In February 2004, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit alleging various violations of Missouri law
relating to alleged excessive loan origination fees and closing
costs.  Various motions to dismiss the lawsuit were denied in 2005
and 2006.  After a lengthy period of inactivity, the Bank was
contacted by plaintiffs' counsel to schedule depositions and
discovery, and prepare the case to go to trial in 2015.

The Board of Directors of the Company determined to establish a
$1.7 million expense related to the lawsuit during the fourth
quarter of 2014, which the Board of Directors believes to be a
reasonable estimate of the Company's exposure as of December 31,
2014.


PAY ZONE: "Schultz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Schultz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pay Zone Mud Logging Service, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00050 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pay Zone Mud Logging Service, Inc. is a mud logging services
company located in Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


PELLA CORP: "Andrews" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------
Christy and Greg Andrews and Tanya and Gary Conlay filed an action
in the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting diversity
jurisdiction.  On May 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, alleging the following eleven causes of action: (1)
strict liability, (2) negligence, (3) breach of express warranty,
(4) breach of implied warranties, (5) negligent misrepresentation,
(6) fraud, (7) breach of express warranty, (8) design defect, (9)
construction or composite defect, (10) redhibition, and (11)
declaratory relief.

Prior to transfer to of the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their national class claims for
strict liability, negligence, express warranty, implied warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Eastern
District of Louisiana subsequently dismissed the plaintiffs' state
law claim for breach of express warranty.  Thus, the plaintiffs'
only remaining claims are Louisiana state law claims for design
defect and construction defect under the Louisiana Products
Liability Act, redhibition, and declaratory relief.  The United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
plaintiffs' cases to the District of South Carolina.

Plaintiffs Christy and Greg Andrews filed a motion to dismiss
without prejudice and defendant Pella Corporation filed a motion
to dismiss with prejudice.

In an order dated Jan. 13, 2015, U.S. District Judge David C.
Norton granted the Andrews' motion, denied Pella's motion, and
dismissed the Andrews' claims without prejudice.  Judge Norton
said dismissal with prejudice is a harsh sanction and Pella has
not suffered unfair prejudice defending the Andrews' claim to
warrant such a harsh sanction.

The case is CHRISTY and GREG ANDREWS and TANYA and GARY CONLAY, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant, NOS. 2:14-
MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-CV-00539-DCN (D.S.C.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Norton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/LRj5kEfrom
Leagle.com.

Christy Andrews, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon,
Lemmon Law Firm, Gary E Mason, Mason Law Firm, Scott A George,
Seeger Weiss, Daniel K Bryson, Esq. -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield
Bryson & Mason LLP, Irma L. Netting, Lemmon Law Firm, Matthew E
Lee, Esq. -- matt@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason &
Richard J Arsenault, Esq. -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- Neblett
Beard and Arsenault.

Greg Andrews, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon,
Lemmon Law Firm, Gary E Mason, Mason Law Firm, Scott A George,
Seeger Weiss, Daniel K Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Irma
L. Netting, Lemmon Law Firm, Matthew E Lee, Whitfield Bryson and
Mason & Richard J Arsenault, Neblett Beard and Arsenault.

Tanya Conlay, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon,
Lemmon Law Firm, Gary E Mason, Mason Law Firm, Scott A George,
Seeger Weiss, Daniel K Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Irma
L. Netting, Lemmon Law Firm, Matthew E Lee, Whitfield Bryson and
Mason & Richard J Arsenault, Neblett Beard and Arsenault.

Gary Conlay, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon,
Lemmon Law Firm, Gary E Mason, Mason Law Firm, Scott A George,
Seeger Weiss, Daniel K Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Irma
L. Netting, Lemmon Law Firm, Matthew E Lee, Whitfield Bryson and
Mason & Richard J Arsenault, Neblett Beard and Arsenault.

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by G Mark Phillips, Esq.
-- mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Michael Tucker Cole, Esq. --
mike.cole@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Terry Christovich Gay, Esq. -- tcgay@christovich.com
-- Christovich & Kearney, LLP, James A O'Neal, Esq. --
james.oneal@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre & Benson LLP, John P. Mandler,
Esq. -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre, Baker Law Firm --
Minneapolis Office, Kevin L Morrow, Esq. --
kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, Kevin Richard
Tully, Esq. -- krtully@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney,
LLP, Mark J Winebrenner, Esq. -- joe.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels, Oscar M. Gwin, IV, Esq. --
omgwin@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney, LLP & Shane A
Anderson, Esq. -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels.


PENFORD CORPORATION: Entered Into MOU in Washington Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penford Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 21, 2015, that
Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs in the Washington class action with respect to a
proposed settlement of the Washington Action.

The purpose of this Current Report on Form 8-K is to update the
Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed by Penford
Corporation ("Penford" or the "Company") with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on December 29, 2014, concerning
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 14, 2014
(the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Penford, Ingredion
Incorporated, a Delaware corporation ("Ingredion"), and Prospect
Sub, Inc., a Washington corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary
of Ingredion ("Merger Sub"). The Proxy Statement was first mailed
to the shareholders of Penford on or about December 31, 2014.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, following the announcement of
the execution of the Merger Agreement, two purported class action
lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement were filed on behalf of
Penford shareholders in the Superior Court of King County,
Washington against Penford, members of Penford's board of
directors, Ingredion and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Penford Corporation Shareholders Litigation, No.
14-2-29641-0 SEA (the "Washington Action").

On January 21, 2015, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with the
plaintiffs in the Washington Action with respect to a proposed
settlement of the Washington Action, pursuant to which the parties
have agreed, among other things, that Penford will make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger. The
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement should be read in
conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which should be read in its
entirety. The information contained in this Current Report is
incorporated by reference into the Proxy Statement.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting
of Penford, which is scheduled to be held on January 29, 2015, or
the amount of the consideration to be paid to Penford shareholders
in connection with the proposed merger. The settlement is not, and
should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any of the Defendants. The Defendants believe that no
further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement
under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that the
Washington Action may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the proposed merger and to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation, the Defendants have agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger. Nothing
in this Current Report or any settlement shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the
disclosures set forth herein. The parties have agreed to use their
collective best efforts to obtain final approval of the settlement
and the dismissal of the Washington Action with prejudice.

Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel
to the plaintiffs, the Memorandum of Understanding contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Penford's
shareholders. As explained in the Memorandum of Understanding, if
the settlement is finally approved by the Washington court, the
parties anticipate that it will resolve and release all claims in
all actions pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Penford's
shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Washington Action will
file a petition in the Washington court for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to be paid by the Defendants or their carriers.
The Defendants or their carriers will pay or cause to be paid any
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Washington court.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Washington court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated.


PHARMACARE US: Falsely Marketed IntenseX Products, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Kanfer, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated and the general public v. PharmaCare US, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00120 (S.D. Cal., January 20, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant falsely markets an over-the-counter
product called IntenseX as having beneficial health and
aphrodisiac properties to increase Sexual Power and Performance,
despite that none of the ingredients in the Product, individually
or in combination, provide such benefits.

PharmaCare US, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor, and marketer
of a variety of natural health products and supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Skye Resendes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
              skye@consumersadvocates.com


PHARMACON DRUG: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Hendricks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pharmacon Drug, P.A., Gary Damm, and Reed Edgington,
Case No. 6:15-cv-01025 (D. Kan., January 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime
compensation to nonexempt employees.

The Defendants own and operate pharmacies in Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
      WITHERS, GOUGH, PIKE, PFAFF & PETERSON LLC
      O.W. Garvey Building
      200 W. Douglas, Suite 1010
      Wichita, KS 67202
      Telephone: (316) 267-1562
      Facsimile: (316) 303-1018
      E-mail: smcgivern@withersgough.com


PRECISION DEMOLITION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Castro" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Castro and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216 (b) v. Precision Demolition LLC, Precision Demolition, LP,
Holfords Prairie Partners, LLC, Raymond D. Ricker III and Aaron
Smith, Case No. 3:15-cv-00213 (N.D. Tex., 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 Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


PREMIER FLOW: Faces "Domingue" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Domingue, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premier Flow Control, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-
00038 (W.D. Tex., January 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Premier Flow Control, LLC is an oilfield services company
providing flowback services to operators, as well as coil tubing
support and well control services at well sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS: "Kiser" Settlement Gets Final Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James C. Mahan granted final approval of a proposed
class action settlement in ANTHONY KISER, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRIDE
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and CRAIG LUSK, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-
00165-JCM-VCF, (D. Nev.).

No Class Members have objected to the Settlement and no Class
Members have requested exclusion from the Settlement. A total of
35 Class Members, constituting 26.52% of the Class Members have
filed claims making themselves eligible to receive payments from
the settlement fund, such class members also possessing claims
that equal 41.3% of the monetary value of all Class Members
claims. These 35 individuals have claimed, and will be paid,
approximately $36,457.09 from the Settlement Fund.

As counsel for the Class, Leon Greenberg of Leon Greenberg
Professional Corporation and Christian Gabroy of the Gabroy Law
Office will be paid a fees payment of $48,000.00 and a costs
payment of $8,238.18 from the Settlement Fund for their services
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class. The Court also approves
the payment from the Settlement Fund of $5,000 to each of the
Class Representatives, Anthony Kiser and Brian Izumi, in
recognition of their efforts on behalf of the Class.

As the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting will be paid from
the Settlement Fund for their services rendered in administering
the Settlement, in accordance with the Stipulation. Pursuant to
the declaration of its Senior Project Administrator, Stacy Roe,
submitted to the Court, its estimated maximum costs for
administration of the settlement of this matter is $8,000.00. Its
payment of costs in that amount from the Settlement Fund is
approved, provided that it will receive a lesser amount, if any,
that is equal to the actual charges properly paid to it for the
services it provides in completing the administration of the
Settlement.

Judge Mahan directed the Clerk of the Court to enter a Final
Judgment of dismissal, and the Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.

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

LEON GREENBERG, ESQ. -- leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com -- DANA
SNIEGOCKI, ESQ. -- dana23@gmail.com -- Leon Professional
Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada, CHRISTIAN GABROY SBN, Gabroy Law
Offices, Henderson, Nevada, Attorneys for Plaintiff.


PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS: Court Won't Exclude Rausser Testimony
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several of the nation's largest egg producers allegedly conspired
to control and limit the supply of eggs and egg products,
resulting in artificially inflated prices during the period of
2000-2008. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, a putative class of
entities and individuals that purchased eggs or egg products
directly from Defendants, are seeking class certification and have
offered the testimony of Dr. Gordon Rausser, who holds a Ph.D.
degree in economics, in support of their Motion for Class
Certification. Defendants have filed a motion seeking to exclude
entirely Dr. Rausser's declaration, opinions, and testimony.

According to District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, although there are a number of
challenging issues that bear critical analysis and certainly
merited the defense and the Court's attention, the Motion to
Exclude should be denied.

A copy of Judge Pratter's January 26, 2015 Memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/i2qcQpfrom Leagle.com.

The case is, IN RE PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION No.
08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.).

Sandra A. Jeskie serves as Special Master in the case.  She may be
reached at:

     Sandra A. Jeskie, Esq.
     DUANE MORRIS LLP
     30 South 17th Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
     Tel: +1 215 979 1395
     Fax: +1 215 689 2586
     E-mail: Jeskie@duanemorris.com


PULASKI PIZZA: Faces "Sanz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Sanz, Rodolfo Marquez, and Steven Bandusky, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated individuals v. Pulaski Pizza,
LLC d/b/a Giordano's Restaurant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00549 (N.D.
Ill., January 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in an individual workweek.

Pulaski Pizza, LLC owns and operates Giordano's Restaurant located
at 5159 S. Pulaski Road in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin B. Potter, Esq.
      Patrick James Cowlin, Esq.
      Maria De Las Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
      ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 861-1800
      Facsimile: (312) 861-3009
      E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org
              patrick@potterlaw.org
              nieves@potterlaw.org

          - and -

      Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Esq.
      Yolanda Carrillo, Esq.
      WORKING HANDS LEGAL CLINIC
      401 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9115
      E-mail: lcolungamerchant@workinghandslegalclinic.org
              ycarrillo@workinghandslegalclinic.org


R.J. REYNOLDS: Court Rules on Motions in Limine in "Hoover" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
MERLE ZAMBONI, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF ROBERT
HOOVER, Plaintiff, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 3:09-CV-11957 (SAS), (M.D. Fla.), arises out of
R.J Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, a state class action brought in
1994 by smokers seeking damages for smoking-related medical
issues. Following class certification, the trial court divided the
litigation into phases. In Phase I, the jury returned a verdict in
favor of the class on all claims and determined that the class was
entitled to punitive damages. In Phase II, the jury found that
certain class representatives were entitled to compensatory
damages, and awarded one hundred and forty five billion dollars in
class-wide punitive damages. Phase III was earmarked for
determinations of causation and damages in individual cases. Those
are the issues presently before the Court -- in the case of Robert
Hoover, who died of smoking-related diseases on October 26, 1992.

In advance of trial on individual liability, plaintiff -- Merle
Zamboni, spouse of Mr. Hoover and personal representative of his
estate -- and defendants R.J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris, and
Lorillard Tobacco have filed various motions in limine.
Defendants filed six motions in limine, and plaintiff filed one.

District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, in an opinion and order
entered January 14, 2015, ruled that the plaintiffs' motion is
mooted by the fact the individual rules prohibit attorney voir
dire. With regards the defendants' motions in limine, Judge
Scheindlin held that Defendants' motion to preclude lay witness
testimony about addiction is granted in part and denied in part;
defendants' motion to preclude plaintiff's testimony regarding
conversations between the decedent and his doctor is denied to the
extent that plaintiff has first-hand knowledge of such
conversations, subject to the caveat that the testimony can only
be offered to prove addiction; defendants' motion to preclude
testimony about smoking-related diseases not at issue in this case
is granted in part and denied in part; defendants' motion to
preclude evidence of cigarette advertising to minors in granted in
part and denied in part; and defendants' motion to preclude
evidence of David Hoover's non-economic suffering is granted.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/9zkZSQ
from Leagle.com.

Charlie E. Farah, Jr., Esq., Farah & Farah, PA, Jacksonville, FL,
Lance V. Oliver, Esq., Donald A. Migliori, Esq., Elizabeth C.
Ward, Esq., Frederick C. Baker, Esq., James W. Ledlie, Esq.,
Joseph F. Rice, Esq., Lisa M. Saltzburg, Esq., Mathew Jasinski,
Esq., Michael J. Pendell, Esq., Nathan D. Finch, Esq., Patrick G.
Maiden, Esq., Rebecca M. Deupree, Esq., Robert T. Haefele, Esq.,
Sara C. Bryant, Esq., Elizabeth S. Smith, Esq., Motley Rice, LLC,
Mount Pleasant, SC, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq., Kevin R. Budner,
Esq., Richard M. Heimann, Esq., Robert J. Nelson, Esq., Sarah R.
London, Esq., Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq., Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Norwood S. Wilner, Esq.,
Stephanie J. Hartley, Esq., The Wilner Firm, PA, Jacksonville, FL,
for Plaintiff.

David M. Monde, Esq., Edward M. Carter, Esq., John F. Yarber,
Esq., Jose A. Isasi, Esq., Stephanie E. Parker, Esq., Atlanta, GA,
David C. Reeves, Esq., Joseph W. Prichard, Jr., Esq., Robert B.
Parrish, Esq., Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones,
Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant R.J. Reynolds.

James B. Murphy, Jr., Esq., Terri L. Parker, Esq., Shook, Hardy &
Bacon, LLP, Tampa, FL, Dana G. Bradford, Esq., Smith, Gambrell &
Russell, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, Joshua R. Brown, Esq., Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, Orlando, FL, for Defendants R. J. Reynolds and
Philip Morris.

Judith Bernstein-Gaeta, Esq., Keri L. Arnold, Esq., Thomas W.
Stoever, Jr., Esq., M. Sean Laane, Esq., Maura McGonigle, Esq.,
Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC, Luis E. Suarez, Esq., Mark
J. Heise, Esq., Devin Freedman, Esq., Steven W. Davis, Esq.,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant Philip
Morris.

Aviva L. Wemic, Esq., Rafael Cruz-Alvarez, Esq., Hughes, Hubbard &
Reed, LLP, Miami, FL, John Andrew De Vault III, Esq., Patrick P.
Coll, Esq., Bedell, Dittmar, De Vault, Pillans & Coxe, PA,
Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant Lorillard Tobacco.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Court Denied Motion for Reconsideration
--------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California denied the
motion for reconsideration of the Court's order of dismissal of
the Federal Securities Class Action.

On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the
defendants against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California by a shareholder of the Company.
After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The
amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the
litigation described above under the caption "Hussein Litigation,"
generally alleges that statements made to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition and
projected future performance were false and misleading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual
defendants are liable for such statements because they are
controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014,
dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied
on January 5, 2015.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Parties Agree to Stay Derivative Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the parties have
agreed to stay the Shareholder Derivative Litigation pending
plaintiffs' decision regarding possible appeal in the Federal
Securities Class Action.

On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers and current and former directors
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh,
George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris
Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin,
Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-
DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of the Company. The
complaint arises from the same allegations under the captions
"Hussein Litigation" and "Federal Securities Class Action" and
generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and
gross mismanagement by the Company's directors, in addition to
unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement
of all profits, court costs, attorneys' fees and implementation of
enhanced corporate governance procedures. The parties have agreed
to stay this litigation pending plaintiffs' decision regarding
possible appeal in the Federal Securities Class Action. The
Company believes that plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


QUICKEN LOANS: Sued Over Real Estate Settlement Service Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Arace, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quicken Loans, Inc., a Michigan Corporation,
and Does 1 through 20, Case No. 1:15-cv-00382 (S.D.N.Y., January
20, 2015), alleges that the Defendant charged and continues to
charge a false, misleading and improper real estate settlement
service fee attendant to cooperative unit lending.

Quicken Loans, Inc. is an online retail mortgage lender with its
principal executive offices located at 1050 Woodard Avenue,
Detroit, Michigan 48226.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart E. Nahas, Esq.
      ZRAICK NAHAS & RICH
      303 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1201
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-0855
      Facsimile: (212) 779-9548
      E-mail: stunahas@znrlaw.com

         - and -

      Wayne Scott Kreger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE KREGER
      303 5th Avenue, Suite 1201
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 956-2136
      Facsimile: (212) 956-2137
      E-mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com


SABINE OIL: Defendants Reached Agreement in Principle in NY Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, formerly known as Forest Oil
Corporation, said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A (Amendment No.
1) Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 21, 2015, that defendants reached an
agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the New York class
action regarding a settlement of that action.

On December 16, 2014, Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, formerly known
as Forest Oil Corporation (the "Company"), completed the
transactions (the "Combination") contemplated under Amendment No.
1 to the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of May 5, 2014, and amended and restated as of July 9, 2014, by
and among the Company, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, FR XI Onshore AIV, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Sabine Holdings II")
and Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Sabine O&G").

Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed
Transactions, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by
Forest Oil shareholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by
the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those
breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with
the proposed Transactions. By order, dated July 8, 2014, the six
New York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the
caption In re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index
No. 651418/2014.

On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New York action
filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to certify a
plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil common
stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The
defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest
Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D.
Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond. I.
Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates
(specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC). The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI
Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are
alleged as against that entity.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Transactions
arise out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of
directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and
affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire
the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an
alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not
represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of
Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the
proposed Transactions have been improperly restructured to require
only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve
the combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as
would have been required under the original transaction structure.
The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of
Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial advisor for
the proposed Transactions, are subject to conflicts of interest
that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that
the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed
Transactions with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices"
that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential
transactions with other bidders.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the
directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a
cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and
abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law,
and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin
consummation of the proposed Transactions or, in the alternative,
rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that
the proposed Transactions are consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved.

On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a
settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a
memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date.
The settlement, if consummated, will also resolve the Colorado
action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with
Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form
8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of
the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC
will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at
least one additional independent director, as defined in Section
303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a
Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine
Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining
two Sabine Nominees that have not yet been determined will be
independent. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval. In the event that the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed combination transaction,
the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger
agreement originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Forest Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated
entities on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection
therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all
other matters that were the subject of the complaint in the New
York action, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that shall be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the Actions. There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the New York Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
At this time, the Company is unable to guarantee the potential
outcome of this litigation or the ultimate exposure.


SABINE OIL: Colorado Class Action Administratively Closed
---------------------------------------------------------
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, formerly known as Forest Oil
Corporation, said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A (Amendment No.
1) Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 21, 2015, that the Court in the Colorado
class action entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to
administratively close the action.

One putative class action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil
shareholders in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado. That action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp.,
No. 1:14-cv-01409-MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on
June 13, 2014. The Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and
abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by the Sabine
defendants in connection with the proposed Transactions, as well
as related claims alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with alleged misstatements in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed by Forest Oil on May 29, 2014, which recommends
that Forest Oil shareholders approve the proposed Transactions.
The Olinatz Complaint names as defendants Forest Oil and certain
of its affiliates (specifically, Forest Oil Corporation, New
Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger Sub Inc.), the directors of
Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser,
James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and
Raymond. I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain of its affiliates
(specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to
enjoin consummation of the proposed Transactions or, in the
alternative, rescission in the event that the proposed
Transactions are consummated before the lawsuit is resolved, as
well as imposition of a constructive trust on any alleged benefits
improperly received by defendants.

On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the
Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk
of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to
reopening on good cause shown.


SABINE OIL: No Oral Argument Yet in Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, formerly known as Forest Oil
Corporation, said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A (Amendment No.
1) Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 21, 2015, that a date for oral arguments has
not yet been set in the appeal related to the lawsuit styled
Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Resources Inc. et al.

On March 26, 2014, the judge overseeing the lawsuit styled
Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Resources Inc. et al., granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. The original claim was brought
on May 25, 2012, as a purported class action in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County against Forest Oil
Corporation, Lone Pine, certain of Lone Pine's current and former
directors and officers (the "Individual Defendants"), and certain
underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants") of Lone Pine's initial
public offering (the "IPO"), which was completed on June 1, 2011.
The class action was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleged that Lone Pine's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the IPO contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
relating to forest fires that occurred in Northern Alberta in May
2011, the rupture of a third-party oil sales pipeline in Northern
Alberta in April 2011, and the impact of those events on Lone
Pine, that the alleged misstatements or omissions violated Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and that
Lone Pine, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter
Defendants are liable for such violations. (The complaint was
subsequently amended to drop the allegation regarding the forest
fires.) The complaint further alleged that the Underwriter
Defendants offered and sold Lone Pine's securities in violation of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the putative class
members sought rescission of the securities purchased in the IPO
that they continued to own and rescissionary damages for
securities that they had sold. Finally, the complaint asserted a
claim against Forest Oil Corporation under Section 15 of the
Securities Act, alleging that Forest Oil Corporation was a
"control person" of Lone Pine at the time of the IPO. The
complaint alleged that the putative class, which purchased shares
of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Lone
Pine's registration statement and prospectus, was damaged when the
value of the stock declined in August 2011. Lone Pine's obligation
to indemnify Forest, the Individual Defendants, and the
Underwriter Defendants, was extinguished in Lone Pine's bankruptcy
proceedings.

Plaintiffs appealed the decision on April 28, 2014, and briefing
was completed on August 5, 2014, and appellate briefs have been
submitted. A date for oral arguments has not yet been set.


SEADRILL LIMITED: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------
Ron Heron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Seadrill Limited, John Fredriksen, Per Wullf, and Rune
Magnus Lundete, Case No. 1:15-cv-00429 (S.D.N.Y., January 21,
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.

Seadrill Limited is a Bermuda-based offshore drilling contractor
that provides offshore drilling services to the oil and gas
industry.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Seadrill
Limited.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL P.L.L.C.
      88 Pine Street, 14th, Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 883-7057
      E-mail: lgrant@cmht.com


SEI YING: Recalls Peanut Powder Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sei Ying Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9542

Affected products: 1 kg. Peanut Powder Imported by: 1624 West 75th
Ave. Vancouver' with all codes where milk is not declared on the
label


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Ottogi Hash Curry (Hice Curry)
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Seoul Trading Corp.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9472

Affected products: 100 g. Ottogi Hash Curry (Hice Curry) with all
codes where milk and mustard are not declared on the label


SHOPPERS DRUG: Recalls From Our Chefs Meat Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Shoppers Drug Mart
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9538

Shoppers Drug Mart is recalling From Our Chefs brand meat products
sold at the Shoppers Drug Mart located at 1630 Danforth Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario from the marketplace due to possible improper
refrigeration.  Consumers should not consume the recalled
products.

The products have been sold at the Shoppers Drug Mart located at
1630 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, Ontario between Dec. 12, 2014, and
Dec. 15, 2014.

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

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

The recall was triggered by the company.

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


SOMICH DELI: "Lucero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Mario Lucero, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Somich Deli, Inc. d/b/a P.J. Bernstein, or any other
business entity d/b/a P.J. Bernstein, and Alex Slobodski, and
Claire Slobodski, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-00413 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate P.J. Bernstein deli and restaurant
located at 1215 Third Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPARTAN: Recalls Gladiator and Metro Star Models
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           9
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014579
TC ID number:             2014579
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14023

On certain vehicles, the castle nuts for the steering linkage ball
joint fasteners, which mount to the bell cranks, may have been
improperly tightened during assembly.  If the castle nuts were to
come completely loose, the steering linkage may separate from the
bell cranks without warning.  This could result in a loss of
steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Dealers will inspect the castle nuts, and if necessary, tighten
them to the proper specification.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model         Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----         ----------------------
   SPARTAN    GLADIATOR     2013
   SPARTAN    METRO STAR    2013


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Martin, Mario Cervantes, Carolyn Miller, Billy Richardson, and
Crystal Pardue, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00092
(N.D. Ala., January 20, 2015), alleges that the Defective Vehicles
contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts
of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard S. Frankowski, Esq.
      THE FRANKOWSKI FIRM, LLC
      231 22nd Street South, Suite 203
      Birmingham, AL 35233
      Telephone:  (205) 390-0399
      Facsimile: (205) 390-1001
      E-mail: Richard@frankowskifirm.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Joseph D. Cohen, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              jcohen@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
              steti@scott-scott.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Pedersen" Suit Over Defective Airbags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher W. Pedersen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:15-
cv-00014 (E.D. Ky., January 21, 2015), alleges that the Defective
Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher S. Morris, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: cmorris@baileyglasser.com


TALIKA USA: Falsely Marketed Bust Serum Product, "Pena" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raisbel Pena and Jane Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Talika USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00452 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
misleading marketing and product packaging of its Talika Bust
Serum 2.0 as a product that will cause physical alterations to
breasts, including increased breast volume.

Talika USA, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets and sells
cosmetic products for consumer and professional markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIFFIN: Recalls 35 Allegro Buses Due to Incorrect GAWR
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Label
Units affected:           35
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014576
TC ID number:             2014576

On certain vehicles, the compliance label does not contain the
correct Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for the front axle.  The
label incorrectly indicates a GAWR of 17,000 lbs on 45 foot buses
and 16,600 lbs on on 37 and 40 foot buses.  The correct GAWR would
be 16,000 lbs and 15,000 lbs, respectively.  Incorrect GAWR could
cause the vehicle to be overloaded, which would result in poor
vehicles handling characteristics, increasing the risk of a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected vehicles,
along with instructions for proper installation.

Affected products: 2013, 2014, 2015 Tiffin Allegro Bus


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Court Defers Decision on Class Cert. Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson issued an order on January 16,
2015, in the case captioned JACLYN SANTOMENNO; KAREN POLEY;
BARBARA POLEY, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
TRANSAMERICA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; TRANSAMERICA ASSET
MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants, CASE NO. CV 12-02782 DDP (MANX),
(C.D. Cal.), deferring decision on class certification and
requesting clarification from parties.

The Court said it has reviewed the parties' voluminous briefing
papers on the Motion for Class Certification and heard lengthy
oral arguments. Nonetheless, certain issues remain unclear.
Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to postpone a decision
on the question of class certification in order to request that
the parties clarify the legal issues at the heart of this lawsuit.

The Court therefore orders the following: Plaintiffs will file an
additional briefing, not longer than 15 pages, addressing the
above analysis or otherwise stating its primary theory of breach
of fiduciary duty, given the issue of apparent expense-sharing
between the investment level and the plan level. The briefing may
also address, if useful, the question of what proportion of
overall fees the IM/Admin fee comprises. Declarations, exhibits,
and other matter accompanying the memorandum will not exceed 150
pages. This additional briefing will be filed not later than 14
days from the date of this order. Not later than 21 days after the
date of this order, Defendants will file a brief in response,
limited to the same issues and the same page restriction.

The scheduling conference set for January 29, 2015 was vacated.

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

Jaclyn Santomenno, Plaintiff, represented by Arnold Carl lakind,
Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, Havila C Unrein,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Khesraw Karmand, Keller Rohrback LLP, Robert
E Lytle, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, Daniel
S Sweetser, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC, Derek W
Loeser, Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen S Obrist, Keller Rohrback
LLP, Juli E Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Lynn L Sarko, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Mark A Fisher, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and
Lehmann PC, Michael D Woerner, Keller Rohrback LLP, Robert L
Lakind, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC, Robert Gannon
Stevens, Jr, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC &
Stephen Skillman, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC.

Karen Poley, Plaintiff, represented by Arnold Carl lakind,
Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, Havila C Unrein,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Khesraw Karmand, Keller Rohrback LLP, Robert
E Lytle, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, Daniel
S Sweetser, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC, Derek W
Loeser, Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen S Obrist, Keller Rohrback
LLP, Juli E Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Lynn L Sarko, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Mark A Fisher, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and
Lehmann PC, Michael D Woerner, Keller Rohrback LLP, Robert L
Lakind, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC, Robert Gannon
Stevens, Jr, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC &
Stephen Skillman, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC.

Barbara Poley, Plaintiff, represented by Arnold Carl lakind,
Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, Havila C Unrein,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Khesraw Karmand, Keller Rohrback LLP, Robert
E Lytle, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, Daniel
S Sweetser, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC, Derek W
Loeser, Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen S Obrist, Keller Rohrback
LLP, Juli E Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Lynn L Sarko, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Mark A Fisher, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and
Lehmann PC, Michael D Woerner, Keller Rohrback LLP, Robert L
Lakind, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC, Robert Gannon
Stevens, Jr, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC &
Stephen Skillman, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader PC.

Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Thomas R Curtin, Graham Curtin PA, Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny
and Myers LLP, Catalina J Vergara, O'Melveny & Myers, Christopher
Brendan Craig, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, George C Jones, Graham
Curtin PA, Robert N Eccles, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Shannon M
Barrett, O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Theresa S Gee, O'Melveny and
Myers LLP.

Transamerica Investment Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Thomas R Curtin, Graham Curtin PA, Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny
and Myers LLP, Catalina J Vergara, O'Melveny & Myers, Christopher
Brendan Craig, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, George C Jones, Graham
Curtin PA, Robert N Eccles, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Shannon M
Barrett, O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Theresa S Gee, O'Melveny and
Myers LLP.

Transamerica Asset Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Thomas R Curtin, Graham Curtin PA, Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny
and Myers LLP, Catalina J Vergara, O'Melveny & Myers, Christopher
Brendan Craig, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, George C Jones, Graham
Curtin PA, Robert N Eccles, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Shannon M
Barrett, O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Theresa S Gee, O'Melveny and
Myers LLP.


TYHAN INC: "Franks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden Lee Franks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tyhan Inc. d/b/a Auto Fix Unlimited and Sam
Sunny Zamir, Case No. 4:15-cv-00191 (S.D. Tex., January 21, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an automotive service center
located at 12755 Windfern Rd., Houston, TX 77064.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net


UNITED AIRLINES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Lowest Airfares
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Coulier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation and,
Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-00190 (S.D. Tex., January
21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of routinely and
systematically breaches the Low Fare Guarantee, specifically by
failing to provide consumers purchasing airline tickets the lowest
available fares for a particular date, flight, and class of
service when multiple tickets are purchased at the same time for
passengers travelling together on the same flights.

United Airlines, Inc. is one of the world's largest airline
carriers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Edwards, Esq.
      Scott Medlock, Esq.
      Sean Flammer, Esq.
      EDWARDS LAW
      The Haehnel Building
      1101 E. 11th Street
      Austin, TX 78702
      Telephone: (512) 623-7727
      Facsimile: (512) 623-7729
      E-mail: jeff@edwards-law.com
              scott@edwards-law.com
              sean@edwards-law.com

         - and -

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-7380
      E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com
              c.marker@rlollp.com

         - and -

      Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: "Plummer" FDCPA Suit May Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Analisa Torres denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned PATRICK PLUMMER, on behalf of himself
individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE, INC., CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP,
and VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, No. 13 Civ. 7562
(AT)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plummer filed an action alleging that Defendants violated
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Plaintiff
asserted that Defendant Velocity directly violated the FDCPA by
(1) making false representations in connection with the debt; (2)
causing Capital Management to make unlawful communications to
Plaintiff; and (3) that in light of the principal-agent
relationship between Velocity and Capital Management, Velocity may
be held vicariously liable for FDCPA violations.

Plummer alleged that Capital Management acted as an agent of
Velocity when it send letters to collect on his debt, and that
Velocity exercised control or had the right to exercise control
over the collection activities of Capital Management, hence, it is
an indirect collector.

Further, Plummer claimed that Velocity used Capital Management in
order to shield itself from liability under the FDCPA. In
addition, Plaintiff alleged that Atlantic Credit, Capital
Management, and Velocity are each debt collectors within the
meaning of the FDCPA.

Velocity moved for the dismissal of the complaint contending that
it is not a debt collector under the FDCPA. Also, Velocity
maintained that it is neither a direct debt collector nor an
indirect debt collector because Plaintiff has failed to allege the
interdependence or control necessary to establish an agency
relationship. In addition, Velocity argued that the fact that it
has acted as a debt collector in other instances does not make it
a debt collector in this case.

In denying Velocity's motion, District Judge Analisa Torres ruled
that Plummer has sufficiently alleged that Velocity is a debt
collector by stating in the complaint that the principal purpose
of Velocity's business is the purchase of defaulted consumer debts
usually at a significant discount to their face value, and then
seeks to collect on such debts originally owed or due or alleged
to be originally owed or due to other. Plaintiff's allegation that
Velocity purchased Plaintiff's defaulted debt from Atlantic
Credit, placed it with Capital Management, and sought to collect
on it put Velocity squarely within the definition of debt
collector.

Moreover, Judge Torres held that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged
that Velocity is a debt collector under the FDCPA by enlisting
Capital Management to engage in unlawful debt collection
activities on its behalf in an attempt to shield itself from
liability.

A copy of the Opinion and Order dated December 8, 2014, is
available at  bit.ly/1BFhWS9 from Leagle.com.

Patrick Plummer, Plaintiff, represented by Novlette Rosemarie
Kidd, Fagenson & Puglisi.

Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur
Jay Sanders, Law Offices of Arthur Sanders.

Capital Management Services, LP, Defendant, represented by Aaron
R. Easley -- aeasley@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions, Fishman, &
Nathan & Israel LLC.

Velocity Investments, LLC, Defendant, represented by Concepcion A.
Montoya, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Elizabeth Kathryn Devine,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Matthew E. Lewitz --
mlewitz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


VIGILANT INS: NY Court Flips Ruling in Bear Stearns Coverage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vigilant Insurance Company, et al., appeal from an order of the
Supreme Court, New York County, entered on Feb. 28, 2014, which
denied their motion for partial judgment and granted plaintiff
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., et al.'s motion for partial summary
judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses based on (1) the
exclusion for deliberate, dishonest, fraudulent or criminal acts
or omissions, and (2) the doctrine precluding, on public policy
grounds, insurance coverage for monies paid by the insured as a
result of intentional harm to others.

In 2000, Vigilant Insurance Company issued a professional
liability insurance policy to plaintiff Bear Stearns, and other
companies issued "follow-the-form" excess policies, which required
them to indemnify Bear Stearns for all losses it became "legally
obligated to pay as a result of any Claim . . . for any Wrongful
Act" on its part.  In 2003, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and the New York Stock Exchange began to investigate
Bear Stearns for allegedly facilitating late trading and deceptive
market timing by certain of its customers in connection with the
buying and selling of shares in mutual funds.

After SEC staff reviewed with Bear Stearns the evidence upon which
it would rely to support these charges, Bear Stearns decided not
to contest the matter but to settle it.  Bear Stearns submitted an
offer of settlement, which the SEC accepted and incorporated into
an order.  The SEC Order directed Bear Stearns to disgorge
$160,000,000 and pay civil penalties of $90,000,000, as well as to
cease and desist from future violations.  Bear Stearns entered
into a similar arrangement with the NYSE and agreed in the NYSE
Stipulation to pay the same sanction it agreed to pay in the SEC
Order, but the NYSE Stipulation deemed the payment satisfied by
Bear Stearns's payment of the sanction to the SEC.

Bear Stearns was also named in several shareholder class actions
in which investors alleged damages arising out of the illegal
trading scheme.  In one decision denying Bear Stearns's motions to
dismiss these actions the court found that the plaintiffs had
sufficiently alleged that Bear Stearns engaged in late trading and
market timing.  No finding of liability was ever made because Bear
Stearns ultimately agreed to pay $14 million to settle the class
actions.

Bear Stearns sought indemnification from insurers for the amounts
they paid to settle the two administrative proceedings and the
civil actions.  The Defendants refused to pay, citing, among other
things, the doctrine that disgorgement payments are not insurable
as a matter of settled New York law and public policy, as well as
several exclusions in the policies, including the Dishonest Acts
Exclusion.

J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. and The
Bear Stearns Companies LLC commenced the action for a declaratory
judgment compelling the defendants to provide coverage.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in an opinion dated Jan. 15, 2015, modified the lower
court's order to deny the plaintiffs' motion as to the affirmative
defense based on public policy, and otherwise affirmed the order.

The case is J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-
Respondents, v. VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants-
Appellants, 600979/09, 13358 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/52GRBFfrom
Leagle.com.

DLA Piper LLP, New York (Joseph G. Finnerty III, Esq. --
Joseph.Finnerty@dlapiper.com -- Megan Shea Harwick, Esq. --
megan.shea@dlapiper.com -- and Eric S. Connuck, Esq. --
eric.connuck@dlapiper.com -- of counsel), for Vigilant Insurance
Company and Federal Insurance Company, appellants.

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, New York (Marsha J. Indych, Esq. --
Marsha.Indych@dbr.com -- of counsel), for Travelers Indemnity
Company, appellant.

D'Amato & Lynch LLP, New York (Luke D. Lynch, Jr., Esq. --
LDLynchJr@damato-lynch.com -- Kevin Windels, Esq. --
KWindels@damato-lynch.com -- and Liza Chafiian, Esq. --
LChafiian@damato-lynch.com -- of counsel), for National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA, appellant.

Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, New York (Scott A. Schechter, Esq. --
sschechter@kbrlaw.com -- and Sergio Alves, Esq. --
salves@kbrlaw.com -- of counsel), for Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, appellant.

Clyde & CO. US LLP, New York (Edward J. Kirk, Esq. --
edward.kirk@clydeco.us -- Allison M. Calkins, Esq. --
allison.calkins@clydeco.us -- and James Mirro, Esq. --
James.Mirro@clydeco.us -- of counsel), for Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London, appellant.

Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York (Michael L. Gioia,
Esq. -- mgioia@lcbf.com -- of counsel), for American Alternative
Insurance Corporation, appellant.

Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (John H. Gross, Esq. --
jgross@proskauer.com -- Steven E. Obus, Esq. --
sobus@proskauer.com -- Seth B. Schafler, Esq. --
sschafler@proskauer.com -- Francis D. Landrey, Esq. --
flandrey@proskauer.com -- and Matthew J. Morris, Esq. --
mmorris@proskauer.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           2708
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014575
TC ID number:             2014575
Manufacturer recall
number:                   24BL

On certain vehicles, a sealing cap at the fuel rail may fail to
seal, allowing fuel to leak into the engine compartment during
engine operation.  Leaking fuel, in the presence of an ignition
source, could lead to a fire causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, replace the fuel rail.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model          Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----          ----------------------
VOLKSWAGEN    JETTA          2014, 2015
VOLKSWAGEN    GOLF           2015
VOLKSWAGEN    PASSAT         2014, 2015
VOLKSWAGEN    GTI            2015
VOLKSWAGEN    NEW BEETLE     2014, 2015


WAWONA FROZEN: Faces "Aquilar" 1st Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Aguilar, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Wawona Frozen Foods, Wawona
Export, Wawona Packing Co. LLC., and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 1:15-at-00046 (E.D. Cal., January 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that specializes in the
growing and freezing of fresh fruits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cory Lee, Esq.
      THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, Llc
      433 N. Camden Drive, 6th Floor
      Beverly hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (213) 291-3333
      E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com


WAWONA FROZEN: Faces "Aquilar" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Aguilar, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Wawona Frozen Foods, Wawona
Export, Wawona Packing Co. LLC., and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00093 (E.D. Cal., January 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that specializes in the
growing and freezing of fresh fruits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cory Lee, Esq.
      THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, Llc
      433 N. Camden Drive, 6th Floor
      Beverly hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (213) 291-3333
      E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com


WESTLAKE BISTRO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley A. Parry, Rosalina M. Naida, Monica F. Leone, and Maria E.
Nagle, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Westlake Bistro Group, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, West
6th St. Partners, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Thomas Culkar, Molly
Culkar, and Joseph Hanna, Case No. 1:15-cv-00114 (N.D. Ohio,
January 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and a restaurant and bar located in Westlake,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      Ste. 330, 6350 East Thomas Road
      Scottsdale, AZ 85251
      Telephone: (480) 296-7887
      Facsimile: (480) 429-3679
      E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com


WONDERBERRY NORTH: Recalls Meaoboe and Kawka Muhymka Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Wonderberry North America
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9529


* Judge Suspended for Improper Communication With Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
The Judiciary Commission of Louisiana recommended that Judge J.
Robin Free be suspended without pay for 30 days and be ordered to
reimburse and pay to the Commission $6,723.64 in hard costs for
allegedly engaging an improper ex parte communications with
counsel for a party in an environmental contamination class action
lawsuit and improperly handling a request to recuse himself from
the case due to his mother's status as a class member.

Further, the Commission alleged that Judge Free engaged in willful
misconduct relating to his official duty and persistent and public
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings
the judicial office into disrepute, all in violation of La. Const.
art. V, Sec. 25(C).

Judge Free admitted, acknowledged and conceded that in hindsight,
he should not have accepted the invitation in Barry Marionneaux's
letter to call and that his ex parte communication with Charles
Marionneaux violated Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Also, Judge Free expressed regret about making the telephone call
and explained that he has instituted office procedures so that
this type of ex parte communication does not recur and assured the
Commission members that such improper communications would not
occur again.

Justice Marcus R. Clark of the Supreme Court of Louisiana ordered
the suspension of Judge Free.  Justice Clark ruled that Judge Free
engaged in willful misconduct relating to his official duty and
engaged in persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into
disrepute, in violation of La. Const. art. V, Sec. 25(C). In
addition, Justice Clark held that Judge Free's conduct was proven
by clear and convincing evidence in violation of Canons 1, 2, 2A,
3A(4), 3A(6), and 6B(2) (2010 version) of the Code of Judicial
Conduct and La.Const. Art. V Sec. 25 (C) but not in violation of
Canon 3C.

The Court declared Judge Free suspended without pay for 30 days
for violating Canons 1, 2, 2A, 3A(4), 3A(6), and 6B(2) of the Code
of Judicial Conduct and La. Const. art. V, Sec. 25(C), and ordered
him to reimburse and pay the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana the
sum of $6,723.64 in costs.

The case is captioned In Re: Judge J. Robin Free, No. 2014-0-1828
(La.).  A copy of the Order dated December 9, 2014, is available
at bit.ly/1ssrFpe from Leagle.com.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. May Repatriate $347.5MM To Fund Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. may repatriate $347.5 million of unremitted
foreign earnings to the U.S. in the foreseeable future to fund the
trusts that were established under Section 524(g) of the United
States Bankruptcy Code in accordance with the confirmed Bankruptcy
Plan of Specialty Products Holdings Corp., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Prior to May 31, 2010, Bondex International,
Inc. ("Bondex") and its parent, SPHC, were defendants in various
asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state
courts. These cases generally sought unspecified damages for
asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-
containing products.

"On May 31, 2010, Bondex and SPHC, filed voluntary petitions in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
(the "Bankruptcy Court") to reorganize under chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code. SPHC and Bondex took this action in an effort to
permanently and comprehensively resolve all pending and future
asbestos-related liability claims associated with Bondex and SPHC.

"SPHC is our wholly owned subsidiary. In accordance with ASC 810,
when a subsidiary becomes subject to the control of a government,
court, administrator, or regulator, deconsolidation of that
subsidiary is generally required. We therefore deconsolidated SPHC
and its subsidiaries from our balance sheet as of May 31, 2010,
and eliminated the results of SPHC's operations from our results
of operations beginning on that date. As a result of the chapter
11 reorganization proceedings, we have accounted for our
investment in SPHC under the cost method.

"We had a net receivable from SPHC at May 31, 2010, that we expect
may change before the bankruptcy proceedings have been finalized.
The potential change relates to our indemnification of an insurer
on appeal bonds pertaining to Bondex's appeal of two asbestos
cases that had been underway prior to the bankruptcy filing,
neither of which are material in amount. During our fiscal 2012,
one of the appeal bonds was satisfied, and during fiscal 2013, the
remaining appeal bond was satisfied. Included in the net amount
due from SPHC are receivables and payables, which we concluded we
have the right to report as a net amount based on several factors,
including the fact that all amounts are determinable, the balances
are due to and from our subsidiaries, and we have been given
reasonable assurance that netting the applicable receivables and
payables would remain legally enforceable. We analyzed our net
investment in SPHC as of May 31, 2010, which included a review of
our advances to SPHC, an assessment of the collectability of our
net receivables due from SPHC, and a computation of the gain to be
recorded upon deconsolidation based on the carrying amount of our
investment in SPHC. In accordance with GAAP, the gain on
deconsolidation related to the carrying amount of net assets of
SPHC at May 31, 2010, was calculated in accordance with ASC 810-
10-40-5, as follows:

   (a) the aggregate of (1) the fair value of consideration
       received, (2) the fair value of any retained
       non-controlling investment in the former subsidiary at the
       date the subsidiary is deconsolidated, and (3) the
       carrying amount of any non-controlling interest in the
       former subsidiary; less

   (b) the carrying amount of the former subsidiary's assets and
       liabilities.

"In determining the carrying value of any retained noncontrolling
investment in SPHC at the date of deconsolidation we considered
several factors, including analyses of cash flows combined with
various assumptions relating to the future performance of this
entity and a discounted value of SPHC's recorded asbestos-related
contingent obligations based on information available to us as of
the date of deconsolidation. The discounted cash flow approach
relies primarily on Level 3 unobservable inputs, whereby expected
future cash flows are discounted using a rate that includes
assumptions regarding an entity's average cost of debt and equity,
incorporates expected future cash flows based on internal business
plans, and applies certain assumptions about risk and
uncertainties due to the bankruptcy filing. Our estimates are
based upon assumptions we believe to be reasonable, but which by
nature are uncertain and unpredictable. As a result of this
analysis, we determined that the carrying value of our retained
interest in SPHC approximated zero.

"As a result of the combined analyses of each of the components of
our net investment in SPHC, we recorded a net loss of
approximately $7.9 million, which was reflected in Other Expense,
Net, during the fourth fiscal quarter of the year ended May 31,
2010. No changes have been made to these amounts through November
30, 2014.

"On May 31, 2010, Bondex and SPHC, filed voluntary petitions in
the Bankruptcy Court to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code. Similarly, Republic Powdered Metals, Inc.
("Republic") and NMBFiL, Inc. ("NMBFiL"), both of which are
indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries of RPM International Inc.
("RPM"), filed to reorganize under chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code in
August 2014 to resolve all their pending and future asbestos-
related liability claims. Both Republic and NMBFiL remained
consolidated subsidiaries of RPM, considering the short-term
nature of the bankruptcy and that RPM maintained control of them
from a participating rights perspective.

"On July 26, 2014, RPM, Bondex, SPHC, Republic and NMBFiL entered
into settlement term sheets (the "Term Sheets") with the
representatives of current and future asbestos claimants (the
"asbestos claimants") setting forth the parties' agreement in
principal to resolve all present and future asbestos personal
injury claims related to Bondex, SPHC, Republic and NMBFiL. The
Term Sheets contemplated the filing of a plan or plans of
reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court (the "Bankruptcy Plan"),
which filing occurred on September 26, 2014. The Bankruptcy Plan
was subject to approval of the asbestos claimants as well as the
Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court in Delaware.
Subsequent to the end of the current fiscal quarter, the
Bankruptcy Plan was confirmed on December 10, 2014 and, effective
as of December 23, 2014 (the "Effective Date"), Bondex, SPHC,
Republic and NMBFiL emerged from bankruptcy. In accordance with
the Bankruptcy Plan, trusts were established under Section 524(g)
of the United States Bankruptcy Code (together, the "Trust") and
funded with first installments. Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Plan,
the Trust assumed all liability and responsibility for current and
future asbestos personal injury claims of Bondex, SPHC, Republic
and NMBFiL and such entities will have no further liability or
responsibility for, and will (along with affiliates) be
permanently protected from such asbestos claims.

"The Trust was funded with $450 million in cash and three
promissory notes, bearing no interest and maturing on or before
the fourth anniversary of the Effective Date (the "Bankruptcy
Notes"). A portion of the payments due under the Bankruptcy Notes
is secured by a right to the equity of Bondex and the other
chapter 11 debtor entities. The Bankruptcy Plan provides for the
following contributions to the Trust:

   * On or before the second anniversary of the Effective Date,
     an additional $102.5 million in cash, RPM stock or a
     combination thereof (at our discretion in this and all
     subsequent cases) will be deposited into the Trust;

   * On or before the third anniversary of the Effective Date, an
     additional $120 million in cash, RPM stock or a combination
     thereof will be deposited into the Trust; and

   * On or before the fourth anniversary of the Effective Date, a
     final payment of $125 million in cash, RPM stock or a
     combination thereof will be deposited into the Trust.

"At November 30, 2014, no amounts were accrued for the funding of
the Trust, as the Bankruptcy Plan was subject to the approval of
the claimants, as well as the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S.
District Court. Effective with the filing of the Notice of Entry
of Order confirming the Bankruptcy Plan, which required the
funding of the Trust, we regained control of SPHC and its
subsidiaries, and accordingly, will account for the event as a
business combination. As such, financial results of SPHC's
operating subsidiaries, which have not been included in our
financial reports since the bankruptcy filing, will be
reconsolidated with our results for most of the second half of
fiscal 2015 forward.

"Further, as a result of the confirmation of the Bankruptcy Plan
on December 10, 2014, which provided for additional future
contributions to the Trust of $347.5 million, we reassessed our
permanent investment assertion under ASC 740-30 regarding a
portion of our unremitted foreign earnings, which were previously
considered to be indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S. More
specifically, in the third quarter of this fiscal year, we
concluded that it is possible that $347.5 million of unremitted
foreign earnings could be repatriated to the U.S. in the
foreseeable future to fund the aforementioned Trust contributions.
Consistent with ASC 740-30, a provision for deferred income taxes
for the full estimated U.S. tax cost, net of related foreign tax
credits, associated with remitting these earnings back to the U.S.
will be required. Our preliminary estimate of the deferred income
tax liability associated with these future repatriations, which
will be recognized in total in the third quarter of this fiscal
year, is in the range of $100.0 million to $110.0 million.

"The net impact of the items discussed, and any potential gain or
loss associated with the reconsolidation, will be finalized and
reported with our results for our fiscal third quarter ending
February 28, 2015."

RPM International Inc. (RPM) through its subsidiaries
manufactures, markets and sells various specialty chemical product
lines. RPM's business is divided into two reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment (industrial segment) and the
consumer reportable segment (consumer segment). The industrial
segment (RPM Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group
and RPM2 Group), which comprises approximately 65% of its total
net sales, includes maintenance and protection products for
roofing and waterproofing systems, flooring, corrosion control and
other specialty applications. The consumer segment (Rust-Oleum
Group and DAP Group) comprises approximately 35% of its total net
sales and includes rust-preventative, special purpose and
decorative paints, caulks, sealants, primers and other branded
consumer products. In July 2014, the Company announced that its
Rust-Oleum Group has acquired Krud Kutter Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Grants Bids to Junk "Boggs" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Boggs, at some point during his career -- which included
serving as a fireman in the United States Navy, a welder, a truck
driver, and automotive repairman -- or while repairing his house,
was exposed to asbestos, which, in 2013, caused him to develop
lung cancer.  Boggs initially filed suit in a Missouri state
court, but the action was removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332.  He asserts claims based on theories of strict liability,
negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and conspiracy.  The
complaint provides no details about which defendants caused
Boggs's exposure in what years, in what locations, or through
which products.  Rather, the complaint suggests that every
defendant caused Boggs's asbestos exposure by selling every
product, in every location, over a 27-year period.  The complaint
also does not provide any facts to support a claim for conspiracy.

Defendants Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC; Ford Motor
Company; General Electric Company; Pneumo Abex, LLC; The Sherwin
Williams Company; and Western Auto Supply Company filed motions to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  In addition, defendants FMC
Corporation and Honeywell International, Inc., move to dismiss
Count IV for failure to state a claim.  Also, defendant Western
Auto Supply Company filed a motion to transfer venue or for a more
definite statement.  The Plaintiff has not responded to the
motions, and the time allowed for doing so has expired.

Judge Carol E. Jackson of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in a Jan. 22,
2015, memorandum and order granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and dismissed as moot the motion of Western Auto Supply to
dismiss and transfer venue.

Judge Jackson held that based on the few facts alleged in the
complaint, it is not plausible that all 32 defendants caused Boggs
to be exposed to asbestos from two dozen kinds of products over a
27-year period and in five different geographical locations.
According to Judge Jackson, Rule 8(a) requires more specificity
than Boggs has provided if his complaint is to be taken as
anything more than speculation as to each defendant.  Moreover,
Judge Jackson said Boggs's failure to respond to the defendants'
motions also counsels in favor of dismissal.  Therefore, the Court
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, without prejudice.  Judge Jackson found it unnecessary to
address the motion to transfer venue and for a more definite
statement.

The case is ALFRED R. BOGGS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN OPTICAL
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-1434-CEJ (E.D. Mo.).
A full-text copy of Judge Jackson's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/EMsfDCfrom Leagle.com.

Alfred R. Boggs, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, Esq. --
RHorace@NapoliBern.com -- NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth,
Esq. -- SBarth@NapoliBern.com -- NAPOLI AND BERN.

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by James D. Maschhoff, Esq. -- jdm@herzogcrebs.com --
HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Cross Defendant,
represented by Albert J. Bronsky, Esq. -- ajbronsky@bjpc.com --
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, Esq. --
gflatt@heylroyster.com -- HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Continental Teves, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Anastasios T. Foukas, Esq. -- afoukas@smsm.com -- SEGAL AND
MCCAMBRIDGE.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin John Wilson, Esq. --
bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, Esq. --
carl.geraci@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

DAP, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ.

FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Marcie J. Vantine, Esq. -- mvantine@smbtrials.com -- SWANSON
AND MARTIN, LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Andrew M. Voss, Esq. -- amv@greensfelder.com --
GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Ryan Thomas Barke, Esq.,
GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Anita Maria Kidd, Esq. --
akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Raymond
R. Fournie, Esq. -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, Pro Se.
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq. --
cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- JOLEY AND OLIVER.

Motion Control Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Cross Claimant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Ross S. Titzer, Esq. -- rtitzer@wvslaw.com -- WILLIAMS AND
VENKER, LLC & Thomas L. Orris, Esq. -- torris@wvslaw.com --
WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Sherwin Williams Company, the, Cross Defendant, represented
by John A. Bruegger, Esq. -- jbruegger@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS AND
PARNELL, LLP & Tracy J. Cowan, Esq. -- tcowan@hptylaw.com --
HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP.

Trane U.S., Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -
- LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.

Western Auto Supply Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Claire Allyn Floore, Esq. -- cfloore@smbtrials.com -- SWANSON
AND MARTIN, LLP & Paul W. Lore.

Young Group Ltd., Cross Defendant, represented by Anastasios T.
Foukas, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Anastasios T. Foukas, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in Insurance Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
New England Reinsurance filed a declaratory judgment action
seeking summary judgment on a certain liability insurance policy
issued to P.E. O'Hair & Company by St. Paul Protective Insurance
Company.  Specifically, New England requests that the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut determine
whether the exclusionary clause relevant to asbestos-related
injuries fails to include "bodily injury" in its coverage bar.

In a Jan. 16, 2015, ruling, U.S. District Judge Warren W. Eginton
denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that the
reservation of rights letter, which was used by St. Paul to
contend that the exclusionary clause was drafted contrary to the
intent of the parties, raises an issue of fact material to whether
the contracting parties' intent is reflected in the exclusionary
clause.  The facts of the case show that the reservation of rights
letter informed that due to the exclusionary language of the 1985-
1987 Umbrella Policy, coverage was not available for claims for
bodily injury stemming from asbestos exposure under that umbrella
policy.

Judge Eginton said that discovery regarding the contractual intent
of the parties should be completed and any further dispositive
motions are due by July 30, 2015.  The Court will allow either
party to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue on or
before July 30, 2015.

The case is NEW ENGLAND REINSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v.
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. (successor-in-interest to P.E. O'Hair &
Company Inc.); AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; AVIVA CANADA INC.
(successor-in-interest to Commercial Union Assurance of Canada);
CENTRAL NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF OMAHA; EMPLOYERS INSURANCE
COMPANY OF WAUSAU; FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY; GREAT
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
(successor-in-interest to Harbor Insurance Company); INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY (successor-in-interest to American National Fire Insurance
Company); NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA;
PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY; and ST. PAUL: PROTECTIVE INSURANCE
COMPANY (as successor-in-interest to Northbrook Property &
Casualty Insurance Company), Defendants, NO. 3:12CV948 (WWE)(D.
Conn.).  A full-text copy of Judge Eginton's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/aUDctWfrom Leagle.com.

New England Reinsurance Corporation, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant,
and Counter Defendant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Esq. --
eparks@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, James P. Ruggeri,
Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, Julia C
Zajac, Esq. -- jzajac@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin, Mark Kean
Ostrowski, Esq. -- mostrowski@goodwin.com -- Shipman &
Goodwin, Michele L. Backus, Esq. -- mbackus@goodwin.com -- Shipman
& Goodwin, LLP & Sonia Melissa Pedraza, Esq. --
spedraza@goodwin.com -- at Shipman & Goodwin.

ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Defendant,
Counter Defendant, Counter Claimant, Cross Claimant, represented
by Brian Fox, Siegal & Park, John Burns Farley, Esq. --
farley@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage, Joseph J. Arcata, III,
Halloran & Sage LLP & Daniel P. Scapellati, Esq. --
scapellati@halloransage.com -- at Halloran & Sage.

American Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Louis B. Blumenfeld, Esq. --
lblumenfeld@csd-law.com -- Cooney, Scully & Dowling.

Aviva Canada Inc, Defendant, Counter Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles A. Deluca, Esq. --
cdeluca@ryandelucalaw.com -- Ryan Ryan Deluca, LLP, Claire E.
Ryan, Esq. -- ceryan@ryandelucalaw.com -- Ryan Ryan Deluca,
LLP, Jesse F. Ruiz, Esq. -- jfr@robinsonwood.com -- Robinson &
Wood, Inc. & Gina M. Von Oehsen, Esq. -- gvo@ryandelucalaw.com --
Ryan Ryan Deluca, LLP.

Continental Ins Co, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter Defendant,
Counter Claimant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Matthew
Murphy, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Joshua P Broudy, Edwards
Wildman Palmer LLP.

Employers Ins Co of Wausau, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Terrence J. Molinari, Law
Offices of Donna-Marie Lonergan.

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by John F. Conway, Loughlin, FitzGerald, Kamp, Henrici, Joseph A.
Arnold, Esq. -- jarnold@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP
& William P. Shelley, Esq. -- wshelley@gordonrees.com -- Gordon &
Rees LLP.

Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant, Cross Claimant, Counter Claimant, represented
by Christopher M. Cerrito, Esq. -- cerritoc@dicksteinshapiro.com -
- Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Edward Tessler, Esq. --
tesslere@dicksteinshapiro.com -- Dickstein Shapiro, LLP & Jeffrey
L. Schulman, Esq. -- schulmanj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- Dickstein
Shapiro LLP.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Louis B. Blumenfeld, Cooney,
Scully & Dowling.

Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Counter Defendant, Cross Claimant and Counter Claimant,
represented by John R Felice, Esq. -- jfelice@hermesnetburn.com --
Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C. & Kevin J. O'Connor,
Esq. -- koconnor@hermesnetburn.com -- Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor &
Spearing, P.C..

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter Defendant, Cross Claimant and
Counter Claimant, represented by John R Felice, Hermes, Netburn,
O'Connor & Spearing, P.C. & Kevin J. O'Connor, Hermes, Netburn,
O'Connor & Spearing, P.C..

Pacific Indemnity Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by John F. Conway, Loughlin, FitzGerald, Kamp, Henrici, Joseph A.
Arnold, Gordon & Rees LLP & William P. Shelley, Gordon & Rees LLP.

St. Paul Protective Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Counter Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Elizabeth P
Retersdorf, Esq. -- eretersdorf@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP
& Kathleen D. Monnes, Esq. -- kdmonnes@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DC Court Denies Firm's Doc Request from EPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., requested information from defendant
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552.  Beveridge requested for
data and documents "related to follow-up work and updates to a
Marysville, Ohio Cohort that was the subject of previous
scientific studies."  Specifically, Beveridge requested, among
other information, high resolution computed tomography ("HRCT")
data and pulmonary function testing ("PFT") data; Beveridge
alleged that both sets of data "have been used as the primary
basis for the non-cancer . . . portion of" the EPA's Toxicological
Assessment, which, among other things, summarizes "the potential
adverse health effects of Libby amphibole asbestos exposure."

In response to Beveridge's FOIA request, the EPA released some
records to Beveridge but claimed that one set of data was not in
its possession, and thus not an "agency record" under FOIA.
Beveridge challenges the EPA's claim that it does not possess the
data.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, in a Jan. 20, 2015, memorandum opinion,
denied Beveridge's motion and granted the EPA's cross-motion,
after concluding that PFT data are not "agency records" under
FOIA.

The case is BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant, CIV. ACTION NO. 14-631
(EGS)(D.D.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Sullivan's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/EsPeZ4from Leagle.com.

BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C., Plaintiff, represented by Jayni Anita
Lanham, Esq. -- jlanham@bdlaw.com -- BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, PC &
David Austin Barker, Esq. -- dbarker@bdlaw.com -- BEVERIDGE &
DIAMOND, PC.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant,
represented by Marina Utgoff Braswell, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. High Court Flips Ruling in "Page" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sadie Page, widow of John W. Page Jr., appeals the decision of the
West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review.  Mr. Page
worked as a mechanic for Owens-Illinois, Inc., and throughout the
course of his employment, he was exposed to asbestos.

The appeal arises from the Board of Review's Final Order dated
January 7, 2014, in which the Board reversed an April 15, 2013,
Order of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges, and
reinstated the claims administrator's January 7, 2011, decision
denying Mrs. Page's request for dependent's benefits based on her
husband's death.  In its Order, the Office of Judges had reversed
the claims administrator's decision and granted Mrs. Page
dependent's benefits.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, has carefully
reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained
in the briefs, and reversed and remanded the ruling, after finding
that the decision of the Board of Review is based on a material
misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record.

The case is SADIE PAGE, WIDOW OF JOHN W. PAGE JR., Claimant Below,
Petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
Commissioner Below, Respondent, and OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Employer
Below, Respondent, NO. 14-0108 (W. Va.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Jan. 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/woVlNP
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Toro" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Southern
Division, on Jan. 14, 2015, issued a memorandum and order
dismissing the second amended complaint, with leave to amend,
filed by Robert Toro for failure to state a claim.

Toro alleges, among other things, that defendants Robert A. Earl,
et al., failed to disclose as required by federal law that their
home contained hazardous levels of lead-based paints and asbestos.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Earls failed to warn him of the
lead hazard and also fraudulently misrepresented the home as lead-
and asbestos-free.  The Plaintiff alleges that he suffered health
problems and other damages as a result of exposure to hazardous
levels of lead-based paint and asbestos.  The Plaintiff also
alleges that he has family members under the age of 6 who were
exposed to lead-based paint and asbestos and that the Earls acted
negligently.

The case is ROBERT TORO, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT A. EARL et al.,
Defendants, NO. SA CV 13-00872-DSF (DFM)(C.D. Calif.).  A full-
text copy of Magistrate McCormick's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/DzeR4Vfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SeaRiver Awarded Summary Judgment in NY PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., moves for an order dismissing
the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it by
plaintiffs Margaret Donovan, et al., for failing to demonstrate
its liability under Labor Law Section 200.  In opposition, the
plaintiffs assert that SeaRiver is responsible for their injuries
under the Labor Law inasmuch as its predecessor, Exxon Corporation
directed, supervised, and controlled the work on its vessels that
is alleged to have contributed to plaintiffs' decedent Raymond
Donovan's asbestos exposure and failed to adequately warn him of
the hazards associated therewith.

In a decision and order dated Jan. 6, 2015, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the
defendant's motion, after finding that there is no evidence
presented to show that Exxon was responsible for asbestos cloth,
that it oversaw such work, that it knew such cloth contained
asbestos, or that the use of the asbestos cloth even caused the
released of asbestos-laden dust.

The case is MARGARET DONOVAN, Individually and as Administrator
for the Estate of RAYMOND T. DONOVAN, Plaintiffs, v. ACF
INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190110/13, MOTION
SEQ. NO. 004 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/H3F1V8from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Reargue in "Proctor" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Andal Corporation moves for leave to reargue a June 26,
2014, decision, and upon reargument, for an order granting it
summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims
asserted against it by James Proctor who alleges that he was
exposed to asbestos as a sheet metal worker during the 1960's and
1970's.  Mr. Proctor testified that he worked at the World Trade
Center construction site in 1970 for approximately four months
where he sustained bystander asbestos exposure from other trades
which sanded joint compound and cut floor tiles in his presence.
Andal argued that Mr. Proctor's inability to identify the
contractors who were responsible for such work entitled it to
summary judgment.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Andal's motion to reargue, holding that the possible
presence of other WTC contractors does not render the plaintiffs'
claims speculative on the evidence now before the Court.  Judge
Heitler further held that a trier of fact considering the entire
record, including testimonial references to the non-Circle
contractors, could still reasonably determine that Star Circle and
Circle Floor performed the specific work that allegedly exposed
Mr. Proctor to asbestos.  Moreover, Judge Heitler said there is
also an issue of fact whether Andal is the successor-in-interest
to the Circle entities.

The case is JAMES AUGUSTUS PROCTOR and JOY C. PROCTOR, Plaintiffs,
v. ALCOA, INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190040/13, MOTION
SEQ. NO. 012 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
decision and order dated Jan. 5, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/86iAVdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Mont. State Fund Allowed to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
David Larson claims that he "sustained asbestos related lung
disease as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed from
1965 to November, 2008, by Stimson Lumber Co. in Lincoln County,
Libby, Montana."  Larson asks the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana to find and conclude that he is suffering from an
occupational disease and to order Respondent Montana State Fund to
"accept liability for the Petitioner's occupational disease and be
required to pay reasonable medical expenses related to the
treatment of the occupational disease."  Larson also contends that
State Fund's denial of his claim was unreasonable and seeks a
penalty under Section 39-71-2907, MCA, and attorneys' fees under
Sections 39-71-611 or -612, MCA.

Larson now moves the Court to either dismiss his case without
prejudice or to place it in abeyance indefinitely.  Larson first
argues that he is not seeking benefits and thus the Court does not
have jurisdiction over this case under Section 39-71-2905, MCA
(2007).

The Court, in an order dated Jan. 16, 2015, denied Larson's motion
to dismiss without prejudice and agreed with the State Fund that
it is entitled to a trial to know whether it will be liable for
Larson's occupational disease and that it could be prejudiced if
the case were placed in "administrative closure" indefinitely
because evidence could be lost over time.

The case is DAVID LARSON, Petitioner, v. MONTANA STATE FUND,
Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2014-3379 (MTWCC).  A full-text copy
of the Decision penned by Judge David M. Sandler is available at
http://is.gd/bvvtNVfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *